GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
An excellent point. I refuse to watch videos, they take up far too much time. Give me a link to a relevant article and I'll read/skim it, but I just ignore Youtube links. Jeebiz in particular posts far too many of them. I think one of the reasons society is in such a mess is that young people don't read any more.
The government has suffered a second Brexit defeat in the House of Lords as peers backed, by 366 votes to 268, calls for a "meaningful" parliamentary vote on the final terms of withdrawal.
What is a 'meaningful' vote then? Was the last vote just 'practice' or something?
Personally, I am entirely aligned with the notion that a nation's "combined" Legislatures ... having at one time in the past been "combined" in the decision to enter a Treaty, should quite-properly again be "combined" in the decision to leave it.
Such things are very weighty ... (sovereign!) ... matters that should never be left to chance.
Just as the original (sovereign!) decision to enterinto the original Treaty agreement was not a matter of chance.
Polish PM Beata Szydlo has accused the French president of trying to blackmail her country, in a row over Thursday's re-election of EU leader Donald Tusk.
At the end of an EU summit, she said it was unacceptable for Francois Hollande to threaten to stop funds because Poland was "not behaving properly".
Bill Clinton warns US and Britain face an 'identity crisis' amid nationalist surge
Clinton’s first appearance since the election was at the launch of Yitzhak Rabin biography, where he drew parallels to Israel turmoil that led to his assassination
Dutch embassy & consulate in Turkey closed off as diplomatic row escalates
The Dutch embassy and consulate in Turkey have been closed off for security reasons, Reuters reported citing Turkish foreign ministry. A mass rally took place outside the consulate in Istanbul after Turkish Foreign Minister was refused landing in the Netherlands.
Dutch riot police have broken up a rally in support of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hours after a minister was refused entry to the Turkish consulate in Rotterdam.
A response to Richard Dawkins' viral video about Brexit.
Sorry but I just had to include that - it seems that Mr. Dawkins has not really given any clear insight of the consequences of staying in the EU for Britain. However Sargon seems to have listed a rather concise list of the harm of remaining in the EU - and how the architects of the EU are essentially trying to setup a European empire, sovereignty will be lost and a 'European Council' that will essentially be un-elected and have overruling powers.
Sorry but I just had to include that - it seems that Mr. Dawkins has not really given any clear insight of the consequences of staying in the EU for Britain. However Sargon seems to have listed a rather concise list of the harm of remaining in the EU - and how the architects of the EU are essentially trying to setup a European empire, sovereignty will be lost and a 'European Council' that will essentially be un-elected and have overruling powers.
I think that people on both sides of "the Pond" have come to realize that many "new world government" ideas were sold to us on the back of "trade agreements," but that in practice these ideas just don't work.
The concept probably sounded wonderful to the businessmen, who hoped to simply deal "[individual] governments" out of the picture entirely ... and to create ersatz "courts" in which businessmen could "sue(!) those pesky 'governments'" if they dared to get in the way of business!
However, "wiser heads than theirs" ... ... have finally begun to remember that "'nations' probably are a Really Good Idea,™ after all!"
Yes, it's a good idea for nations to trade with one another. However, it is insanity(!) for those nations to imagine that they somehow must "compromise themselves" in order to accomplish this goal.
Fact is, they must always put "themselves first!™" in all of their negotiations, and any of their still-sovereign(!) governments must be able to "nix" a deal that is not in the best interests of their(!) citizens ... as decided by those citizens.
Brussels is going to have to realize that there will be no "United States of Europe, governed by a Federal government headquartered in Brussels, DC."
Likewise, the US – having already removed itself from the stillborn TPP – is going to have to remove itself from NAFTA, as well ... as must Canada and Mexico also. (These treaties actually do not truly benefit anyone, because they were conceived by greedy people who merely sought to exploit everyone [at once!].)
