I think former US Ambassador Bolton hits the nail on the head here. Especially about Cameron's failure to achieve serious reform making it clear that reform was not possible.
I think former US Ambassador Bolton hits the nail on the head here. Especially about Cameron's failure to achieve serious reform making it clear that reform was not possible.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You're favorably citing John Bolton when discussing an international organization? Next you'll be citing Ramsay Bolton when discussing the merits of torture.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm having a difficult enough time untangling game of thrones from current affairs as it is, thank you
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Fancy playing the ball rather than the man?
Not exactly an accurate metaphor.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
You've got a better one?
We're not talking about having dinner. And if we were talking about dinner it wouldn't be the part where you talk about what you eat but about if you prefer a table that's wobbly over one that's level.
Congratulations America
Or we'd be talking about eating permanently in the same restaurant where we we don't particularly like what's been served and half the guests have been given food poisoning, versus cooking our own meals and looking to try some new places.
Anyway, so it seems like Boris' brainfart landed flat on its face. And Cameron was told his immigration control was not going to happen if he wanted market access. What you think you gonna get for a deal?
Congratulations America
My expectation is EFTA/EEA with freedom of movement maintained but some restrictions similar to what Cameron had negotiated just going a little bit further.
Clean, simple and the fastest thing that could be agreed. Keeps the financial passport.
I don't know if you can answer this question but I've seen some suggest that the EFTA has freedom of labour and not freedom of movement, eg you could put in a restriction that somebody needs to have a job before they arrive and thus stop a lot of unskilled migrants arriving without a job while maintaining the four freedoms principle. Another difference I've read some claim is that the EFTA has free movement but without the need to not discriminate on benefits, so we could have workers arrive but not top up low paid wages with tax credits. I doubt both personally. Is there a difference?
The Cameron deal is dead. So you can forget about that. I also don't quite see why you'd need it to be revived. You could just as easily legislate yourselves, this time round a little bit more sensible. If we can exclude non-contribuary prestations you should be able to .
The British problem is very specific. If you make a benefit depending on work status it becomes incredibly hard to exclude any EU citizen. If you make the benefit dependent on having an income lower than a set social minimum you can easily limit access. The ECJ has ruled that way several times. You have a right to look for work in another state, and you have the right to work there. But you don't have a right to be a burden on the recieving state.
Congratulations America
That'd be my preferred solution but the left here would scream blue murder about it.
I know the Cameron deal is dead, I think that plus a little bit more is likely to be the basis of a new negotiation. EG the Cameron deal allowed restrictions on benefits for new migrants for four years from a remain vote, after that it would take agreement that the need was still there which without the pressure of a vote likely would not be agreed.
A better compromise could be four years from when a migrant arrives.
The fact that you're citing a man who's about the least credible person in the world when it comes to international organizations is telling.
Britain = Sansa
Boris Johnson = Ramsay Bolton
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm citing a man who said something I agreed with.
Boris Johnson is Littlefinger: a man who'd "see this country burn if he could be king of the ashes"
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
"That was excellently observed, say I, when I read a Passage in an Author where his Opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken."
If I had the same thoughts as David Duke on race, it might lead me to rethink my views.
Littlefinger cares about Sansa. At least a bit.
Hope is the denial of reality
I think you may find that increasing the volume and shrillness of your arguments is a poor substitution for substance. I find it increasingly hard to take you or your views seriously.
New York Times disagrees with you, apparently agreeing with Bolton is quite possible.
The Shame of the United Nations
FEB. 26, 2006
When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America's ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. A once-promising reform proposal has been so watered down that it has become an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. It should be renegotiated or rejected.
Some of the world's most abusive regimes have won seats on the Human Rights Commission and used them to insulate themselves from criticism. Current members include Sudan, which is carrying out genocide; Nepal, whose absolute monarch has suspended basic liberties; and Saudi Arabia, where women have few rights. All are gross violators of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the commission's founding document.
Ideally, violators of the declaration should be barred from the new Human Rights Council, which would succeed the commission. Mr. Annan's original proposal did not go that far. But it significantly raised the bar by requiring a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly to win a seat. This essential change has been eliminated and replaced by a technical adjustment barely visible to the naked eye. Slates will still be nominated by regional blocs without regard to human rights performance. A few other incremental improvements are not enough to redeem this pathetic draft. Approving it, as groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International wrongly urge, would take off the heat for meaningful change.
Mr. Bolton, representing an administration whose record is stained by Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles. But he also represents the United States, with its long and proud human rights tradition. We hope that his refusal to go along with this shameful charade can produce something better.
I realize that a chunk of modern conservatism is all about intellectual relativism and pretending that everyone's views are equally valid, facts be damned, but there is something called a credible source. Bolton is not it.
The NY Times Editorial Board is an even less credible source. I've never seen a bunch of supposedly educated people be so systematically dishonest on so many different topics.
Care to provide a reason as to why NY Times editors are experts in international organization? And before you invoke Bolton: the guy is mocked by the entire international organization community, both academic and practitioners.
Last edited by Loki; 06-29-2016 at 11:05 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
This was a general critique about how I have viewed your recent postings, not a specific one.
Ooh shock someone who calls out a community and says uncomfortable truths about it is mocked by it.
