http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8153139.stm
QuoteIcelandic MPs back EU entry bid
Iceland's parliament in session, 16 July
Observers were expecting a close vote
Parliament in Iceland has voted to set in motion an application to join the European Union after five days of exhaustive debate.
Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir of the Social Democrats has also been pushing for the adoption of the euro as the Nordic country's currency.
The bid must now be approved by the EU, after which Iceland's people will be asked to vote on it in a referendum.
Opponents of the bid fear EU quotas could hurt Iceland's fishing industry.
Correspondents say Iceland, with a population of just 320,000, has traditionally been sceptical about joining the EU.
But many people there have warmed to the idea of membership following the devastating economic meltdown which saw the top Icelandic banks collapse in a matter of days last year.
:uffda:
Europa united, strong, and free.
They are welcome to join as far as I'm concerned.
Now that they're poor they want in. Selfish bastards.
Time to make them give up whale hunting. :menace:
Turkey aint gonna like this....But I welcome it.
After all their misfortunes I think the Icelanders deserve a bit of coddling from the EU.
It's about time Iceland (and Norway for that matter) stop the free ride and actually get themselves a EU Comissioner and some EU Parliamentarians. Cause the only real changes for Iceland will be this.
A) We can get rid of our Monopoly Money Currency and adopt the Euro (EU membership is a pre-condition for adoption)
B) We now get a say in how the EU is run, PRE-NICE TREATY. So we can sabotage the whole thing by means of Veto.
C) We can join the CAP and now German taxpayers can fund our bankrupt agriculture rather than Icelandic taxpayers.
D) We have to let Spanish and Portugese trawlers rape our fisheries. Eh, probably not, look at B).
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 10:31:17 AMB) We now get a say in how the EU is run, PRE-NICE TREATY. So we can sabotage the whole thing by means of Veto.
I don't understand that point. Can you elaborate what you mean? :huh:
Quote from: Armyknife on July 16, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
Sure let them in, only after they agree to properly share* their fishing grounds.
* EU sharing involves allowing 2nd/3rd rank members to devastate your fishing stocks. :cry:
That's the tradeoff isn't it? A couple billion dollars in exchange for killing all their fish.
What I don't get is how the elimination of Mediterranean tuna is not a bigger deal in supposedly eco friendly Europe.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 16, 2009, 10:27:34 AM
After all their misfortunes I think the Icelanders deserve a bit of coddling from the EU.
:P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 10:45:27 AM
That's the tradeoff isn't it? A couple billion dollars in exchange for killing all their fish.
What I don't get is how the elimination of Mediterranean tuna is not a bigger deal in supposedly eco friendly Europe.
I admit that I don't know much about either EU fisheries policy or tuna in the Mediterranean. I guess it's just not a topic that gets much media attention, because it is not "sexy".
We shouldn't let them in. We need an alibi vs Turkey.
Quote from: Zanza on July 16, 2009, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 10:31:17 AMB) We now get a say in how the EU is run, PRE-NICE TREATY. So we can sabotage the whole thing by means of Veto.
I don't understand that point. Can you elaborate what you mean? :huh:
The EU is trying to implement the Nice Treaty (without complete success), the most important bit in the Nice treaty is majority voting rather than unanimity. Basically the idea is to prevent east european ministates from hijacking the EU just because they are EU skeptics *cough*Czech Republic*cough*. Should the Nice Treaty continue to be delayed and Iceland (being a better EU Citizen already through the EEA Treaty than any state south of the alps) can be fast tracked in before the Nice Treaty.
I'd watch out for terms for entry that require Iceland to accept the Nice Treaty whatever it's final form might be regardless and the right of the Icelandic coast guard to sink any portugese or spanish registered ships they can find.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 11:10:10 AM
Quote from: Zanza on July 16, 2009, 10:38:18 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 10:31:17 AMB) We now get a say in how the EU is run, PRE-NICE TREATY. So we can sabotage the whole thing by means of Veto.
I don't understand that point. Can you elaborate what you mean? :huh:
The EU is trying to implement the Nice Treaty (without complete success), the most important bit in the Nice treaty is majority voting rather than unanimity. Basically the idea is to prevent east european ministates from hijacking the EU just because they are EU skeptics *cough*Czech Republic*cough*. Should the Nice Treaty continue to be delayed and Iceland (being a better EU Citizen already through the EEA Treaty than any state south of the alps) can be fast tracked in before the Nice Treaty.
I'd watch out for terms for entry that require Iceland to accept the Nice Treaty whatever it's final form might be regardless and the right of the Icelandic coast guard to sink any portugese or spanish registered ships they can find.
I think you mean the Lisbon Treaty not the Nice Treaty.
Quote from: Cerr on July 16, 2009, 11:13:10 AM
I think you mean the Lisbon Treaty not the Nice Treaty.
