[Rei Murasame]

MEGA - Make Europe great again !

Meanwhile in actual reality:

When politicians discuss how you can best help the refugee from war zones or from persecution to Germany people way back as quickly as possible in a "normal" life, it's rarely about sex. Housing, language courses, rapid integration into the labor market -about these issues being considered broadly and publicly.

If at any time it comes to refugees and sex in public, then the debate is mostly about negative aspects: The events of Cologne, assaults in swimming pools. It is always harped on that many of the refugees come from cultures where sexuality is itself a taboo subject. How to concretely deal with it, is something which hardly anyone wants to discuss.

Now there are some initiatives to change that: The Federal Centre for Health Education, the site recently has zanzu.de launched, can be found on the education materials in 13 languages ​​(which has pretty brought a lot Wutbürger in Rage). The German AIDS help even more concerned with the topic and always keeps educational events for refugees, has then done late last year a rather concrete step to provide assistance to asylum seekers in this field: She's asking appealed for donations to condom manufacturers.

With considerable success: Overall, the club scored donated 150,000 condoms, which are now distributed throughout Germany. I can tell me by the Manager Silke Klumb why condoms for refugees are important.

VICE: When one thinks of aid for refugees, you can not get the first thing on condoms. Why is that important?
Silke Klumb: Of course, condoms may not be as important as the first staple, the first piece of clothing. But for us in the health service, it is important that refugees also get access to information-not only how to protect themselves against HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases, but also how they can be accessed in our health care system and help. And if we make such events, we want the people of course like also the means by which they can best protect themselves, namely condoms, provide.

Of course, we urge anyone condoms. But those are just the free market, so that the part no more Pfennig goods for refugees to the things that they would have to pay out of the few pocket money. Because we want to give a sign that we do not only education, but also concrete protection options provide-and those are condoms.

Where the idea came from, to launch a fundraising campaign for condoms?
We have been approached by us from AIDS counseling and public health authorities with the question of whether we can make condoms available. We can not, of course, we do not produce the yes. But we have accepted it, to make the request and ask for support.

Who has the condoms because now donated?
They come from four major companies in Germany [Amor (with a special packaging, "You're Welcome" is on a the packaging), EcoAction, Billy Boy and the Holi Concept GmbH, n. D. Red.]. Of course we wrote to all companies that are active in the market to do the needs known.

You have already distributed the condoms?
Yes, most are already distributed. They have been sent very quickly, the demand was very high. Most of them are already passed out [laughing], so far. Whether they are then used, that concerns us, of course, in no way.

Is that was well received by the refugees?
Of course there are always those who are shy then. It always needs someone who dares first, then reach into the basket. It makes sense, then not just to let go round the basket, but to let the stand there. Then we hear in retrospect of the home lines or social workers and social workers that people then come unnoticed and take condoms. This works very well when you create a confidential setting.

Did you get negative reactions?
Of course there are always the technical discussion, the importance of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases are now refugees. And if you still see that is often told that the refugees would bring bad diseases-which is not true at that Robert Koch Institute has the show again can-, then it comes to us naturally therefore, by our action is not prejudice to stir.

It's about saying sexuality belongs hopefully for refugees eventually return to everyday life, and we want to support them, that they do not get possibly infections they might have no knowledge in their home countries. To address HIV and STIs, one of them to use condoms, is very prevalent in our culture, and we want to build a bridge.

It's a 70% male migration wave, most of which is under the age of 35. Who are they imagining that these people would be fucking with these condoms, other than German women?

What the actual fuck. This is unbelievably disgusting. I don't know what's going on, but Germany is a pretty scary place and I don't want their ideas or their migrants to start spreading to the UK.

#BREXIT #BREXIT NOW

[Frollein]

Well, if you are raped, you can at least console yourself with the thought that you won't be carrying their spawn.

Let's have a hot and humid summer, and a stormy fall.

[Harmattan]

Because obviously in WTO and NATO a Bulgarian citizen has the same weight (and voice) of an American one, and the interest of, let's say, Cyprus, are protected as well as those of the US.

In the WTO every country has a veto right, this is not always true in the EU. So yes countries are more powerful in the WTO. The NATO has no electoral process or binding decisions afaik, it is more like a common framework, administration and resources, and an informal military alliance.

