Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah so you aren't happy with UK burning itself and so want Italy to burn itself to same miserable wreck UK is burning itself?-) Realizing your country is doomed to economic disaster and political outcast you want company to your pathetic level eh?

It is very important to differentiate between being part of the EU and being on the Euro. The former, being part of the EU, is complex but overall a very good thing, because open trade and unified standards promote growth and prosperity. The latter, having a single currency, is a dog of an idea, because monetary union without fiscal union removes the two automatic stabilizers for an economy, making it impossible to offset dramatic changes in economic activity, ie Greece.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The danger of having the Euro is that it easily allows big capital to ship money in and out of the country. It's a two-edged sword. If the economy is in the doldrums the money gets moved out. But if Italy can get on a growth path, that money will flood back in as fast as you like.

Sort of. Thing is capital flows like crazy everywhere. There's a trillion dollars moved through capital markets every single day. In a month more money is shifted around internationally than the US annual GDP. Being part of Europe arguably makes that easier, but it's so easy everywhere already it doesn't really make much additional difference.

The problem with the Euro is that it represents monetary union without fiscal union. So in the event of a collapse, Italy won't see a currency devaluation because it's sharing a currency with a bunch of countries that haven't collapsed. This means it won't get a currency devaluation that would make its exports more competitive and its imports more expensive (promoting locally produced goods instead).

Of course, there's lots of local economies that are combined by a single currency, but in those instances they are also tied by a fiscal union. For instance the United States have a single currency, but they also have a shared federal budget. So if Alabama's economy was to collapse it wouldn't get any monetary stabilising, but it would get fiscal stabilising, as it would start paying reduced federal income tax, and start claiming more unemployment and other social welfare payments.

Basically, an economy has its own currency it can stabilise through changes in the value of its currency. If an economy is part of a larger monetary union, it will normally be fiscally tied through a single government, allowing for fiscal adjustments. Countries with the Euro have built an economy where they've lost monetary stability, but not gained fiscal stability.

nou wrote:
Those bold passages show something that I cannot understand about you personally for quite some time. Those are all perfectly valid points, probably the only ones we totally agree about - demography is a b%^tch, which cannot be reasoned with, to a point when as soon as you realise there is a demographic problem it is long past the moment when said problem could be solved and all EU countries are far past this point already, with US barely holding at the thin line of large enough birth rates. You also see how democracy is not a system of choice to resolve those issues and yet you seem to hope for "enlighted democratic" government/bodies to solve them.... I don't get that. As history shows, such fundamental systematic problems were usually resolved by individuals we would now label as "populists" - soft or hard dictatorships with or without some form of pseudo-democratic legitimacy.

You also focus on "evil" baby boomers a bit too much - they are not the source of the problem, they are a mere symptom. It was the first generation after IIWW which benefited fully from modern (post-penicilin) medicine, which combined with a "dent" in demography caused by both world wars totally screwed wealth and workplace inhertance. Add the Bismarckian pension systems, which were introduced before said penicilin and ever raising costs of modern healthcare and there you have it - a system that is not only unsustainable, but really an economic black hole in the making. Nobody, and this is without any exaggeration, has even a slightiest clue on how to approach/revert this problem without collapsing the whole system. This is why everyone just tries to "escape forward" even a tiniest bit, so they won't be the last ones to turn out the lights. Europe is particularily screwed here, as we don't have any aces up our sleves - we don't have huge population surplus like China or India and we are not an empire, so we cannot tax other countries enough as US does. This is also the reason why biggest economies (those few who can do so in unrestricted manner), escape into ever growing debt - when system collapses you don't want to have anything other than debts that will be erased by collapse. And this is what Italy wants to do also, because frankly, they have nothing else to do at this point.

Certainly the demographic problem can't be solved, but what can and should be tackled is the economic fallout that is going to occur because of it. Its too late to ease into the demopgraphic transition for most countries as it stands. Its going to hurt for somebody. The thing is, I'm holding out a shred of hope for democracy because most populist parties that currently exist care even less about preparing for the future and want to double down on what is going to end badly. I can't really say that there is someone with a radical solution that just doesn't revolve around pumping more money into the old system and skyrocket national debt.

Sorry, babyboomers aren't only to blame of course, but they are an easy example for the age category dominant on the forum I presume. The problem is that the system that was set up by the parents of the babyboomers, worked well for a time. But as you said its too rigid and lacks the flexibility to adapt. But most of those parents are dead and the babyboomer generation is the one clinging to the system at all costs even though the price is becoming increasingly clear. The timing in which the system was set up means that only the babyboomer generation enjoyed it for almost their entire life (depending on what happens in the next 10-20 years). When most of us here reach retirement age, what will be left of the system? Technology might offer the only easy way out, but who knows when that point comes.

Also China's population surplus is a bit overstated. Their social system isn't nearly as comprehensive as Europe's one, but their demographic problem is also starting to become acute. China manufactured its own demographic crisis. Its an interesting case study. India is escaping that, but the way the economy operates now means all those extra people are going to strain how we live today. But these are indeed huge countries and their current/future economic size lets them take on debt better anyway. I mean who is going to pull the plug on the US or China when it comes to debt in today's world, they are simply too important to the world economy to let them go the Greek way. I fear that Italy won't be able to pull off that trick though and I don't want to see people suffer to prop up a system that is going to collapse anyway if these policies backfire when today's world doesn't "go with it" so to say. Yes it sucks, but smaller countries have to accept that some forces are outside of the national control.

