|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 26, 2024 19:23:42 GMT
-- "What a foolish way to start your post. -- "The history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) begins in the immediate aftermath of World War II when British diplomacy set the stage to contain the Soviet Union and to stop the expansion of Soviet power in Europe. The United Kingdom and France signed, in 1947, the Treaty of Dunkirk, a defensive pact, which was expanded in 1948 with the Treaty of Brussels to add the three Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) and committed them to collective defense against an armed attack for fifty years. The British worked with Washington to expand the alliance into NATO in 1949, adding the United States and Canada as well as Italy, Hungary is a very right-wing country with many ideas that do not sit well in the EU. Hungary is the problem, not the EU. IMO opinion Hungary needs to find a more moderate government or leave the EU and perhaps connects itself to the Russian dictatorship. What is it about Hungary's government that makes it very right wing and what policies should it jettison and what policies should it take on board to make it more 'moderate'? Perhaps this will help Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. It has increasingly identified as illiberal. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 26, 2024 19:38:45 GMT
There is actually nothing wrong with a multipolar world order, in fact, a world order with one dominant superpower is a much bigger threat to democracy than a multipolar world anyway I'm not sure it was a threat to democracy as such (which wasn't a major consideration at the time), but the Pax Britannica which the British Empire was able to unilaterally enforce from the Congress of Vienna until the outbreak of WWI was perhaps the best and only example of a dominant superpower maintaining world order since the Roman Empire. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 26, 2024 21:19:21 GMT
What is it about Hungary's government that makes it very right wing and what policies should it jettison and what policies should it take on board to make it more 'moderate'? Perhaps this will help Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. It has increasingly identified as illiberal.What policies do they need to drop in your opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by borgr0 on Oct 26, 2024 22:52:06 GMT
All unions have their time and I'm seeing the EU looks like it's in existential turmoil, I'm not denigrating the EU at all - they do good work and their main aim in being formed was to prevent a repeat of WWII; to that end I hope they succeed, but sometimes a union needs to end and something needs to replace it - just like the league of nations was once replaced by the UN. The same might be true with the EU, but there should be no vacuum left if it does disintegrate. If there's a vacuum, it will be bad news. The same is true with the WTO replacing GATT etc etc etc, the WTO needs replacing now as that is dead too. And same for the UN, and many other global agencies that are no longer fit for purpose (arguably), I am condemning none of them, they all do and did good work but sometimes their time comes to an end, new things must be sought. How about an ending for dictatorships and their ilk? With Georgia on the brink of joining Russia, after much interference in the Georgian election by Russia, it looks like the Russian dictatorship has set its sights on more control of the countries around it. What does an 'end' to dictatorships look like? Nuclear obliteration? I nor anyone else are suggesting that dictatorships should dominate |
|
|
|
Post by borgr0 on Oct 26, 2024 22:55:17 GMT
There is actually nothing wrong with a multipolar world order, in fact, a world order with one dominant superpower is a much bigger threat to democracy than a multipolar world anyway I'm not sure it was a threat to democracy as such (which wasn't a major consideration at the time), but the Pax Britannica which the British Empire was able to unilaterally enforce from the Congress of Vienna until the outbreak of WWI was perhaps the best and only example of a dominant superpower maintaining world order since the Roman Empire. Did it really maintain world order though? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 27, 2024 7:26:03 GMT
What is it about Hungary's government that makes it very right wing and what policies should it jettison and what policies should it take on board to make it more 'moderate'? Perhaps this will help Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. It has increasingly identified as illiberal.So a government restricting freedom of thought and behaviour is in your eyes, or at least you agree, RW. Restricting thought is an impossibility but we could put it down as the free exchange of ideas, which our government does restrict with some vigour, and has done, for many years. And it is becoming worse. It also restricts behaviour in many ways through law. Perhaps you mean certain thoughts and behaviours. Do you wish to give it another go and be more specific as what you have given so far does not help? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 7:33:35 GMT
Perhaps this will help Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. It has increasingly identified as illiberal.What policies do they need to drop in your opinion? No, I'm not here to answer your Rightist questions about the obvious things taking place in the real world, just here to point out how easily Rightists, like yourself, play dumb and turn a blind eye to the wrongs of hard right and far right politics. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 7:44:58 GMT
Perhaps this will help Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance is a right-wing populist and national-conservative political party in Hungary led by Viktor Orbán. It has increasingly identified as illiberal.So a government restricting freedom of thought and behaviour is in your eyes, or at least you agree, RW. Restricting thought is an impossibility but we could put it down as the free exchange of ideas, which our government does restrict with some vigour, and has done, for many years. And it is becoming worse. It also restricts behaviour in many ways through law. Perhaps you mean certain thoughts and behaviours. Do you wish to give it another go and be more specific as what you have given so far does not help? You have introduced the term "restricting freedom of thought" which is of course a complete nonsense, created by yourself to allow you to appear to defend RW . I understand that you live inside of your imagination. Resisting Rightist politics is the responsibility of fair minded people. If you are too think to be able to understand the reality being illiberal, then you will not understand any of the commonsense I have to offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 27, 2024 7:58:41 GMT
I'm not sure it was a threat to democracy as such (which wasn't a major consideration at the time), but the Pax Britannica which the British Empire was able to unilaterally enforce from the Congress of Vienna until the outbreak of WWI was perhaps the best and only example of a dominant superpower maintaining world order since the Roman Empire. Did it really maintain world order though? Yes, better than any corresponding period before or since.