If so, then :blush: :blush:
Okay, that explains my confusion. The Nice Treaty has been in force for six years already. By the way, there has been some kind of majority voting ever since the Treaty of Rome. They just added some more areas to it in the Lisbon Treaty and changed the voting mechanism a bit.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 16, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
Sure let them in, only after they agree to properly share* their fishing grounds.
* EU sharing involves allowing 2nd/3rd rank members to devastate your fishing stocks. :cry:
you'll probably get exemptions on that.
If Iceland does apply, they'll be in by 2012, together with Croatia.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 16, 2009, 10:14:20 AM
Sure let them in, only after they agree to properly share* their fishing grounds.
* EU sharing involves allowing 2nd/3rd rank members to devastate your fishing stocks. :cry:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 10:45:27 AMWhat I don't get is how the elimination of Mediterranean tuna is not a bigger deal in supposedly eco friendly Europe.
It gets plenty of coverage, at least around here. IMO it's a bit exagerated and it's diverting attention from other issues, but it has to be adressed.
Why it's happening is actually quite simple, the Sicilian mafia is (fo' real!) behind its fishery, and quotas don't get in the way of their profits.
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:37:55 AM
It gets plenty of coverage, at least around here. IMO it's a bit exagerated and it's diverting attention from other issues, but it has to be adressed.
Why it's happening is actually quite simple, the Sicilian mafia is (fo' real!) behind its fishery, and quotas don't get in the way of their profits.
What do you mean by the mafia is behind it? The articles I've read say it is a cuppa two tree Spanish and French corporate fishing fleets (mostly Spanish).
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 10:31:17 AM
D) We have to let Spanish and Portugese trawlers rape our fisheries. Eh, probably not, look at B).
We don't own a fishing fleet anymore, we buy the fish from the Spanish as everyone else.
Anyways, more cod is always good news. :cool:
Quote from: clandestino on July 16, 2009, 11:54:46 AM
We don't own a fishing fleet anymore, we buy the fish from the Spanish as everyone else.
Portugal without fishermen?!
Wow that is like Sicily without Mafioso or France without wineries.
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:31:55 AM
If Iceland does apply, they'll be in by 2012, together with Croatia.
Don't count on it.
Fucking Slovenes.
I would imagine that the 'loot and plunder' EU would be happy for another biosphere to rape.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:37:55 AM
It gets plenty of coverage, at least around here. IMO it's a bit exagerated and it's diverting attention from other issues, but it has to be adressed.
Why it's happening is actually quite simple, the Sicilian mafia is (fo' real!) behind its fishery, and quotas don't get in the way of their profits.
What do you mean by the mafia is behind it? The articles I've read say it is a cuppa two tree Spanish and French corporate fishing fleets (mostly Spanish).
The two fleets more responsible for the overfishing of Mediterranean bluefin tuna are the French one based in Marseilles and the Italian one based in Sicily. Both are directly or indirectly controlled by organized crime, and EU inspectors and environmental groups have been threatened recently when they were hitting too close to home.
Quote from: Warspite on July 16, 2009, 12:14:01 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:31:55 AM
If Iceland does apply, they'll be in by 2012, together with Croatia.
Don't count on it.
Fucking Slovenes.
What's the problem with Slovenia? The territorial waters thingie?
Quote from: Warspite on July 16, 2009, 12:14:01 PM
Don't count on it.
Fucking Slovenes.
Why is Croatia claiming that coastal strip anyways? Don't they have enough coast and islands already?
(That's the story a Slovene sold me BTW).
@Valmy: When we entered the EU they were paying for the people to destroy their fishing boats, and since there are few things that Portuguese like the most then free money without working, we decimated the fleet and now buy from our Lords, the Spanish.
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 10:45:27 AMWhat I don't get is how the elimination of Mediterranean tuna is not a bigger deal in supposedly eco friendly Europe.
It gets plenty of coverage, at least around here. IMO it's a bit exagerated and it's diverting attention from other issues, but it has to be adressed.
Why it's happening is actually quite simple, the Sicilian mafia is (fo' real!) behind its fishery, and quotas don't get in the way of their profits.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: clandestino on July 16, 2009, 12:21:40 PM
@Valmy: When we entered the EU they were paying for the people to destroy their fishing boats, and since there are few things that Portuguese like the most then free money without working, we decimated the fleet and now buy from our Lords, the Spanish.
lolz
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 12:17:58 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 11:50:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:37:55 AM
It gets plenty of coverage, at least around here. IMO it's a bit exagerated and it's diverting attention from other issues, but it has to be adressed.
Why it's happening is actually quite simple, the Sicilian mafia is (fo' real!) behind its fishery, and quotas don't get in the way of their profits.
What do you mean by the mafia is behind it? The articles I've read say it is a cuppa two tree Spanish and French corporate fishing fleets (mostly Spanish).
The two fleets more responsible for the overfishing of Mediterranean bluefin tuna are the French one based in Marseilles and the Italian one based in Sicily. Both are directly or indirectly controlled by organized crime, and EU inspectors and environmental groups have been threatened recently when they were hitting too close to home.