None of these things are sustainable(!) trade deals, because in each case they seek to "play one-or-more parties at the expense of [all] the others," by co-opting and removing each players' ability to reject something that is not in that party's best interest. Any such concept is doomed to consign the collective to "a race to the bottom," while "the bottom" is not where the citizens of any nation should ever choose to go.
Only if each and every nation "looks out for its own nation first," and retains the sovereign right to do so, can the nations ... with great difficulty ... arrive at trade agreements which benefit all concerned.
Every trade must be made voluntarily, and from a position of mutual strength. Such deals are very hard to find, but they can be found.
The EU should give up its notions of ever becoming "the U.S.E.," and strip itself back down to the place where it originally started: "a trade union."
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-12-2017 at 11:13 PM.
I think that people on both sides of "the Pond" have come to realize that many "new world government" ideas were sold to us on the back of "trade agreements," but that in practice these ideas just don't work.
The concept probably sounded wonderful to the businessmen, who hoped to simply deal "[individual] governments" out of the picture entirely ... and to create ersatz "courts" in which businessmen could "sue(!) those pesky 'governments'" if they dared to get in the way of business!
However, "wiser heads than theirs" ... ... have finally begun to remember that "'nations' probably are a Really Good Idea,™ after all!"
Yes, it's a good idea for nations to trade with one another. However, it is insanity(!) for those nations to imagine that they somehow must "compromise themselves" in order to accomplish this goal.
This proves that globalism just does not work, one cannot simply lower their own borders to their nations - may as well ask a person to remove doors from their house and just let anyone in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Fact is, they must always put "themselves first!™" in all of their negotiations, and any of their still-sovereign(!) governments must be able to "nix" a deal that is not in the best interests of their(!) citizens ... as decided by those citizens.
Brussels is going to have to realize that there will be no "United States of Europe, governed by a Federal government headquartered in Brussels, DC."
Or they are going to double down and discredit the populist movement even more. As an observer on this side of the pond, I see Le Pen being stripped of immunity and now charges made against her just for a tweet that was actually rather apt. Geert Wilders is going to be made to look like as far right as possible, and this is very dangerous and it will just backfire. This very experiment is causing the sudden shift to the right in the first place. The curtailment of sovereignty, suppression of any criticism of what the EU does, etc. If they want to blame the rise of populist and right wing and possibly even more right wing movements (Hungary), they only have themselves to blame for these policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Likewise, the US – having already removed itself from the stillborn TPP – is going to have to remove itself from NAFTA, as well ... as must Canada and Mexico also. (These treaties actually do not truly benefit anyone, because they were conceived by greedy people who merely sought to exploit everyone [at once!].)
None of these things are sustainable(!) trade deals, because in each case they seek to "play one-or-more parties at the expense of [all] the others," by co-opting and removing each players' ability to reject something that is not in that party's best interest. Any such concept is doomed to consign the collective to "a race to the bottom," while "the bottom" is not where the citizens of any nation should ever choose to go.
Only if each and every nation "looks out for its own nation first," and retains the sovereign right to do so, can the nations ... with great difficulty ... arrive at trade agreements which benefit all concerned.
Every trade must be made voluntarily, and from a position of mutual strength. Such deals are very hard to find, but they can be found.
TPP and NAFTA pretty much is for the benefit of corporations, and is just slavery with a new face. After all production is done in countries with questionable human rights records, poor working conditions and almost cost free labor to the corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
The EU should give up its notions of ever becoming "the U.S.E.," and strip itself back down to the place where it originally started: "a trade union."
I do not know of going back to the E.E.C or coming up with a new sort of trade union is the way to go, but the EU itself is doomed one way or another it will outright collapse or will tear itself apart if Wilders and Le Pen get elected. We are not far away since the election in The Netherlands is this coming Wed. so I will be watching to see. Side note about sovereignty - I agree with the Dutch position when it comes to the recent events with Turkey. You cannot just hold a political rally like that in another country, and this is not Nazism as Erdogan claims, this is a matter of one's sovereignty.