However if you believe ex-MP Kwasi Kwarteng it didn't do much for democracy: 'The British Empire was not merely bad for democracy, it was anti-democracy.' He was wrong of course, it focused on nurturing democratic government in places and among societies where it could thrive, not where it clearly wouldn't (like Kwarteng's ancestral home of the Gold Coast).
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 27, 2024 8:07:31 GMT
What policies do they need to drop in your opinion? No, I'm not here to answer your Rightist questions about the obvious things taking place in the real world, just here to point out how easily Rightists, like yourself, play dumb and turn a blind eye to the wrongs of hard right and far right politics. You refuse again to unpack this smear so the subject can be discussed in terms of right and wrong It seems pretty likely to me that the reason you maintain this stance is that you know the policies you oppose are actually often pretty reasonable, and the converse policies you want (ie forcing catastrophic mass migration) are not remotely reasonable or popular. This means that you are being deceptive in an attempt to promote policies you know are unreasonable and unpopular |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 27, 2024 8:17:00 GMT
All a 'united states of europe' will do is give the modern day equivalent of the Vichy French somewhere to hold court. The answer to Putin is a taste of his own policy towards people he is less than keen stay breathing. But that won't be happening any time soon. You are entitled to your opinion. The basis of the EU is to raise the economic levels of its members. As, when or if, the EU gradually gets its act together, it will become economically stronger to the point that it will be necessary for it to be able to defend itself and to defend democracy with all its freedoms, freedoms that don't exist in dictatorship countries. I wonder sometimes if you truly believe what you write, given the facts clear to all The 'basis' of the European union, far from raising any measurable metrics for anyone save it's freeloading parliamentarians and service staff, who enjoy special tax rates on their bloated salaries, is now, was when the original Lisbon Constitution was rejected by multiple voices, and was when the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation poured the foundations for the Treaty of Rome, to drag the front runners in the European Leader Board down to the level of the basket cases by forcing them to shower said basket cases with largesse. They have from day one cosseted the inefficient and the feckless wastrel. The butter and beef mountains, milk and wine lakes dumped on former African colonies to remove the possibility of their being sold to member state citizens for the real price they were worth, is just one small part of the socialist bubble under which this shitshower operated.... The United Kingdom was forced on two separate occasions in the last 100 years to launch military adventures financially crippling itself in the process, to save four of the original six EEC countries from the military adventures of the other two. They can no more get their shit together to defend themselves than Kier Starmer could identify a working woman, although it must be said his deputy, standing by a poster advertising 20 minutes for a most reasonable sum, might have demonstrated her grasp of that issue . The fact they are still arguing about whether to act to stop Putin moving the border of his fiefdom next to Poland and eye it up longing for days past demonstrates far more eloquently than any of my words the reality of their disconnection. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 27, 2024 8:23:16 GMT
I'm not sure it was a threat to democracy as such (which wasn't a major consideration at the time), but the Pax Britannica which the British Empire was able to unilaterally enforce from the Congress of Vienna until the outbreak of WWI was perhaps the best and only example of a dominant superpower maintaining world order since the Roman Empire. Did it really maintain world order though? Well that's quite a good point I don't know if the British Empire 'maintained world order'. We had the most impressive sea power and played world policeman for a while, but I don't think we maintained WORLD peace. However, my great uncle's journals from the days in the RAMC witnessing partition of India, and the shitshow in most of Continental Africa since Western powers colonising it fucked off suggest we and others were good at keeping our own houses in order |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 8:28:00 GMT
No, I'm not here to answer your Rightist questions about the obvious things taking place in the real world, just here to point out how easily Rightists, like yourself, play dumb and turn a blind eye to the wrongs of hard right and far right politics. It seems pretty likely to me that the reason you maintain this stance is that you know the policies you oppose are actually often pretty reasonable, and the converse policies you want (ie forcing catastrophic mass migration) are not remotely reasonable or popular.