Bruxelles is not democratic at all, which is wrong for a nation. But I do not want a nation anyway, I want a cooperation between sovereign nations, hence why paneuropean democracy and citizenship would be harmful.

The true nature of the EU is imperialist and colonial. It aims to consume my country to build a mighty empire (and would be weak actually).

And well, what can i say? It's not that bad to be as "undemocratic" (or "democratic") as the USA

The EU could be at best like the USA, which is not democratic at all and not acceptable.

But currently the EU is far worse than the USA on the democratic aspect. It is more on the Chinese level which, too, has an elected Parliament. The only difference is that in China the same party has always ruled while in the EU the same coalition of two parties has always ruled and will always do.


Actually if we ignore freedom and just look at the political life, the EU is below the Chinese level. Indeed Chinese people can be informed of what is happening in their political life. But the European political life is inscrutable, hidden under millions of layers of bureaucracy, secrecy and technicalities that no one understand (neither journalists nor representatives nor electors), and no media managed to infiltrate those social circles to know who is behind what and how the coalition actually decides its votes. Changes are proposed by an opaque and undecipherable bureaucracy, and voted with quasi-unanimity by an opaque coalition for unknown reasons.

A bunch of foreigners are shaping your life but no one does anything and no one is responsible for anything. Wonderful.

[Varilion]

I do not see at all this "veto right" as a guarantee of democracy. I would rather say the opposite. In some cases it can work, as in the WTO, but generally it's a system in which someone can harm everybody else just to protect his little business and where more powerful countries can make pressure on the smaller pushing decision in the direction they want, while smaller countries have pretty reduced options because if they veto (matter of fact just blocking decision, not progressing toward a solution) they may fece retaliation. Moreover, with this approach, a global optimum is never achieved.

I believe that you spend a pretty good portion of your time reading the news, and therefore should you know perfectly that the unanimity base approach has shown great limits in the EU. Exactly for this reason most of the reforms done in the past 10 years have been aimed to overcome these limits.

If the EU parliament is not as powerful and accountable as the British or the German one or the EU president is not as powerful and accountable as the French one, it is because most of the powers are still retained by the EU council, where decisions are taken by the representatives of your dear "sovereign states". This is the flew in the EU democracy.

This lack of fully sovereign and accountable institutions (which has its root in the power of the states) is then the source of most of the other issues we have, ranging from the handling of the economic unbalances to the failures in the protection of the EU external borders.

[Harmattan]

I do not see at all this "veto right" as a guarantee of democracy.

It is not about democracy since I do not want a democracy at the European level since democracies are for nations. I want a cooperation of nations, not a nation. I alread have a nation and I want it to be sovereign, hence to have the right to say "no".

And yes it is inefficient, and this is fine for me because I do not want this cooperation to have plenty of powers. The less efficient it will be, the less powers we will entrust it. Power should sit at the national level whenever possible, in order to remain ruled by democracy and close to my cultural values.

If the EU parliament is not as powerful and accountable as the British or the German one or the EU president is not as powerful and accountable as the French one, it is because most of the powers are still retained by the EU council, where decisions are taken by the representatives of your dear "sovereign states". This is the flew in the EU democracy.

There are whole categories of problems where the European council has absolutely no power. Everything is in the hands of the commission and the parliament. And on those problems no one is accountable and everything is opaque.

Actually in practice I find the council slightly less opaque than the rest: most of the time I know what my president wanted. On the other hand I never know what the French groups at the parliament did or wanted.

And the EU is opaque because of the linguistic problem (you will not see the guy in charge at 8am on your TV but he would speak Polish), because there is no common identity (if Merkel makes a speech to call for sacrifices and austerity it will be seen as an invasion), because there is no solidarity (hence why we do no relocate Greek industries to cities where they would be more efficient), and because we are divided and the only way to find compromises that satisfy everyone is to create something very complicated in 35 languages that does not dissatisfy anyone and make sure that no power is ever used while preserving the appearance of action.

The problem of the EU is that it has more power than a supranational entity can deal with.