While I see the EU as a sinking ship, I also expected to see another referendum in Scotland and here it comes:
Scottish independence: Nicola Sturgeon to seek second referendum
Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed she will ask for permission to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence.
Ms Sturgeon said she wanted a vote to be held between the autumn of 2018 and the spring of the following year.
So the UK will definitely face another potential breakup - however I do not see the logic at this point why Scotland would want to remain in the EU at this point, because again given the state of the EU, I do not think at all it being farfetched that the EU is done for. The only thing that surprises me still is that I would have thought Greece would be the first to leave, before the UK because it really makes no sense for the EU's very survival anyways to keep Greece along.
I just think that people are beginning to realize that "nations are a really good idea, after all."
Even as nations trade with one another, it's critical that they do so from a position of strength. As Donald Trump put it, "<<x>> First!™"
The concept of EU, TPP, NAFTA, and so-on is that, in order to facilitate "trade," one must have a hyper-government, to whose rulings and edicts every member nation's government must ... for some unexplained reason ... become subject.
Eventually, they began to say "fsck this!" ... and they are correct:
Quote:
This concept is intrinsically flawed, and un-sustainable. It will never work, and it cannot be salvaged or patched.
- - -
The "EU Passport" was promptly used for a purpose that's near-and-dear to every capitalist's heart: tapping into the cheapest possible sources of labor, and displacing citizens in the process. (In the US, the "non-immigrant visa" was used for the same purposes.) Member countries were told that they simply couldn't do anything about this – "the new Federal Government in Brussels, DC had decided."
Wisely, they finally said, "No."
The only way forward for international relations is ... paradoxically ... "<<x>> First!™" Every nation is sovereign and it remains so. International trade organizations can propose common rules of trade to be adopted by the members, but cannot impose them on any member: they must be adopted by an act of that member's own legislature.
This will be somewhat more efficient than making individual treaty negotiations from "country X" to "country Y" which has no resemblance to another treaty between "country A" and "country B," because it allows the various relationships to be comparable if the legislatures of both countries agree on a case-by-case basis. ... and, in each and every case, it is understood that every country operates by the maxim: "<<x>> First!™" The trade agreements must put the national interests of each nation and its citizens "First!™" and must seek that hard-to-find common ground that is beneficial to the citizens of both countries.
Otherwise, trade agreements inevitably become "a race to the bottom." In the short run, this might make capitalists very happy. But, in the long run, it weakens both countries. If you attach a wire to both poles of a battery, you might for a time think that you've discovered a perpetual-motion machine. But ... then ... the ... bloodletting ... continues ... and ... anemia ... sets ... in ... ... ... And, "that's not sustainable, folks!"
If countries seek in earnest to trade with one another, but do so with the maxim of "<<x>> First!™", they will carve out mutually-beneficial trade arrangements that are "sustainable." Yes, it's much harder to do. But this time, the prosperity will be real and lasting.
This isn't "jingoism." This is practical wisdom.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-14-2017 at 10:21 AM.
I just think that people are beginning to realize that "nations are a really good idea, after all."
Even as nations trade with one another, it's critical that they do so from a position of strength. As Donald Trump put it, "<<x>> First!™"
The concept of EU, TPP, NAFTA, and so-on is that, in order to facilitate "trade," one must have a hyper-government, to whose rulings and edicts every member nation's government must ... for some unexplained reason ... become subject.
Eventually, they began to say "fsck this!" ... and they are correct:
- - -
The "EU Passport" was promptly used for a purpose that's near-and-dear to every capitalist's heart: tapping into the cheapest possible sources of labor, and displacing citizens in the process. (In the US, the "non-immigrant visa" was used for the same purposes.) Member countries were told that they simply couldn't do anything about this – "the new Federal Government in Brussels, DC had decided."
Wisely, they finally said, "No."
The only way forward for international relations is ... paradoxically ... "<<x>> First!™" Every nation is sovereign and it remains so. International trade organizations can propose common rules of trade to be adopted by the members, but cannot impose them on any member: they must be adopted by an act of that member's own legislature.