A Spaniard complaining about overfishing? lolz.
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:31:55 AM
If Iceland does apply, they'll be in by 2012, together with Croatia.
Don't count on it.. Iceland (together with Norway and Lichtenstein) have special status with the EEA Treaty. Which means we are already effectively part of the EU. We just have a few more opt outs than the UK and we don't get to take part in decision making.
Plus, we (when we get this banking crisis over with) will be net contributors.
Quote from: clandestino on July 16, 2009, 12:21:40 PM
@Valmy: When we entered the EU they were paying for the people to destroy their fishing boats, and since there are few things that Portuguese like the most then free money without working, we decimated the fleet and now buy from our Lords, the Spanish.
Centuries of culture and heritage...sold out for free EU monies.
You Portuguese are alright.
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2009, 12:23:18 PM
A Spaniard complaining about overfishing? lolz.
Larchie is a biologist. :P
As for Iceland, I would make their entry dependent on Lisbon. Anything else would be utmost idiocy.
We shall properly label every single bent cucumber on the island whether they like it or not.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 12:41:08 PM
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 11:31:55 AM
If Iceland does apply, they'll be in by 2012, together with Croatia.
Don't count on it.. Iceland (together with Norway and Lichtenstein) have special status with the EEA Treaty. Which means we are already effectively part of the EU. We just have a few more opt outs than the UK and we don't get to take part in decision making.
Plus, we (when we get this banking crisis over with) will be net contributors.
That's why I added the "if". I'm still not sure of it happening, so we'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 16, 2009, 12:44:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2009, 12:23:18 PM
A Spaniard complaining about overfishing? lolz.
Larchie is a biologist. :P
But a Spaniard, and thus unable to come to grips with Spain's national crimes against the biosphere.
Quote from: Iormlund on July 16, 2009, 12:44:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2009, 12:23:18 PM
A Spaniard complaining about overfishing? lolz.
Larchie is a biologist. :P
As for Iceland, I would make their entry dependent on Lisbon. Anything else would be utmost idiocy.
We shall properly label every single bent cucumber on the island whether they like it or not.
If we're in the bussiness of showing off, it's Environmental biologist from Vigo, the biggest fishing port in Europe, with family in the fishing sector both in public and private sides, who has just finished a masters degree in Fisheries' Economics. :cool: If there's something I can talk semi-authoritatively in it's in fishing and conservation. :lol:
And by the way, the cucumber bent measuring normative was dropped recently amidst efforts of cutting red tape in European markets.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8153139.stm
The Icelandic Parliament thinks that the earliest date for entry would be 2013 with a referendum in 2012.
:lol:
Environmental biologist? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. What would a non-environmental biologist study? It's like they just felt the need to add the word 'environmental' in there, so you could be ordained as a priest in the enviro-religion.
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 12:54:41 PM
If we're in the bussiness of showing off, it's Environmental biologist from Vigo, the biggest fishing port in Europe, with family in the fishing sector both in public and private sides, who has just finished a masters degree in Fisheries' Economics. :cool: If there's something I can talk semi-authoritatively in it's in fishing and conservation. :lol:
That sounds like a background for a character in a PG Wodehouse novel. You should abandon the fish business, though there is money in fish, and put out a "Leave it to Larch" ad in the paper.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 12:57:15 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8153139.stm
The Icelandic Parliament thinks that the earliest date for entry would be 2013 with a referendum in 2012.
Back in January the Enlargement Commissioner said that, if Iceland applied quickly, it could be in as soon as 2011, so it can go faster that expected:
QuoteIceland could be fast-tracked to join the EU within two years, to help the small Nordic state out of its economic crisis, a top EU official says.
Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said that if Iceland applied soon, it could join at the same time as Croatia, which is expected to become a member by 2011.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7860078.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7860078.stm)
Quote from: The Larch on July 16, 2009, 01:01:12 PM
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 12:57:15 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8153139.stm
The Icelandic Parliament thinks that the earliest date for entry would be 2013 with a referendum in 2012.
Back in January the Enlargement Commissioner said that, if Iceland applied quickly, it could be in as soon as 2011, so it can go faster that expected:
QuoteIceland could be fast-tracked to join the EU within two years, to help the small Nordic state out of its economic crisis, a top EU official says.
Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said that if Iceland applied soon, it could join at the same time as Croatia, which is expected to become a member by 2011.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7860078.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7860078.stm)
They need time to equip their coast guard with netcutters.
Is Croatia getting in or do they still have to wait for the Lisabon Treaty?
So, yes, we're dropping off an EU application. Wow, I'm quite surprised that our MP's managed to do the right thing but maybe that can be explained by statistical probability finally catching up with them. :lol:
Still, it was a very close vote, with a personal roll call of every single MP, so no anonymous pushing of a Yes/No/Abstain button. Plus, the vote went every which way politically speaking, with MP's defying the party whips left and right. Rather dramatic with boos and cheers alternating and the Speaker having to hit the bell several times and remind Parliament to maintain at least a semblance of decorum toward each other.