[Dr Cosmo]

The EU is the most democratically legitimate political entity on earth.
It consists of 28 democratic member states who joined the EU by sovereign decisions.
The EU parliament is elected in a democratic election.
The EU has a higher degree of democratic legitimacy than the UK (which has monarch as a head of state) or the US.
The EU is a democratic dream.

[Varilion]

The same fate of the Italian principates of the XV century awaits your nation states. Once powerful and mighty they are going to become the servant of this or that foreign power.

Moreover, in the globalized world that we have today there will be an always even closer international cooperation. To govern this new world we will need (and have) always stronger international bodies. Which have to be democratically accountable IMHO.

The commission is regulating the size of the bananas you will buy in the supermarket, but just because it got told to do so. The decision in Europe are take by the Council (or the Eurogroup for what concern Eurozone financial matters). The parliament exists mainly to endorse the decision of the council, such that they look more democratic.

1. I understand the "linguistic problem", but as you can see in this forum we belong to the most different countries in the world but we are communicating pretty clearly
2. Common identity is an highly subjective matter.
3. The solidarity issue exists only as long as you reason in terms of "nation states"; at EU level there is one single body implementing the policy that best fits to it. Concerning your question about Greece ( why we do no relocate Greek industries to cities where they would be more efficient) is that i have never heard of government in a free market economy relocating industries. That's USSR economic planning. Moreover let me point out that Greek industries which are on the market are efficient where they are.
4. The abstruse compromised are not originated by the 35 languages, but by the 28 governments each of those minding his own little garden. that's the child of the"Intergovernmentalism" that you like (the word itself is as terrible as the product of its deals)

The problem of the EU is that it has more power than a supranational entity can deal with.

That's because EU has always meant to be a country. You live in the same country with many other people, whether you like it or not. In my perspective the problem is the weak government.

[Harmattan]

Moreover, in the globalized world that we have today there will be an always even closer international cooperation.

This is a widespread misconception: counter-intuitively globalization has started to recess and will continue to do so!

The first reason is that we went through an exceptional globalization peak that existed as long as China had both low wages and the required conditions to be the workshop of the world. Now that the gap has been filled and that no country can take this spot, the global trade volume has started to decline as many production chains are sent back to places closer from the consumers, and as robots are retaking their former positions in this chain.

The second reason is that many technological improvements are going to make economic efficiency less and less important, and the economy more and more local. While it may be hard to imagine in 2016, we will soon reach a point where an increasing range of products could be entirely conceived, produced and distributed without any human action, leaving only exclusive resources as things of economic value after removing labor from the equation. Moreover intellectual talents that actively shaped the modern economy and fueled the forever growth of urban concentration will be the first ones to be deprecated by a complete AI, leading to a return to smaller cities. Finally resources will be increasingly extracted from waste (circular economy) and renewables rather than from foreign and unstable countries.

To to be provocative the business of the future is the hairdresser in your street, not Global Incorporated. Local economy will take a larger and larger share of the economy, rendering the trade-offs of globalization less and less desirable. The only alliances we will truly need are military ones.

To govern this new world we will need (and have) always stronger international bodies. Which have to be democratically accountable IMHO.

Another widespread misconception. Democracy simply cannot be scaled up indefinitely because the resulting consensus eventually becomes so far-stretched that it satisfies no one, and representativity issues increase.

The cultural differences are too big, see for example the long list I provided on the previous page of this very thread. There is no workaround aside of cultural destruction and homogenization and authoritarianism. So unless you feel like supporting such a dictatorial political program, the only alternative is to accept that power must be kept as much as possible at a more local scale.

The commission is regulating the size of the bananas you will buy in the supermarket, but just because it got told to do so. The decision in Europe are take by the Council (or the Eurogroup for what concern Eurozone financial matters).

Not at all. For the start the commission can work on the request of the Parliament or the Council, or it can reject those requests, or it can work of its own initiative.

Second of all the ordinary legislative process requires that both the Council and the Parliament agree on the text proposed by the Commission.

1. I understand the "linguistic problem", but as you can see in this forum we belong to the most different countries in the world but we are communicating pretty clearly

Saying this is an implicit recognition that the EU is an English nation, that politicians have to use English and citizens have to understand it.

As for France I am among the top 5% English speakers, probably the top 1%. Two thirds of Europeans cannot speak English.

