Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nate

  • Rank
    QA Testing Management

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,224 profile views
  1. Tut man, ein komplett neues Animation System ist seit längerem in Arbeit. Sehe ich nicht so. https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/search?q=animation+system&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/4qm9en/animation_system/?ref=search_posts https://www.reddit.com/r/joinsquad/comments/3xmpis/devs_eli5_rework_the_animation_system/?ref=search_posts und so weiter
  2. Post Scriptum : The Bloody Seventh

    It's the command version of the Sd.Kfz. 231. It's a foldable antenna.
  3. V7 Vehicle HYPE

    Man, Romagnolo, you're ruining the economy!
  4. Should a 14 year old play Squad?

    Haha, I always find that ridiculous, but I agree with your point.
  5. BF2 Revive free for Windows

    This is nothing new, it's Battlefield 2 Revive. Y'all should just get PR instead, it's also Standalone.
  6. V7 Vehicle HYPE

    Sorry I quoted someone you quoted and I guess it attributed the wrong username : ) My bad
  7. V7 Vehicle HYPE

    You can't be serious.
  8. Not sure if you're sarcastic with the 'clued-up' part, and yeah to be honest I am not sure at all about the ESM and the whole Euro crisis thing, and it's been a long time since it was in the news. There is too much uncertainty and complexity with all the Greece drama, so I can't make up my mind on what is good and bad, sorry. In my eyes though, the whole Euro system is fundamentally flawed. Usually if one country has a currency, the exchange rate has the function of compensating for differences in competitiveness between economies. If everyone uses the same currency without having the same economic policies, things can go very wrong. (<- this is massively simplified, but I have not much knowledge on this matter). I think the ESM and ESFS were the attempts to find solutions to the crises that emerged out of this fundamental flaw, but they have received a load of criticism. When the Euro started, instead of letting wages rise according to productivity gains (plus a 1.9% inflation target that all countries should have met), Germany went for wage moderation and others, like Greece went a different way (see graph below). Germany engaged in a policy of pressure on wages, dampening domestic demand and putting everything on export. No country in Europe has been able to follow Germany. Funnily enough, in German policy circles this is seen as proof of the superiority of the German model. When the crisis hit in, other countries were forced to go the German way in "high-speed", with loads of privatisation and what not (look at Greece again), causing (in my eyes) even more problems than it solved. The UK was very much on board with this course of austerity (but wasn't as involved since it's not a Euro country), and after all - The British Conservatives are the biggest austerians of Europe. France is now trying to reform as well, but they have hit massive resistance from the public. It seems now (post 2012) people have gotten their shit together a bit more and we are heading towards a bit more convergence around the 2% goal. As for your videos, the first one seems oversimplified and made for people to feel good about it, the other one feels quite unclear with those random treaty quotes and clear opposing agenda. So it's probably best to go via Wikipedia or scholarly articles ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Stability_Mechanism ) Nah mate, I'm German, and I've read enough internet hate to know I never want to be a politician. I leave that to the lizards ...
  9. And yet here we are, Kansas can't control who comes in from Texas. Does it want to? Just last week, the EU passed legislation regarding external border control, there will be an European Border and Coast Guard so that the open borders within the EU/Schengen Area can remain open as they should. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2292_en.htm
  10. The EU cannot just impose whatever it wants on the member states, much less so than the US government can on its member states. All members are sovereign countries, not federal subunits like Texas or Kansas. Every country can leave the EU, invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. I added Wiki links for further reading: Subsidiarity is a founding principle of the EU. Which means: What can be done on a local or national level should be done there. But lets look at what the member states are doing. Just imagine each "state" was a US-american state and then see if you still find that the EU states have no say. Full membership gives the government of a member state a seat in the Council of the European Union and European Council (<-Council of all heads of states). The Presidency of the Council of the European Union rotates between each of the member states, allowing each state six months to help direct the agenda of the EU. Similarly, each state is assigned seats in Parliament according to their population (with the smaller countries receiving more seats per inhabitant than the larger ones). The members of the European Parliament have been elected by universal suffrage since 1979 (before that, they were seconded from national parliaments). The national governments appoint one member each to the European Commission (in accord with its president and after a hearing by the Parliament) , the European Court of Justice (in accord with other members) and the European Court of Auditors. Historically, larger member states were granted an extra Commissioner. However, as the body grew, this right has been removed and each state is represented equally. The EU only has exclusive competences in the fields of: the customs union the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy common commercial policy conclusion of certain international agreements (please remember: The EU is made up of its member states, general policy guidelines are almost always unanimously agreed between all members, see European Council)) A number of states are less integrated into the EU than others. In most cases this is because those states have gained an opt-out from a certain policy area. The most notable is the opt-out from the Economic and Monetary Union, the adoption of the euro as sole legal currency. Most states outside the Eurozone are obliged to adopt the euro when they are ready, but Denmark