The vote went 33 ayes against 27 nayes with 3 MP's abstaining.
The next item on the agenda will be Parliament agreeing on the Icesave deal between us and the UK & the Netherlands. This one is crucial, because if Parliament kills the deal (50/50 I'd say) Iceland will probably get it's IMF package pulled, it's EU membership blocked by the UK (much like Croatia is being cockblocked by Slovenia), followed by Iceland's loans being called in all at once, as well as the junking of the State's credit rating. Add in vulture funds buying up our debt at a hefty discount and refusing to go away. In short, a sovereign default.
All at the same time.
Even if we agree to pay back Icesave at 5.5% interest rate over the next 27 years, plus the IMF package as well as the unemployment/disability costs, I remain *somewhat* sceptical about Iceland managing to avoid an outright sovereign default. And if not, then at the very least it'll be a country of barebone services of any kind, sluggish economic growth and extremely (even for other Nordic countries) high taxation.
In short, this is a mess that will take generations to sort out. Not sure I want to stick around to be Gordon Brown's indentured servant unto the 3rd generation. ;) On the other hand if I and everyone who can do so gives up on Iceland and moves away, then who will pay for the bankers?
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 05:04:41 PM
Is Croatia getting in or do they still have to wait for the Lisabon Treaty?
Slovenia is being a complete asshole with the Piran border dispute.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 16, 2009, 10:27:34 AM
After all their misfortunes I think the Icelanders deserve a bit of coddling from the EU.
I'll settle for some from you. :hug: :lol:
The obvious solution: Declare war on the UK. If you win, the debt is gone and Britain is humbled for their dangerous behavior. If you lose, the UK will fix you up and build you an economy.
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 05:04:41 PM
Is Croatia getting in or do they still have to wait for the Lisabon Treaty?
The Lisbon Treaty was irrelevant to Croatia's entry; the general consensus with member governments that mattered and the EU Commission was that it would be enlargement
after Croatia that would need a treaty.
The problem is however the ridiculous border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia.
Maritime borders were never fixed in the old Yugoslavia, so the line of delineation between Croatian and Slovenian waters was not set, and the principle of uti possidetis could not apply.
The issue was put on ice for a while in various ways, but never resolved. The dispute always remained open. Now what is irksome is that Slovenia was permitted to enter the EU despite having these border disputes. One precondition of entry is that the country declare it has no disputes. So this affair was not considered important enough for the Slovenian entry to be delayed. Simply put, Croatia claims an equidistant border whereas Slovenia claims an equitable one (consult the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for the tedious details of the difference).
However, over the last year the Slovenian government (thanks to the usual Balkan problem of nationalist parties making noise in parliament, etc etc) claimed Croatia had prejudged the issue by submitting maps showing a border there etc etc.
The Croatian government of Ivo Sanader, who resigned two weeks ago (we're not sure why yet), staked all on two things: NATO entry (achieved) and EU entry. He was willing to go to the ICJ for neutral arbitration (which the Slovenes refuse to do - which is usually a good indicator of how confident they really are in their case). He also submitted to EU proposals for mediation (which would treat the issue as political, rather than legal). The Slovenes withdrew from that too.
Basically the Slovenes are trying to force a favourable solution to this most minor of disputes (it's a few hundred metres of water that would mean
nothing once Croatia were in the EU) by blackmailing their neighbour from a position of power (all EU entry approval has to be unanimous). And who can blame them for trying.
What pisses me off, as someone with background in Balkan security studies, is that the EU is not really trying to resolve this issue by pressuring the Slovenes to settle this outside the EU membership framework. The reason is that a) it opens a whole can of worms, setting a border-dispute-blackmail precedent that will be ten times worse with other ex-Yugoslav states and b) the EU has no other security strategy in the former Yugoslavia apart from enlargement.
Fine, you might say, who needs those ex-Yugos anyway. That's fine, except EU membership is the only carrot that is propelling key justice and economic reforms in Croatia and Serbia (and Bosnia, to the paltry extent they take place). If the process grinds to a halt and falls apart, then you're removing that key incentive for good governance reform.
The only long-term alternative then becomes a prophylactic strategy - keep the cross-border effects criminal networks and basket case economies out of the EU with expensive barriers. Which is hardly an ideal solution.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2009, 05:13:58 PM
The next item on the agenda will be Parliament agreeing on the Icesave deal between us and the UK & the Netherlands.
What are the terms of the deal?
Time to annex Greenland into it's proper place in the North American Imperium.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2009, 07:01:49 PM
Time to annex Greenland into it's proper place in the North American Imperium.
And bomb Denmark.
It's ridiculous that Croatia can't join because of that minor border dispute but Cyprus was allowed to join with a massive unsolved conflict.
And if you go back further in history, I'd say Germany had some disputes about territory too in 1957. ;)
We don't need the EU to get stronger.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2009, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2009, 07:01:49 PM
Time to annex Greenland into it's proper place in the North American Imperium.