2. Common identity is an highly subjective matter.

Almost every political subject is subjective, yet they are of practical importance. If tomorrow Merkel makes a speech on French TV to tell French citizens to cut their welfare and make sacrifices, French people will burn German flags. This is a very practical political problem.

3. The solidarity issue exists only as long as you reason in terms of "nation states"

This is like saying that to solve the problem, you need to solve the problem. Meanwhile the EU cannot concentrate half of its resources in Germany even if it is advantageous, it cannot tell other Europeans to just emigrate to Germany.

Concerning your question about Greece ( why we do no relocate Greek industries to cities where they would be more efficient) is that i have never heard of government in a free market economy relocating industries. That's USSR economic planning.

Not at all, this is done all the time by capitalist countries through "special economic zones" and the like (reduced taxes, special infrastructures, public formations, guaranteed loans, etc), and concertations with private actors.

[Dr Cosmo]

European identity
European culture

(redefined by Dr Cosmo)

[Harmattan]

So the only two things you had to say about European cultures is that they are volatile and nurtured by foreign elements?! You could have as well claimed that you personally think they are worthless and must be destroy.

Then you introduce us with the great European culture made of the Eurovision and football?!

You are a shame for Germany and a shame for Wikipedia, an imposter posing as a "contributor", defacing Wikipedia with gross propaganda pieces about topics you are ignorant of and not qualified to write about.

[Dr Cosmo]

Just call me Martin Luther II.
or Batman,
or Dr Cosmo the Great.

[Varilion]

The idea that globalization equals cheap Chinese stuff is pretty naive. New technologies make the world smaller, because of the reduced traveling times and because of the improved telecommunications. Have your heard last week of the merging between LSE and Deutsche Börse? What about the negotiations of the TTIP? The list could longer but i hope you got my point.

The only alliances we will truly need are military ones.

ehm...

power must be kept as much as possible at a more local scale,

but when/where the local authorities cannot handle the task efficiently it has to be transferred to "federal organization". Even Milton Friedman agrees with that (IIRC).

Saying this is an implicit recognition that the EU is an English nation, that politicians have to use English and citizens have to understand it.

"You have said so".
Matter of fact i don't care much. In my office there are one Italian, one German, one French and one Romanian. Most of the time we speak in English, sometimes in German. I think i could get the a conversation level in French pretty rapidly; Romanian would be more challenging, but it's pointless because we speak English. I am not saying i like it or that i am good with languages (i am, but with those like C++), it's just…..how it is…

If tomorrow Merkel makes a speech on French TV to tell French citizens to cut their welfare and make sacrifices, French people will burn German flags. This is a very practical political problem.

Frau Merkel is the German Kanzler, nobody voted her in France and obviously nobody understands what the hell does she want. It would be perfectly fine (so to speak, I wonder what they would do if Hollande says that ), if it were an "European" politician to say that, someone voted by them. There is a big difference.

Coming to solidarity. I just wanted to say that a true EU government would be legitimate to implement an economic policy gathering resources where there are and investing them toward agreed objectives, because it would be democratically elected and thus accountable toward the taxpayers. The solidarity issue exists because you have someone how is accountable to those who pay taxes, and someone else to those how get the money, and then you get people burning flags…

[Noelnada]

I get that text in French when clicking on the links Cosmo

"Parler de culture de l'Europe est difficile, car de nombreuses cultures s'y sont succédé (et ont souvent assimilé des apports extra-européens) depuis plusieurs millénaires. Une définition de la culture de l'Europe doit nécessairement aussi tenir compte des limites géographiques du continent.

Le tourisme culturel tient une place singulière en Europe, elle est une des clés de l'avenir permettant d'assurer une puissante force d'attraction pour l'Europe. Elle touche essentiellement l'audience des musées, des monuments et des évènements culturels. Et donne lieu à des déplacements vacanciers. Par conséquent, elle est une mine de recette considérable pour les pays européens. L'activité touristique s'est notablement enrichie depuis une vingtaine d'années, et les modes de visite des touristes ont beaucoup évolué. Le tourisme étranger en France en est une vivante illustration."

I doubt it is what you have wrote.

[Dr Cosmo]

I doubt it is what you have wrote.