and the United Kingdom have obtained the right to retain their own independent currencies. Ireland and the United Kingdom also do not participate in the Schengen Agreement, which eliminates internal EU border checks. Denmark has an opt out from the Common Security and Defence Policy; Denmark, Ireland and the UK have an opt-out on police and justice matters and Poland and the UK have an opt out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU only has the powers that its members decide to give it. The UK and other Member States have granted the EU powers to make various kinds of laws that affect them and their citizens, but under certain conditions. The UK has a vote over these laws, and an influence over the end result. There are also a number of rules and principles that set out when and how the EU can act, the objectives it must follow and how agreement on laws and decisions is reached. The UK is represented in, or is able to nominate members to, all of the institutions involved in takink decisions and making EU laws affect the UK. I recommend you read: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/516501/Rights_and_obligations_of_European_Union_membership_web_version.pdf
  11. It was European farmers and traders who advocated for the bent cucumber rule. Why? Because if cucumbers are not bent, you can fit much more of them into crates for transportation, thus saving cost. It was first brought up in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and already adopted by lots of member states, before the EU even dealt with it. At some point (1988) it was put into legislation to have a common framework for all member states. Things like these aren't born in some Bureaucrat's evil mind, they come from the real world (in this case farmers and supermarkets) and there is a reason we have them. Personally, I find it as ridiculous as anyone else to regulate things like this (and it has been abolished again(!)), but because we have the common market, the EU had to find a way for all member states. Google Translate this article from 1992 if you want to know more: http://folio.nzz.ch/1992/oktober/die-gurkennorm-und-ihre-hintermanner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth PS: read my other post again, I think you missed the point about the unelected bureaucrats running everything ..
  12. @XRobinson If you take a look at the actual political realities in Europe you will find that there is not a single country that is pushing for a "United States of Europe". This argument against the EU is probably older than the Union itself but it is not going to happen because the National Governments (and rightly so) have a very close eye on which responsibilities they allow to be shifted to the Union. Nobody is asking people to abandon their national identities and become "European". In fact, the EU is promoting the cultural identities and diversity of its member states. Furthermore, it is just a reality that young Europeans feel quite close to their peers in neighboring countries and there is nothing wrong with that. It does not destroy your culture. If anything, it makes you more aware of your own (Try meeting with Italians and find out you are always the only one who is on time ) I have friends from all over the Union and we like and mock each other probably just like you do in the US with your peers from different US-states. And please read up on how the EU works before talking about "fascism masquerading as social democracy" or giving up one's "identitiy", this is a ridiculous argument. The (democratically elected) European Parliament had to confirm the President of the commission (Juncker). He underwent a confirmation hearing in the European Parliament; the European Parliament then elected the Juncker Commission – with 423 votes in favour, 209 against and 67 abstentions. You can find one example here: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1192_en.htm - Election of the Commision of Juncker http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings-2014/en/schedule/07-10-2014/jonathan-hill - Hearing of a Commissioner from the UK I challenge you to name a single minister in the EU (or the US?!) that is directly elected by the public; I'm talking about indirect elections here, of course, as is the norm in a parliamentary democracy. I did watch his confirmation hearing where he was grilled by the European Parliament. Note that neither the British Prime Minister nor the Cabinet of the UK are elected, not even indirectly. The PM is appointed by the Queen; the other ministers are appointed and can be dismissed at the pleasure of the Queen on advice of the PM. Significantly less democratic legitimacy than the European Commission; heck, the current PM's majority in the Commons is not even backed by a majority of voters. I hope I could clarify some of the notions you seem to have. I recommend you stop reading Breitbard to learn about European issues, we also have good (as in: conservative and eurosceptic) publications that are more based around actual facts, no offense. (Please take note: I am not saying the EU system is flawless, I am hoping for reform now, especially to avoid national governments invoking unpopular things via the EU and then go back home and point fingers at the EU, pretending to have nothing to do with it).
  13. Did you link the correct PDF? Because it states no such thing. Sweden has a HDI of 0.907 for 2014 (Wikipedia). The projections for 2030 for Sweden from your PDF state a HDI of 0.906 for 2030. "Medium Development" status starts is a level of 0.650 (Moldova is the only European country that has Medium) "Low Development" status is anything below 0.500 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index So, according to your link, Sweden will still have a "very high" development Index in 20 years, but let's not get into that in here. Better not discuss politics in the forums at all.