And bomb Denmark.
Wouldn't you guys have to find it on a map first?
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2009, 05:33:24 PM
The obvious solution: Declare war on the UK. If you win, the debt is gone and Britain is humbled for their dangerous behavior. If you lose, the UK will fix you up and build you an economy.
lol, that's not a halfstupid idea :lol:
Well the Scots joined the UK when they buggered up their economy back in the 1700s, the English covered the debt in return. Maybe Iceland should join the UK on similar terms?
Quote from: Syt on July 17, 2009, 12:22:43 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2009, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2009, 07:01:49 PM
Time to annex Greenland into it's proper place in the North American Imperium.
And bomb Denmark.
Wouldn't you guys have to find it on a map first?
The bombs will do that for us.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 17, 2009, 07:09:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 17, 2009, 12:22:43 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2009, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2009, 07:01:49 PM
Time to annex Greenland into it's proper place in the North American Imperium.
And bomb Denmark.
Wouldn't you guys have to find it on a map first?
The bombs will do that for us.
Yeah, they aren't called 'smart bombs' because they read the classics.... now, that they were ever developed says a lot about their users, doesn't it? :P
Quote from: Siege on July 17, 2009, 12:18:08 AM
We don't need the EU to get stronger.
Why?
Surely as one of the believers in the big evil muslim menace threatening to overwhelm the world a strong 'christian' country is just what the doctor ordered?
But anyway; new members make the EU weaker.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 17, 2009, 07:09:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 17, 2009, 12:22:43 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 16, 2009, 07:03:43 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 16, 2009, 07:01:49 PM
Time to annex Greenland into it's proper place in the North American Imperium.
And bomb Denmark.
Wouldn't you guys have to find it on a map first?
The bombs will do that for us.
You will regret developing Smart Bombs some day.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.english.uiuc.edu%2Fcybercinema%2Fimages%2Fbomb20.jpg&hash=a24794e7cb7bdd1c17aed65b1c839980a702aae8)
Quote from: Tyr on July 17, 2009, 07:21:59 AM
Why?
Surely as one of the believers in the big evil muslim menace threatening to overwhelm the world a strong 'christian' country is just what the doctor ordered?
The EU doesn't have the moral strength to confront anyone. It is adrift and helpless.
Quote from: Siege on July 17, 2009, 12:18:08 AM
We don't need the EU to get stronger.
Adding a nation with a national debt three times its annual gross national product and has no military of any sort is not going to make the EU any stronger.
Quote from: Neil on July 17, 2009, 07:40:30 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 17, 2009, 07:21:59 AM
Why?
Surely as one of the believers in the big evil muslim menace threatening to overwhelm the world a strong 'christian' country is just what the doctor ordered?
The EU doesn't have the moral strength to confront anyone. It is adrift and helpless.
Compare this to the Caliphate though.
Even if you think the worst of the EU it still trumps a non-existant entity.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2009, 05:13:58 PM
The next item on the agenda will be Parliament agreeing on the Icesave deal between us and the UK & the Netherlands.
What are the terms of the deal?
Versailles Treaty x 3 for this country. Assuming the tax base dosen't emigrate en masse.:)
That's the best case scenario.
As to the details, we'll have 27 years to pay off the principal with a 5.5 % interest rate. Which is theoretically doable, provided we slash our education and welfare system down to that of say, Surinam along with with healthy fish stocks and high aluminum prices.
Quote from: Legbiter on July 17, 2009, 05:41:17 PM
Versailles Treaty x 3 for this country. Assuming the tax base dosen't emigrate en masse.:)
That's the best case scenario.
As to the details, we'll have 27 years to pay off the principal with a 5.5 % interest rate. Which is theoretically doable, provided we slash our education and welfare system down to that of say, Surinam along with with healthy fish stocks and high aluminum prices.
Who's the lender? What % of GDP do the payments represent? What percentage of government spending? Of Exports? How're the kids? Is your wife hott?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2009, 05:44:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 17, 2009, 05:41:17 PM
Versailles Treaty x 3 for this country. Assuming the tax base dosen't emigrate en masse.:)
That's the best case scenario.
As to the details, we'll have 27 years to pay off the principal with a 5.5 % interest rate. Which is theoretically doable, provided we slash our education and welfare system down to that of say, Surinam along with with healthy fish stocks and high aluminum prices.
Who's the lender? What % of GDP do the payments represent? What percentage of government spending? Of Exports? How're the kids? Is your wife hott?
I gave you the major points.
If you want details you can read the UK deal here http://www.island.is/media/frettir/innistaedutryggingar_bretand1.pdf (http://www.island.is/media/frettir/innistaedutryggingar_bretand1.pdf)
I'm too depressed to read that thing.
The wife is still hot and my sons are doing great. :)
Quote from: Legbiter on July 17, 2009, 05:41:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2009, 05:13:58 PM
The next item on the agenda will be Parliament agreeing on the Icesave deal between us and the UK & the Netherlands.