I've heard of an Italian by the name of Galileo Galilei who has suggested that the Earth may revolve around the Sun but the astronomer community has mocked his work so we should discount such heresy.
If that's your argument, you have no argument.
I have many but I'll tell you a story instead. It's about a bunch of people who live and work together and they eat their meals at a cafeteria where they provide most of the ingredients for the food. The cafeteria has a diverse buffet menu and reasonable prices, both determined somewhat democratically. Most members are perfectly okay with the menu. The fussiest member, Dick Butte, is okay with the menu about 95% of the time (he recently married GGT's vegan relative, before that he was pretty reasonable by jerk-standards although you had to give him a discount on everything even though he actually made a lot more money than some of the others). Some other people who live and work nearby, for a smaller operation, are pretty keen on eating at this cafeteria too. They don't really want to be friends or help out so you arrive at a compromise: in exchange for having some access to the cafeteria, they agree to pay their share and they agree to share the available seating space without making a ruckus even if they occasionally have to sit next to people with funny names who wear Axe body-spray. Because they have their own shit going on and because they don't really get to determine the menu, they get a small discount on their meals. Slowly you all get to know each other and develop amicable relationships that often verge on the friendly. You share stories and experiences, you babysit each other's kids and let them mow lawns, you walk each other's dogs and do other things that good neighbours do.
Then one day, Dick Butte--who'd been increasingly difficult to accommodate lately as a result of his unhealthy marriage--decides to tell all of his colleagues to fuck off, he doesn't need them or the job, he's gonna strike out on his own and make his own fortune peddling roast chicken because he's sick of there being roast chicken on the menu only every couple of weeks and also because he hates the new guy, Paul Verminski. He really does want to keep eating at the cafeteria though. And, oh yeah, he doesn't want to share the space on the same terms as everyone else. Oh no, he wants a special table and he wants to be able to choose who gets to sit next to him at the special table (not Paul Verminski) even though no-one else gets to do this and even though the whole point of the cafeteria is to help all the neighbours and colleagues bond through conversations over shared meals. Dick Butte thinks he can pull this off because he believes he tells really funny stories and sometimes laughs when one of the senior members of the group, Gerhardt Mann, tries to tell a joke that (like all his jokes) isn't very funny.
The original group of friends see that the outsiders would also be very interested in such a deal because they're kinda stuck up and don't much care for Verminski. They were mostly fine with the previous arrangement but now they see another option opening up where they might be able to have their cake and eat it too, at their own special table that they wouldn't have to share.
So the original friends talk amongst themselves and notify Dick Butte that, even though he's turned into a real dick-butt, he used to be a good friend and he's therefore welcome to keep eating at the cafeteria under the same conditions as all the other outsiders. But if that's not to his liking he can bloody well sod off.
fin.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Loki, I believe the British have had enough of experts. If you know what I mean
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes Rand, it's because he's a Galileo, not because he's completely oblivious to all research and facts.
And I realize you got on GGT's bandwagon in hating experts, but my advisor is one of the foremost experts on international organization, who advised the UN (and has met Bolton). And he's more or less a realist who's not starry-eyed about the goodness of international organizations. Bolton is the Trump of the diplomatic community. All bluster.
Hope is the denial of reality
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Aren't we in a bit of denial there EJ? For starters the claim that nobody still wants to join the EU is a flat out lie, but more than that, Switzerland actually doesn't quite know how to live with the last change of its constitution foisted upon it by the SVP. As for the recovery, bilateral treaties anyone? The four freedoms apply in the confederation just as much as they apply in the rest of the EU or Norway for that matter.
Congratulations America
First, I am not Nicholas Antenen. I might should have written right away that I don't agree with each and every sentence.
The claim that almost no one considers joining the EU is true. Of course "almost" must be taken as relative number of the Swiss population. Fact is, there is no political party that is pushing the EU agenda anymore. Not even the SP is pushing this agenda.
I support the Bilaterals and they are as I see it, a reason for our recent growth. But then again, the time before the Bilaterals was a time of stagnation not a time of recession.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I didn't assume you were the author, but assumed that by posting that you agreed with what he wrote. Now I wonder why you posted it, because what you agree with I no longer know. Was it the breaking up of Switzerland? I don't think anybody ever thought that was going to happen for real anyway. Switzerland is defined way too much by what it isn't (not Germany, not France, not Italy and maybe for some people still not Austrian) to let a conflict over external relations lead to a break up.
Congratulations America
It was never in real danger, but the tension between French and German speaking Switzerland was there at the time. It is extremely similar to the Scotland case.
I agree with the general message that there is no need for panic, and things often turn out not as bad as you might think. Yes the world wars have happened but not every crisis ends up in WWIII.
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
I hardly think WW III is around the corner either, but I also think that people that war in Europe is a thing of the past are half-brained idiots. People very obviously are capable of doing incredible harm to their neighbours (as in the people who live next door to them) for those neighbours different appearance or religion as we speak. We should be under no illusions what people would be willing to do about the 'other' whose face they don't know or will ever see.It was never in real danger, but the tension between French and German speaking Switzerland was there at the time. It is extremely similar to the Scotland case.
I agree with the general message that there is no need for panic, and things often turn out not as bad as you might think. Yes the world wars have happened but not every crisis ends up in WWIII.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