This will be somewhat more efficient than making individual treaty negotiations from "country X" to "country Y" which has no resemblance to another treaty between "country A" and "country B," because it allows the various relationships to be comparable if the legislatures of both countries agree on a case-by-case basis. ... and, in each and every case, it is understood that every country operates by the maxim: "<<x>> First!™" The trade agreements must put the national interests of each nation and its citizens "First!™" and must seek that hard-to-find common ground that is beneficial to the citizens of both countries.
Otherwise, trade agreements inevitably become "a race to the bottom." In the short run, this might make capitalists very happy. But, in the long run, it weakens both countries. If you attach a wire to both poles of a battery, you might for a time think that you've discovered a perpetual-motion machine. But ... then ... the ... bloodletting ... continues ... and ... anemia ... sets ... in ... ... ... And, "that's not sustainable, folks!"
If countries seek in earnest to trade with one another, but do so with the maxim of "<<x>> First!™", they will carve out mutually-beneficial trade arrangements that are "sustainable." Yes, it's much harder to do. But this time, the prosperity will be real and lasting.
This isn't "jingoism." This is practical wisdom.
All correct. First the UK there is no turning back on Brexit as they are ever closer to finalising all the internal issues, but then of course the negotiation with the EU itself when invoking article 50 will still take time, and so until that happens sometime either in '18 or '19 - Brexit hasn't actually occurred just yet, but Parliament has passed the bill to trigger Brexit
Now, we are on the eve of the elections in The Netherlands and I am closely watching that - and Turkey has made a huge mistake with their own political process. Yes there is a Turkish Diaspora in the EU, however last I checked even in 1 EU state, you do not have election rallies in another state - i.e. French election rallies in say Germany, or UK etc. You just DO NOT DO THAT! Even Merkel as incompetent as she is, sees this is a problem - Turkish gov. in kind response the actions of The Netherlands as Nazis. Turkey is not even part of the EU either, and also the mixed message of Erdogan to the Diaspora stating they should 'remain' Turkish citizens, which then flies in the face of him wanting to be part of the EU. AND Turkey now wants to take this issue to The Hague?
I do not agree with 95% of what Wilders stated in the previous post - the fact that Turkey is majority Muslim state is not an issue for me - but - what is an issue is the sliding back that Turkey has done. Turkey was a shining model of what a secular state was - and if I were Turkish I would be appalled how the legacy of Ataturk is literally being eroded away by Erdogan, and this is where I can agree with Wilders on:
Quote:
Curtailment of human rights.
Complete control of the press, shutting down opposition media
Censorship of the internet (blocking of youtube, twitter, etc)
Leaning towards a theocracy
And most crucially I think, the complete denial of the Armenian Genocide. The Turks want to take their issues now against Germany and The Netherlands in The Hague? Ok I support that, and lets also address that last issue because I do not see how the EU could even consider to let Turkey in the EU without having a little chat about that, as much as Turkey would like everyone to just ignore that issue.
Plus I am rather disgusted even more by Erdogan at this point, because he is using the refugee crisis as his political chips - threatening to just open the borders if he does not get his way, sorry but that is NOT how you get on the EU's or anyone's good side for that matter - he 'dun goofed', because also the current atmosphere is not a very good one, considering the potential rise of more populist movements across the EU.
The Netherlands is not the only state in Europe taking a tough stance on Turkish ministers holding rallies on their soil in support of Erdogan. Germany, Switzerland and Austria have banned gatherings at a number of locations, citing security concerns. Worsening bilateral relations could also jeopardize the migrant deal currently in place with Ankara.
Turkey will challenge the Netherlands in the European Court of Human Rights over its refusal to allow Turkish officials to enter the country and deliver campaign speeches, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
... have finally begun to remember that "'nations' probably are a Really Good Idea,™ after all!"
Brexit, The Netherlands/EU vs Turkey