What are the terms of the deal?
Versailles Treaty x 3 for this country. Assuming the tax base dosen't emigrate en masse.:)
That's the best case scenario.
As to the details, we'll have 27 years to pay off the principal with a 5.5 % interest rate. Which is theoretically doable, provided we slash our education and welfare system down to that of say, Surinam along with with healthy fish stocks and high aluminum prices.
Now we just need a Dolchstoss myth and Tanks.
Quote from: Tyr on July 17, 2009, 08:02:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 17, 2009, 07:40:30 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 17, 2009, 07:21:59 AM
Why?
Surely as one of the believers in the big evil muslim menace threatening to overwhelm the world a strong 'christian' country is just what the doctor ordered?
The EU doesn't have the moral strength to confront anyone. It is adrift and helpless.
Compare this to the Caliphate though.
Even if you think the worst of the EU it still trumps a non-existant entity.
Not at all. If the EU didn't exist, then perhaps Europe could begin to return to sanity.
The Icelandic EU application stirs things here too.
I have moved from "Yes" to a very solid "No fucking way".
I don't need to see my taxes being wasted on Sarko's banker friends when they can be wasted here.
Quote from: Viking on July 18, 2009, 08:10:16 PMNow we just need a Dolchstoss myth and Tanks.
:lol:
This FT editorial said it best concerning our prospects for EU membership.
QuoteTiny Iceland's recent history is a parable of globalisation. Benefiting from footloose capital and light-touch regulation in the good years, the country set sail on the high seas of global finance. The prevailing winds were favourable. Risk-taking was admired. Small was beautiful.
But when crisis came, it hit Iceland like a tidal wave. The island's financial system drowned in debt. The country found itself without a lifeboat. A small but proud nation was reduced to handing round the begging-bowl in Washington, Moscow and London.
Britain, in particular, has proved itself a fair-weather friend, last week forcing Iceland to agree an unequal deal whereby Icelandic taxpayers will bear the burden of repaying $3.8 billion to naive British savers. The benefits of size have never seemed so clear.
Icelanders are not a traditionally clubbable nation. But after prolonged soul-searching, their parliament has now narrowly voted to apply to join the biggest club of them all: the European Union.
In Brussels, the vote has been interpreted as further proof that the EU may not be feared, but it is still loved. Commission President José Manuel Barroso claimed it as evidence of the "vitality of the European project" and the "hope that Europe represents". Perhaps.
But it will not be plain sailing ahead. Though much of EU law already applies in Iceland, negotiations on what remains will be tough. Fisheries will be a major obstacle. Any deal could yet be rejected by the Icelandic people. The attractions of a safe haven in Brussels – and of the euro in particular – may diminish with the dying gales of the global storm.
Talk of fast-tracking Icelandic membership is misplaced. Since Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007, progress on EU enlargement has been glacial. France and Germany have made clear there will be no agreement on new negotiations before the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Iceland is not Turkey. The barriers to its quick membership of the European Union are not so fundamental. But Iceland's bid may fall victim to bureaucratic gridlock and to political manoeuvring in other areas. It is privately accepted that Iceland could not join before Croatia, whose membership is currently stalemated by Slovenia. A best-case scenario would not see an Icelandic commissioner in Brussels before 2012. Reykjavik ought not be made to wait longer.
Icelanders should not hold their breath, but the EU must not drag its feet.
Legs, I hope you make it.
Don't come complaining when you have 2 million Romanian raping the land.
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2009, 12:17:49 PM
I would imagine that the 'loot and plunder' EU would be happy for another biosphere to rape.
Since when you are against biosphere raping? :huh:
Quote from: Viking on July 16, 2009, 12:41:08 PM
Plus, we (when we get this banking crisis over with) will be net contributors.
That's not enough. We will want you to be harpoon contributors, too. -_-
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2009, 12:41:10 PM
Centuries of culture and heritage...sold out for free EU monies.
Actually that's the best thing about the EU, and I mean it only half-jokingly.
In fact, this very mechanism is what I'm counting on when it comes to Poland. :P
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2009, 05:13:58 PM
So, yes, we're dropping off an EU application. Wow, I'm quite surprised that our MP's managed to do the right thing but maybe that can be explained by statistical probability finally catching up with them. :lol:
Still, it was a very close vote, with a personal roll call of every single MP, so no anonymous pushing of a Yes/No/Abstain button. Plus, the vote went every which way politically speaking, with MP's defying the party whips left and right. Rather dramatic with boos and cheers alternating and the Speaker having to hit the bell several times and remind Parliament to maintain at least a semblance of decorum toward each other.
The vote went 33 ayes against 27 nayes with 3 MP's abstaining.
