TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes

Users who are viewing this thread

I feel that there is a fundamental miscommunication on something here. You are not hearing what I am saying. The statistics that you have are for people who were judged guilty of the crime. About a quarter of them are from Middle East. Those 840 something people who were convicted of rape are a minuscule number when compared to the number of people who actually committed the crime. You do not have the data to generalize the way that you are doing. This part is not about politics, it's about math.

Women are more likely to report rape if it's from a stranger than if it is from someone in their family, as I am sure you know. And violence from a family member represents the overwhelming majority of the cases. And as far as convicting the foreigner vs a native born, that is not about being "racist scum", it's about bias and it's a thing in every country in the world. And Sweden is not the monocromatic progressive heaven that you imagine it to be. Look up the Swedish Democrats, they're a lot of fun.
Ok, I thought you meant something else. My bad. I don't know if just because the perp was ethnically foreign we can assume he was likely a stranger and therefore more likely to be reported. My guess would be that they would be disgruntled ex-boyfriends or rejected suitors, rather than complete strangers emerging from the shadows. I don't want to spend hours googling and reading studies and reports about this tbh. Whatever the exact numbers and whatever the reasons, the tendency of Muslim/MENA immigrants to Europe to be more inclined to crime than the population average is well enough established for it to allow for a joke/snarky comment. It wasn't supposed to be an actually serious prediction of who those specific 5 murderers were. I don't see a reason why we should walk on eggshells around it. I don't get agitated if someone points out that Slavic migrants to Western Europe are not such a boon for the native populations either. If I'm mad at anyone it's the criminal Slavs giving us a bad name and I don't go around moaning how poor Ivan and Pavel probably had it rough as kids, and the natives should spend ever more money on integrating them so that the duo kindly stops robbing them.
 

Currently, most Hungarian universities are owned by the state but have a large amount of academic autonomy.

The bill, drafted by Prime Minister Viktor Orban's deputy, says the universities need to be reorganised and run by foundations because modern conditions require a "re-thinking of the role of the state" and the foundations will manage institutions more efficiently.

His [Orban] government will appoint boards of trustees to run the foundations, which will control substantial real estate assets and benefit from billions of euros worth of EU funds, while also having considerable influence over universities' everyday life.
And the EU sits idly by :xf-grin:
 
Yeah, but the whole EU funding autocrats is really an equally populistic shtick as any other EU boogieman narrative.
 
We are. Your latter description seems fair, whereas the former seems populistic, in my mind. The statements are distinct.

And the EU sits idly by... In this case I don't think there's anything to do. But in general Hungary is slipping into autocracy while EU funds flow to the political elite. Sad to watch.

The EU doesn't have autocrats (Orban comes closest). Corruption (with EU funds) in new eastern European member states has already been acknowledged by the EU as 'an issue'.


Populism thrives on misdirection and exaggerated sentiments. The former communicates that, the latter does not.
 
Idk what the rationale is for making it discrimination based instead of rule of law. The Commission will usually opt for venues that it thinks will have most favorable outcomes. It isn't obliged to take action if better alternatives may exist in its mind.

The recent COVID budget was supposed to include an article or such loosely mandating respect for rule of law or losing out on EU fund, which Poland and Hungary cucked iirc.

Don't like the narrative that "it's ignored". There was a lot of fuss and effort put into attempting to tying rule of law to EU funds in that proposal.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and the mechanism got butchered and now it will be to the ECJ to hopefully transform it into something with some actual teeth.

The trouble is that Commission invets reasons not to take any meaningful steps. There is the Art 7 Rule of Law Procedure that basically goes: let's talk, then let's vote, then let's determine sanctions. Instead of actually using it the second it is needed, the Commission invents its pre-Art 7 procedure that is just more talking before you actually get to Art 7 talking, slowing the whole process and allowing the autocrats to gain more time either to wind down the **** they do or to gather political support for the Art 7 procedure. Or Poland packes its court with firing its justices because hey - justices are old. So they introduce a new age limit and suddenly most of the justices are unable to hold office. Yet the Commission does not do anything rule of law related and instead claims it discriminates on the grounds of age. Duh. Unsuprisingly, they win the case before the ECJ, some justices are reinstated, the Commission makes a great statement about how they saved a Polish court, but actually did nothing to adress the core issue - the rule of law crisis.

The Commission has strong tools even now but it does not use them. Whether it is because it is politically sensitive, because they think it will solve itself, because they fear they may actually lose wherever the Council is involved, or any other reason, I don't know. But it certainly doesn't do enough.They snipe around and pick the fights they are sure to win, but it is never the fight that needs to be fought.
 
Sure, that's one narrative. The other one is that the EU is one Member State shorter because the whole (seemingly?) undemocratic liberalism stuff comes with push back from illiberal democrats. You can charachterize the reluctantcy as political indecisiveness (and discount that the Commission has a fair history of challenging Member States constitutions' iirc).

Tying EU funds to rule of law was a good idea. And talking is an important part of the process because the EU is a economic and political union of sovereign states. It's not a federation yet, and it has to adhere to the subsidiary principle where action is preferably always supposed to be taken locally first, as you understand. I'd personally really like a strong Commission too (hell, make the whole thing a federation already). But we're probably being too idealistic and not thinking about repercussions here.
 
Back
Top Bottom