Of course its not. My French is very very rusty.
The text is written by depressed French Wikipedians without knowledge or spirit.
The Picture Gallery is made by Dr Cosmo.


BTW:

Eurovision Song Contest to receive Charlemagne Medal

[Frollein]

Charlemagne would have all these freaks killed.

[Harmattan]

The idea that globalization equals cheap Chinese stuff is pretty naive.

I never said such a stupid thing. Globalization exists since millennia and has constantly increased during the latest centuries.

However the Chinese workshop has been the main fuel of globalization during the last tree decades and this period being over global trade volumes are now declining. It is important to keep in mind that globalization went through an exceptional peak that is now ending, and that many views that assumed it was the new normal were wrong. Horizontal growth is an important driver of globalization and it is over for China.

Second of all I pointed efficiency, including the strive for talents, as the second engines for globalization (such as the merger you mentioned for example). That is, vertical growth. And I explained why this driver was also going to recess.


Globalization will persist, but it will no longer be needed for economy, rendering the EU and international treaties obsolete. They already are: the EU is a 1950 answer to problems of 2016. It destroyed our foundations and seeded ticking bombs that will likely ravage Europe in the next decades (rise of extremism, of animosity against other countries, of political instabilities as a reaction against the European imperialism and the weakening of national powers; financial instabilities, deflation and deficits in the eurozone), while the TTIP promises, according to the EU, mediocre to negative benefits for the EU and asks us unacceptable sacrifices (the de facto destruction of our legislative power and having to eat the shit that make Americans obese).

Globalization will instead persist as a cultural movement but without taking over identities. I hope we will end up having planes that can bring you to China in three hours, and that people will travel more and more. However global trade will in my opinion decline and there will be no need anymore to forego sovereignty and therefore democracy in the name of efficiency.


Side notes:
* Since you are a native English speaker, you see no problem with the EU destroying our cultures to replace them with the English language. Good for you. Most of non-English speakers tend to disagree.
* A political leader that cannot talk to you in your language will never be considered as representative. Elections are not enough.
* If you are not convinced, imagine yourself as a naturalized citizen in a Muslim country, with a leader whose program would be to murder atheists and women who use contraption. Many people would feel represented but would you, even though you voted? Cultural distance matters!

[Rugoz]

However global trade will in my opinion decline

No reason whatsoever to believe that will happen.

[Harmattan]

As said above, it is already declining since several years when measured in fraction of the world GDP. This is a matter of fact widely observed and commented by economists.

And I provided reasons from the ephemeral anomaly of the Chinese boom to the reduced emphasis on economic efficiency in the future, and the fact that AI and automation will move most of the manpower to local services as the rest will be automated, starting with the most internationalized ones (high level executives, intellectual professions, etc).

[Varilion]

*I am not a native English speaker. I am Italian, but i work for an international enterprise around Frankfurt where English is the official working language, thus it happens to me to speak English 8h a day (or more). From what i can see, more and more companies around here are switching to English - especially the large ones - because it increases the "recruitment pool" and decrease the communication efforts among the different facilities in Europe. Management cares more about next quarter EBIT than cultures.

*Ok, the emotions and the feelings provoked by a speech in your own native language (better if with your own accent) are generally stronger than those that a foreign language may cause. But nevertheless you understand (if you know the language).

*Cultural distance matters. Yes, in fact for your example you got to pick an "extra-European" (and non-christian) country. My feeling is that cultural distance in Europe is way lower (especially if you stay in Western-Europe). However, if you do not agree with a political leader of your country (which in your example is blatantly violating any principle of democracy) your are not going to burn your flag because of this. You just dislike that politician and his ideas (which happens pretty often even without taking extremists in consideration).

[Harmattan]

From what i can see, more and more companies around here are switching to English - especially the large ones - because it increases the "recruitment pool" and decrease the communication efforts among the different facilities in Europe. Management cares more about next quarter EBIT than cultures.

And at some point they will fire all of those high level talents and just replace them with AI. Off-the-shelf, cloneable, super-human, immediately available, cheap. This is happening in finance right now even though we are still very far from AI, and I am not talking about HFT.

It will be easier to manufacture an artificial mind than it will be to manufacture an artificial body. High-level professions will take the first and hardest blow.