The next item on the agenda will be Parliament agreeing on the Icesave deal between us and the UK & the Netherlands. This one is crucial, because if Parliament kills the deal (50/50 I'd say) Iceland will probably get it's IMF package pulled, it's EU membership blocked by the UK (much like Croatia is being cockblocked by Slovenia), followed by Iceland's loans being called in all at once, as well as the junking of the State's credit rating. Add in vulture funds buying up our debt at a hefty discount and refusing to go away. In short, a sovereign default.
All at the same time.
Even if we agree to pay back Icesave at 5.5% interest rate over the next 27 years, plus the IMF package as well as the unemployment/disability costs, I remain *somewhat* sceptical about Iceland managing to avoid an outright sovereign default. And if not, then at the very least it'll be a country of barebone services of any kind, sluggish economic growth and extremely (even for other Nordic countries) high taxation.
In short, this is a mess that will take generations to sort out. Not sure I want to stick around to be Gordon Brown's indentured servant unto the 3rd generation. ;) On the other hand if I and everyone who can do so gives up on Iceland and moves away, then who will pay for the bankers?
I bet all these people who said that sooner a black man will rule the US, a lesbian will rule Iceland and the Icelandic fat cats will go broke, than Iceland will join the EU, are feeling silly now. :P
Quote from: Siege on July 17, 2009, 12:18:08 AM
We don't need the EU to get stronger.
Who are "we"? Besides we need to get stronger, so we may fund Hammas more effectively. :P
Quote from: Legbiter on July 17, 2009, 05:41:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 06:14:00 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on July 16, 2009, 05:13:58 PM
The next item on the agenda will be Parliament agreeing on the Icesave deal between us and the UK & the Netherlands.
What are the terms of the deal?
Versailles Treaty x 3 for this country. Assuming the tax base dosen't emigrate en masse.:)
That's the best case scenario.
As to the details, we'll have 27 years to pay off the principal with a 5.5 % interest rate. Which is theoretically doable, provided we slash our education and welfare system down to that of say, Surinam along with with healthy fish stocks and high aluminum prices.
If you join the EU, you will be free to travel for work or for education throughout Europe, so you won't need it anyway. We can depopulate Iceland and change it into a geothermal energy plant/unsinkable air carrier. :P
Marty, you're pro-EU.
Sell me on it again. I don't WANT to be against the EU, but common sense tells me Norway has all to lose and nothing to gain from EU membership.
We'll have Spaniards vacuuming our coast, spend like a 10% of GDP on Bulgaria and Romania and get what? Nothing
I don't think Norway has much to gain from joining the EU. The biggest advantages the EU offers are access to the single market and good governance. The latter might sound funny for a Scandi, but it makes sense when you look at Eastern and Southern Europe. Norway has good governance anyway and has access to the single market.
The other argument one hears often is that you would have a say in EU matters if you joined. But then Norway's voice wouldn't be very loud in EU decision making and it would be offset by having to follow even more EU rules than now.
Yeah if I could avoid paying Swedish taxes in return for giving up my one-in-6-million vote the choice would be pretty clear.
Quote from: Martinus on July 19, 2009, 04:02:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 16, 2009, 12:17:49 PM
I would imagine that the 'loot and plunder' EU would be happy for another biosphere to rape.
Since when you are against biosphere raping? :huh:
When it suits me to be so. Personally, I've always been in favour of forcing humanity to live in a small number of very large cities, and then allowing nature to reclaim the rest of it. The human population would be stable, and housing would be on an assigned basis, so there would never be any need for new human habitat.
Hopefully, in a couple of thousand years, most of Europe can turn back into a nice, thick forest, and large mammals will return to their old predominance.
Quote from: Zanza on July 19, 2009, 05:25:22 AM
I don't think Norway has much to gain from joining the EU. The biggest advantages the EU offers are access to the single market and good governance. The latter might sound funny for a Scandi, but it makes sense when you look at Eastern and Southern Europe. Norway has good governance anyway and has access to the single market.
The other argument one hears often is that you would have a say in EU matters if you joined. But then Norway's voice wouldn't be very loud in EU decision making and it would be offset by having to follow even more EU rules than now.
Norway already has all of these. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area
Quote from: Viking on July 19, 2009, 07:51:10 AMNorway already has all of these.
Yes, that's why I wrote they already have them. :huh:
Ok, I am going to go for a big fat "No fucking way" still.
Quote from: Norgy on July 19, 2009, 11:53:54 AM
Ok, I am going to go for a big fat "No fucking way" still.
But, but... we need more rich countries to pay our bills, not poor ones to steal our alms. :cry:
Quote from: Zanza on July 19, 2009, 08:01:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 19, 2009, 07:51:10 AMNorway already has all of these.
Yes, that's why I wrote they already have them. :huh:
What Norway has to gain is input into the decision making procedure.
Quote from: Viking on July 19, 2009, 01:11:44 PMWhat Norway has to gain is input into the decision making procedure.
Did you even read my post? :huh:
Quote from: Viking on July 19, 2009, 01:11:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 19, 2009, 08:01:12 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 19, 2009, 07:51:10 AMNorway already has all of these.