  14. @BLITZAmay I ask what your prospects are for the future of the UK? I mean the leave campaign just made clear that they are aiming for access to the Single Market. Sovereignty is quite a unclear concept. What does it mean for you, because looking at the past 2 days, the journey is going into the opposite direction. I hope you know what that entails for the UK: It has given up a 16% voting share and veto powers to the worlds largest trading bloc. It is still going to have to accept most of the of EU regulations in order to be in the EEA. It is still going to have to accept free movement of people in order to be in the EFTA. The UK will still have to pay into the EU pot, but will get none of the say in how it's run. The farmers and fishermen all over the UK are going to have to survive without CAP. No more EU research grants for British Universities. No more EU structural funds for places like Wales and Cornwall (and other poor places the national govt failed to invest). Every country in the zone pays a fixed percentage of GDP, agreed upon in the Multiannual Financial Framework, which is currently set at 1.0% of GDP. Subtracting the UK's rebate and what the EU gives to the UK, the UK's actual net contribution is a fraction of a percent of GDP. What the UK gets out of this is access to the single market. Every economist will tell you that this is a bargain, because the direct economic benefit and increased growth you get out of it is already worth more than that (especially as the UK is not constrained by Euro rules or the Stability and Growth Pact). And even the money that goes to the poorer EU countries helps grow their economies, which makes them stronger trading partners, which in turn also helps the UK indirectly, because they can buy more goods and services and will preferentially do that within the EU due to the absence of trade barriers. That the UK risks throwing away this economic advantage because of some penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking boggles the mind. By sharing common legislation and regulation, the Single Market widely removes non-tariff barriers of trade, and those are pretty damn important for trade it prevents a race to the bottom in terms of environmental regulation or workers' rights, it empowers the EU to do things like ban certain ingredients or practices in cosmetics or food, or some which were only tested on animals, or force recycling quotas and consumer rights, that effectively would have just removed products from markets had members attempted such things on their own, it simplifies trade and imports by having a common certification process regarding conformity with those regulations, and that to have all this, we need a mechanism (i.e., the EU) to effectively agree on such regulations in the first place. If the UK wants to retain access to the single market, this fee will not go away (EEA/EFTA countries also pay for the privilege); depending on the level of access the British government negotiates during the Article 50 process, it may be lower, but the access to the single market would also be more restricted. This means there is no room for a net gain here, only a net loss (the EU will not give the UK more preferential treatment than EU/EEA conditions). The money that you "save" by not paying the fee would be outweighed by the economic cost of not having EU/EEA-level access to the single market. Litoralis That is simply not ture. The real loss of BREXIT is the loss of passporting. ( Passporting | Bank of England ) Remember that the UK economy is dominated by the service sector, not goods. For many services, such as banking, insurance, and law, you can only offer those services under the supervision of a regulator as part of a legal framework. Within the EU, UK firms can offer their services across the EU while continuing to be regulated by their UK regulators. This is the very reasons why many firms decided to reside in London. The UK made sure that Financial regulation in the EU is not too harsh (they blocked financial transaction tax and more) and provide easy access to the Single Market for the banks, as well as being a connector between the US and Europe. If UK leave the EU, it's not just that their services get more expensive. It's that it becomes illegal for them to offer said services, because suddenly they're not regulated by the UK regulator, but by the regulator of the country in which the services are being sold. And each regulator has different requirements. For example, in banking and insurance, both have capital requirements. Under the passporting regime, companies just have to meet UK capital requirements. Without passporting, a UK company selling insurance services in, say, France, will have to meet UK capital requirements, but also instead of selling services directly from the UK to the French, will have to set up a French subsidiary that meets French capital requirements. This massively increases the cost of doing business and requires the company to set up extensive operations in France rather than merely running everything from the UK. It means the UK is much less attractive as a place to situate operations and in the long run those operations will decrease. Far better to situate operations in the EU, where you can passport services from one location to 27 states, and just have a subsidiary in the UK providing services to the UK domestic market. It's important to note that passporting is unlikely something the UK can get in any free trade deal. Passporting, because it allows you to bypass the regulators of the state you're selling services in, requires a level of harmonisation between member state regulatory regimes. Otherwise a company from a country with a loose regulatory framework would have an unfair competitive advantage against firms in other countries, and would also export the economic risk of that loose regulation. So to passport financial services, a UK firm has to be compliant with a pile of EU regulations, such as: (see source above) - Capital Requirements Directive (2013/36/EU); - Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC); - Insurance Mediation Directive (2002/92/EC); - Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (2004/39/EC); - Undertaking Collective Investment Scheme Directive (85/611/EEC); - Payment Services Directive (2007/64/EC); - Second Electronic Money Directive (2009/110/EC); and - Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (2011/61/EU). The only way the UKcould have passporting after a Brexit, therefore, would be to remain subject to a large amount of EU law i.e. the EEA scenario. But EEA membership includes free movement of workers, which the Leave campaign are determined to remove. So that isn't really a realistic option. So, in the end: Quo vadis UK? Personally, I hope for a swift resolution, invoking article 50 sooner rather than later and the rest of the countries focussing on reforming the EU to be more transparent and democratic.