This means that you are being deceptive in an attempt to promote policies you know are unreasonable and unpopularThe decision has already been made on the recognizable extremes of Politics from the far-Left to the far-Right. Recognising the reality is not smearing. I agree with some of the concerns that Rightists have, I just do not trust Rightists to handle problems in a reasonable way. Rightist propaganda is designed is designed to get Rightists elected, but I fully expect that if a Rightist government were to be elected that would be when the problems start. Just as with Hard-Right Thatcher. Your claim regarding to what I want is an absolute lie, you do not know what I want. You are the one being deceptive by posting the rubbish about me that passes through your imagination as if it was true, which is in fact a second LIE. Shame on you. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Oct 27, 2024 8:28:19 GMT
So a government restricting freedom of thought and behaviour is in your eyes, or at least you agree, RW. Restricting thought is an impossibility but we could put it down as the free exchange of ideas, which our government does restrict with some vigour, and has done, for many years. And it is becoming worse. It also restricts behaviour in many ways through law. Perhaps you mean certain thoughts and behaviours. Do you wish to give it another go and be more specific as what you have given so far does not help? You have introduced the term "restricting freedom of thought" which is of course a complete nonsense, created by yourself to allow you to appear to defend RW . I understand that you live inside of your imagination. Resisting Rightist politics is the responsibility of fair minded people. If you are too think to be able to understand the reality being illiberal, then you will not understand any of the commonsense I have to offer. Actually I checked the definition of illiberal. If you have another definition I am perfectly happy to go with that all you have to do is tell me what it is and from whence you obtain it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 27, 2024 8:35:24 GMT
You are entitled to your opinion. The basis of the EU is to raise the economic levels of its members. As, when or if, the EU gradually gets its act together, it will become economically stronger to the point that it will be necessary for it to be able to defend itself and to defend democracy with all its freedoms, freedoms that don't exist in dictatorship countries. I wonder sometimes if you truly believe what you write, given the facts clear to all The 'basis' of the European union, far from raising any measurable metrics for anyone save it's freeloading parliamentarians and service staff, who enjoy special tax rates on their bloated salaries, is now, was when the original Lisbon Constitution was rejected by multiple voices, and was when the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation poured the foundations for the Treaty of Rome, to drag the front runners in the European Leader Board down to the level of the basket cases by forcing them to shower said basket cases with largesse. They have from day one cosseted the inefficient and the feckless wastrel. The butter and beef mountains, milk and wine lakes dumped on former African colonies to remove the possibility of their being sold to member state citizens for the real price they were worth, is just one small part of the socialist bubble under which this shitshower operated.... The United Kingdom was forced on two separate occasions in the last 100 years to launch military adventures financially crippling itself in the process, to save four of the original six EEC countries from the military adventures of the other two. They can no more get their shit together to defend themselves than Kier Starmer could identify a working woman, although it must be said his deputy, standing by a poster advertising 20 minutes for a most reasonable sum, might have demonstrated her grasp of that issue . The fact they are still arguing about whether to act to stop Putin moving the border of his fiefdom next to Poland and eye it up longing for days past demonstrates far more eloquently than any of my words the reality of their disconnection. I am totally shocked by your one eyed view of the EU, which IMO exposed your ingrained bias against the EU. But I am just about to have my breakfast and recover from the shock., back later. |
|