Yes, that's why I wrote they already have them. :huh:
What Norway has to gain is input into the decision making procedure.
Har. Yeah, right. France will listen to us.
Quote from: Norgy on July 19, 2009, 04:42:06 AM
Marty, you're pro-EU.
Sell me on it again. I don't WANT to be against the EU, but common sense tells me Norway has all to lose and nothing to gain from EU membership.
We'll have Spaniards vacuuming our coast, spend like a 10% of GDP on Bulgaria and Romania and get what? Nothing
That's what the Icelanders thought too... to put it briefly, no one needs friends when things go all smoothly and future looks rosy. But when the drum begins to roll the more friends and allies you got the better... even if you have to send some euros and let them catch some cod.
Besides, EU is not about Germans being dumb and paying good money for nothing, or Irish being dumb and letting Spanish fishermen in, or Spaniards being dumb and letting German industrial products enter without paying tariffs. It's all about 'quid pro quo', as Hannibal Lecter said to Clarice. Basically the key is, exporters like Germany get the open markets they want, and they give something in return. It's nothing personal, just business.
Oh, and the line about 'Har. Yeah, right. France will listen to us' is just silly. France is one country amongst 27. Not the smallest or the poorest, sure, but these days even a Franco-German axis isn't strong enough to lead the Union.
See, Alatriste, you make me want to join...
Then there will be conservatards.
And spending money on Sarko.
I am on the fence.
Quote from: Norgy on July 20, 2009, 02:39:06 AM
See, Alatriste, you make me want to join...
Then there will be conservatards.
And spending money on Sarko.
I am on the fence.
Uh? Spending money on Sarko? What do you mean with that, French peasants and CAP? Actually France is a net contributor... not by much, but the French pay more than they receive.
This BBC page explains it very well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm
France net yearly contribution reachs rougly 2 billions euros, and is set to get quite higher in 2007-2013 as the transitory period ends and the new Eastern members are treated just like the old ones (in the same period Spain will change from being one of the highest receivers to equilibrium, and from 2013 we will very probably become net contributors).
Quote from: Norgy on July 20, 2009, 02:39:06 AM
I am on the fence.
Many Americans are annoyed, because the EU isn't failing.
Is that a good argument?
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 20, 2009, 07:21:47 AM
Quote from: Norgy on July 20, 2009, 02:39:06 AM
I am on the fence.
Many Americans are annoyed, because the EU isn't failing.
Is that a good argument?
The Americans love the EU! At least the US Government loves the EU. Kissinger's single phone number for Europe is being realized.
QuoteTiny Iceland's recent history is a parable of globalisation.
I love how everything is a lesson in why keeping huge subsidies on agriculture is a good idea.
Protectionism will keep us all safe! Economic problems never happened before people started trading freely! Save yourselves!
Quote from: Viking on July 20, 2009, 07:26:49 AM
The Americans love the EU! At least the US Government loves the EU. Kissinger's single phone number for Europe is being realized.
The US government loves the EU. But the common American??
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 20, 2009, 08:00:01 AM
The US government loves the EU. But the common American??
The common American has no opinion as they don't give a shit about things happening outside of America....and really don't give that much of a shit about the things happening inside of America.
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 20, 2009, 08:00:01 AM
The US government loves the EU. But the common American??
The common American has no opinion as they don't give a shit about things happening outside of America....and really don't give that much of a shit about the things happening inside of America.
I'll be damned if I recognize Missouri!
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
The common American has no opinion as they don't give a shit about things happening outside of America....and really don't give that much of a shit about the things happening inside of America.
They would love to hear about things happening outside of America. But sadly the media aren't interested in those things:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbsalert.com%2Fimg-host%2Fnewsweek_covers.jpg&hash=935c66cd027512ad2a3b8a6a21675c4ba03caf33)
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 20, 2009, 09:12:21 AM
They would love to hear about things happening outside of America. But sadly the media aren't interested in those things:
I wish that were true.
All private media simply have to meet demand and there is no demand for international news. People who want that have to rely on public and non-profit news and/or foreign news services.
But...I have my suspicion this is sort of similar in other countries also. I have a hard time imagining the average French family being all interested in events in Mongolia.
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2009, 09:18:00 AM
Quote from: Jos Theelen on July 20, 2009, 09:12:21 AM
They would love to hear about things happening outside of America. But sadly the media aren't interested in those things:
I wish that were true.
All private media simply have to meet demand and there is no demand for international news. People who want that have to rely on public and non-profit news and/or foreign news services.
But...I have my suspicion this is sort of similar in other countries also. I have a hard time imagining the average French family being all interested in events in Mongolia.
W.I. there were 30,000 French soldiers in Mongolia. Would they care then?
Quote from: Valmy on July 20, 2009, 08:05:03 AM
The common American has no opinion as they don't give a shit about things happening outside of America....and really don't give that much of a shit about the things happening inside of America.
:swiss: