- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Europe - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 2,064 comments
- 99,945 views
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Tesla Model 3 is the affordable one. But all the major brands are working on an affordable alternative. Phev cars already helps you to get used to charging, without the immediate cons.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Yes and no.
Mere non-Tesla owning mortals are left with the wide and varying selection of public chargers. Some are reliable, some aren't. Some are the right socket, some aren't. Some are blocked (but ICE and inconsiderate EV owners alike), some are in use, most require an App and registration.
There's plenty of people who have done long trips on Leaf30 and Zoe40, but therest a lot to.be desired from non-Tesla infrastructure.
In my personal position, an efficient* 60kWh car like an Ioniq (exceptionally aerodynamic) would meet 98% of my needs without major issue.
*Cars that follow the mini CUV are not particularly good at motorway speeds.
- 2,156
- United Kingdom
It's your problem when the report is:
https://www.electoralcommission.org...le-electoral-fraud-ahead-of-May-elections.pdf
Birmingham, Bradford, Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Calderdale, Coventry, Derby, Hyndburn,
Kirklees,
Oldham, Pendle, Peterborough, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Walsall, Woking, Luton, Bristol
- In the 2011 Census 21.8% of the Birmingham population identified themselves as Muslim. This is significantly higher than the average for England and Wales of 4.8%.
- Bradford - 24.70% Muslim
- Blackburn with Darwen - 27.0% Muslim
Should I do the rest? Or is using the Express my problem still?
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
2 prosecutions for electoral fraud (with one of those acquitted)? Christ, I need to change my trousers.
And, according to the link, there are loads of investigated cases in Hampshire, Devon and Cornwall, Durham, NI, Kent, Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northumbria, Suffolk... are these all muslamical strongholds too?
Oh there's a question...
- 28,422
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The Italian government have approved their long-awaited budget that puts them on a collision course with the EU, and includes tax cuts and plans for a universal basic income. I honestly don't know how a Eurozone member can introduce a universal basic income - I guess the short answer is they can't, or at least not without approval from the EU, which is (very) unlikely to be forthcoming. Markets are already reacting in a predictable manner, but it remains to be seen what the EU will do in response, but the fear is that the ECB may intervene by cutting back on buying Italian bonds, triggering higher borrowing costs.
The Italian government appear to be playing a game of chicken with the EU and testing the water as to how far they can push their public spending plans without spooking the markets too much. My basic understanding of economics is not quite enough for me to wrap my head around what is going on, but to my understanding Italy is caught between two conflicting ideas: 1) raise public spending in the hope of creating a boost in GDP e.g. higher debt is OK so long as GDP grows and 2) being compelled by its membership of the Euro to maintain a surplus and to limit public spending to under 2% of GDP. The question is, what can/will the EU do about it if they press ahead with plan 1, which the EU disapproves of because Italian debt is already extremely high, and GDP growth has effectively stalled for the last 20 years?
The Italian government appear to be playing a game of chicken with the EU and testing the water as to how far they can push their public spending plans without spooking the markets too much. My basic understanding of economics is not quite enough for me to wrap my head around what is going on, but to my understanding Italy is caught between two conflicting ideas: 1) raise public spending in the hope of creating a boost in GDP e.g. higher debt is OK so long as GDP grows and 2) being compelled by its membership of the Euro to maintain a surplus and to limit public spending to under 2% of GDP. The question is, what can/will the EU do about it if they press ahead with plan 1, which the EU disapproves of because Italian debt is already extremely high, and GDP growth has effectively stalled for the last 20 years?
To be honest, I don't this is necessarily true. Italian politics is (as many things Italian) massively complex, so rather than it going against the EU, I think this will more signal a change in how the government is run. Like a car spinning it's wheels against an immovable object, in this example the government or elected officials are the tyres, changing and shifting against the EU who would be the rock.
I don't have a massive incite into Italian politics, but the current issue is the high levels of unemployment for the under 25 and unending education and examination requirements, for almost every position. Couple this with the fact that regions in Italy can have more politicians than many whole European countries and the general consensus is that they have too many politicians who are paid too much... and each government cycle fails (unsurprisingly) to change that.
- 28,422
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I'm not sure I get how this is different to what I said... the Italian government is pushing against what is (seemingly) an immovable object, and now we wait to see how the EU responds, though I suspect that the markets reaction alone might make them think twice before proceeding much further.
Meanwhile, the Italian stock market has fallen over 4% today already...
Sorry, I thought you meant that this would allow there to be a meaningful conflict between the two bodies (the EU and the IT Gov) and I meant to suggest that this probably isn't that meaningful
- 11
- Chicago
Attachments
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I dont get the picture either. Can someone explain?
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 28,422
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The background picture resembles the mess left after makeshift refugee camps were cleared. The comments from the people in the pic are an ironic criticism of the EU's migration policies - the assertion being that the EU believes that admitting refugees/migrants is a good thing ('enrichment'), in apparent contradiction to the mess left behind by migrants sleeping rough on the streets of Paris.
I believe @baldgye was having a dig at the people who liked the picture...
Last edited:
- 5,051
- Netherlands
I was thinking @baldgye maybe also didnt understood. That picture is very misleading then, I suspect the background is a picture of 2016. Either during the labour strikes and/or Euro 2016. What does that have to do with immigration?
- 1,292
- CZE
- novcze
part of the joke is also the people are from some old (60's ?) american movie so their expectation of Paris were different
Pretty much, though I guess dig is an unpleasant way to say it...
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
I wonder if he bothered to notice I didn't "like" it? Probably assumes I did though...
This gets a like though!
- 28,422
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Meanwhile, in Italy, pressure is growing on the populist coalition as bond yields rise to their highest level in 4 years, and stocks take a hammering - this is largely a result of the government announcing their controversial budget plans which bring them into conflict with the EU, who must approve or reject their budget in a few weeks' time.
Tension between the Italian government and the EU is reflected in the bond markets, which in turn determines how much Italy pays to borrow money - their budget plan is viewed by the EU as unacceptable because Italy already has very high public debt and the EU are unlikely to endorse a budget that sees public spending increase as opposed to decrease - but this is in direct contradiction to the stated aims of the Italian government who believe that by investing more (i.e. spending more), they can stimulate the economy enough to offset/justify the additional public spending.
It's all a bit complicated, but the Italian government (Salvini in particular) seem to be convinced that the EU are using the bond markets as a tool to enforce financial discipline - and not without some merit. What is clear is that someone will have to blink if Italy is to avoid a potentially ruinous outcome, and my money is on the Italian government being forced to back down - at least in the short term. They have already made some sort of concession - committing to a lower deficit than originally planned from 2019 onward, but even that is viewed as insufficient by the EU (and other observers).
The risk is, however, if the EU are seen to be too draconian or heavy-handed in their response to Italy's budget demands, it will simply play into the hands of the populist parties and turn even more people towards Eurosceptic parties in the country. But, the flipside is that if the EU are not tough enough, they run the risk of another financial meltdown like what happened in Greece, but on a hugely bigger scale.
Tension between the Italian government and the EU is reflected in the bond markets, which in turn determines how much Italy pays to borrow money - their budget plan is viewed by the EU as unacceptable because Italy already has very high public debt and the EU are unlikely to endorse a budget that sees public spending increase as opposed to decrease - but this is in direct contradiction to the stated aims of the Italian government who believe that by investing more (i.e. spending more), they can stimulate the economy enough to offset/justify the additional public spending.
It's all a bit complicated, but the Italian government (Salvini in particular) seem to be convinced that the EU are using the bond markets as a tool to enforce financial discipline - and not without some merit. What is clear is that someone will have to blink if Italy is to avoid a potentially ruinous outcome, and my money is on the Italian government being forced to back down - at least in the short term. They have already made some sort of concession - committing to a lower deficit than originally planned from 2019 onward, but even that is viewed as insufficient by the EU (and other observers).
The risk is, however, if the EU are seen to be too draconian or heavy-handed in their response to Italy's budget demands, it will simply play into the hands of the populist parties and turn even more people towards Eurosceptic parties in the country. But, the flipside is that if the EU are not tough enough, they run the risk of another financial meltdown like what happened in Greece, but on a hugely bigger scale.
Last edited:
- 4,551
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
Denmark proposes to sentence its citizens up to 12 years of prison for "Pro-Russian views".
https://southfront.org/danish-bill-proposes-12-years-in-prison-for-pro-russia-views/ (English)
https://www.berlingske.dk/kommentatorer/ny-lov-12-aars-faengsel-for-at-mene-det-forkerte-om-rusland (original article in Danish)
If the bill is accepted, anyone in Denmark who publicly supports the Nord Stream 2 or complains about the anti-Russian sanctions harming the Danish economy will be a dangerous criminal, a half Anders Breivik.
https://southfront.org/danish-bill-proposes-12-years-in-prison-for-pro-russia-views/ (English)
https://www.berlingske.dk/kommentatorer/ny-lov-12-aars-faengsel-for-at-mene-det-forkerte-om-rusland (original article in Danish)
If the bill is accepted, anyone in Denmark who publicly supports the Nord Stream 2 or complains about the anti-Russian sanctions harming the Danish economy will be a dangerous criminal, a half Anders Breivik.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
The opening statement is wildly misleading. The english link clearly states that the punishment for up to 12 years is for illegal meddling in an election and not "pro-russian views". The title suggests that the danish government were attacking the freedom of speech. Are you a russian troll?
- 4,551
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
What is "meddling", after all?
"Meddling" can be a very loose term. Depending on their definition, it may be just tweeting the wrong opinion during an election.
Again, it depends on how you defy it.Yes, I'm Russian. But if you ask me if I'm a paid Kremlin's troll or something, then no - (un)fortunately, nobody pays me for what I'm doing here. It's just interesting to share opinions on politics and understand the westerners better. We all need to understand each other better.
Now back to the topic - the full translation of the original Berlingske article that I've read says there are still punishments proposed for what they describe as "Russian propaganda" (that includes articles in newspapers, magazines and other media and even posts in Internet social networks) even when it's not related to elections, but doing so during an election can lead to 12 years of imprisonment.
- 5,051
- Netherlands
What is "meddling", after all?
"Meddling" can be a very loose term. Depending on their definition, it may be just tweeting the wrong opinion during an election.
Yes, I'm Russian. But if you ask me if I'm a paid Kremlin's troll or something, then no - (un)fortunately, nobody pays me for what I'm doing here. It's just interesting to share opinions on politics and understand the westerners better. We all need to understand each other better.
Now back to the topic - the full translation of the original Berlingske article that I've read says there are still punishments proposed for what they describe as "Russian propaganda" (that includes articles in newspapers, magazines and other media and even posts in Internet social networks) even when it's not related to elections, but doing so during an election can lead to 12 years of imprisonment.
Without posting the exact bill how do you know how it is defined as? Perhaps the bill details exactly what is illegal and what is not? As far as i know there isnt any mention about "russian" in the first place. It is about illegal meddling in elections. I suspect these sources you posted have some conservative agenda? It is obviously a conservative spin on a proposed bill to criminalize illegal meddling to influence its readers.
edit:
It is extremely worrying that a lot of conservative media is turning into a pro-russia stance.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
https://www.ft.dk/samling/20171/almdel/REU/bilag/423/1938179.pdf
How is criticism of this bill a pro-Russia stance, especially when you don't know what's in the bill as you've already admitted?
- 5,051
- Netherlands
Because said article was titled to suggest the bill is proposed to jail people with only pro-russia views. My comment was directed at said media outlet having a pro russia stance by suggesting that the Bill is to jail people with pro russia views. Also in our counrty the leader of the rightwing party and through his own media outlets also has pro russia views. Hence my comment about worrying about it.
The bill is in danish and unless you or @Rage Racer can translate it, I find it hard to believe this bill proposes people with pro russian beliefs in denmark will be jailed up to 12 years. That is directly a violation of their freedom of speech.
Without translating it I think the bill is proposed to criminalize illegal meddling in elections and certainly not just having "pro russia views" as suggested by the title.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
The point remains. You can't make any comment about media bias unless you know what is in the bill. If what is in the bill coincides with what the article is suggesting it's simply reporting the facts. Free speech laws in Denmark are very vague and subject to a great deal of interpretation. For example:
Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years. Sec. 2. When meting out the punishment it shall be considered an especially aggravating circumstance, if the count has the character of propaganda.
To me that sounds pretty wide open to a variety of different words and actions being considered as "degrading" or "deriding". White people suck at basketball. 2 years or no? Many women under Islam have had their female genitalia chopped off. 2 years or no? Hello white person, how do you give back to those you have stolen from as a way of mitigating your white privilege? 2 years or no?