I'm so harsh on the babyboomer example because it was presented as a "particular group of people is the problem", while the problem is deeper and systematic. You can very much decouple those two layers when looking at post Iron Courtain countries, which have shifted distribution of wealth among generations - baby boomers are not the sole leader here, a lot of "transformers" ('70s part of generation X) was at the precise age of starting careers when transformation kicked in and market was a huge sponge for young talents. This screwed late generation X even more than millenials are in western countries, because a large part of working population won't ever advance their careers as the higher spots are nearly always occupied by people just couple of years older. But you can hardly blame anyone for that outcome - communism fell, capitalistic democracies took it's place, typical boom mechanisms went into motion... nobody besides tides of history and demographics is responsible for that.

As you might have already figure that out, I don't believe in democracies, but not because 'mature vs populists' split, but because democracies are ineffective - they are too slow for the modern world (part of the problem with Italy is their parliament vs senate equality which slowed down some legislations to literal decades) and lack the ability to influence reality of social organisation on levels that actually matter - demography, financial system, global market flows, large scale medicine background. Democracies are "peace time administration" systems, not suited for crisis/"we need deep revolution" times. China did so well with their transformation because their technocratic government doesn't have to give a flying feth about "democratic values" or individual freedom, so they manage to adress at least some of the civilisational problems where they acually were. But even they have rising limitations because how demographies of both births and wealth accumulation influence reality. If you look at history it were always some "catastrophic level events" that reorganised the world - mostly large scale wars, conquests or epidemics. Administrative reforms usually only slowed the decline or provided a short term bump of relative prosperity.

Getting back from academics to EU realities, I don't really see how EU can move anywhere forward without adressing some major "manageable level" issues: common currency being the most important one, backed up by things like artificial German hegemony built on Deutche Bank subsidisation of German export, functional split and double standards between the old EU and young EU on almost all levels (there is really nothing equal in acces to common market between old and new countries and old countries behave very much like those baby boomers from your example), no common policies in strategic areas (energetic policy being the prime example of "everyone for themselves" here), lack of common foreign policy, including common voice against Russian moves in Ukraine and other baltic countries, migration policy and couple more... And I personally don't see how the modern EU strucure lead by ineficient and pretty much self proclaimed commisars can deal with those problems. Greece, Brexit and Italy are all symptoms of systematic failures, not causes of passing distress. And coming from a country that survived so much systematic collapses I'm not really against EU following the path of USSR in the '90s (which is currently the most probable path) of collapsing and reorganising into totally different political entity.

But Italy isn't a post Iron Curtain country. Dynamics in Eastern Europe are different from Western Europe because of diverging historical paths. Even the US isn't exactly comparable to Western Europe when it comes to baby boomers. But in many West European countries the baby boomer generation has the demographic advantage when it comes to voting, hence me putting more responsibility on their shoulders. Who people vote for does matter, even if they vote because they think they don't.

I think slow is a good word to describe it. But that process becomes glacial once nobody takes it seriously anymore and things start grinding to a halt. I feel democracy in a lot of Western countries is approaching a time where parties care less and less about actual policy, because that isn't what gets votes. That's no longer slow, its just unresponsive because people want to relive the past. China is a good example of long term planning to an extent, but not even the CCP is immune to sudden changes that undid past efforts. But they too have many many flaws. Tge road which Xi is taking might not benefit China in the long run, he has burned a lot of carefully build bridges. As for what forces change, I'm hoping for more of a technological revolution before the climate gets us, which is going to force us to adapt once ut starts to become really bad.

The EU is stuck, intergovernmentalism carried it so far but its stuck in a weird limbo between it and supranationalism. And yes, older countries are abusing the system to an extent, its inevitable when the nation state still carries such weight in a supranational attempt. The EU needs serious reform, defense, medicine, energy , financial and others all need to go to a federal level. The way it is set up now worked to an extent, but the competencies it wields exceed the abilities of the EU. A strong push towards a more federal Eurooe is going to be very hard. But if the EU collapses its unlikely to be replaced for a time, is there even time to start over again when all this issues are coming to a head in a few decades.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
But Italy isn't a post Iron Curtain country. Dynamics in Eastern Europe are different from Western Europe because of diverging historical paths. Even the US isn't exactly comparable to Western Europe when it comes to baby boomers. But in many West European countries the baby boomer generation has the demographic advantage when it comes to voting, hence me putting more responsibility on their shoulders. Who people vote for does matter, even if they vote because they think they don't.

I think slow is a good word to describe it. But that process becomes glacial once nobody takes it seriously anymore and things start grinding to a halt. I feel democracy in a lot of Western countries is approaching a time where parties care less and less about actual policy, because that isn't what gets votes. That's no longer slow, its just unresponsive because people want to relive the past. China is a good example of long term planning to an extent, but not even the CCP is immune to sudden changes that undid past efforts. But they too have many many flaws. Tge road which Xi is taking might not benefit China in the long run, he has burned a lot of carefully build bridges. As for what forces change, I'm hoping for more of a technological revolution before the climate gets us, which is going to force us to adapt once ut starts to become really bad.

The EU is stuck, intergovernmentalism carried it so far but its stuck in a weird limbo between it and supranationalism. And yes, older countries are abusing the system to an extent, its inevitable when the nation state still carries such weight in a supranational attempt. The EU needs serious reform, defense, medicine, energy , financial and others all need to go to a federal level. The way it is set up now worked to an extent, but the competencies it wields exceed the abilities of the EU. A strong push towards a more federal Eurooe is going to be very hard. But if the EU collapses its unlikely to be replaced for a time, is there even time to start over again when all this issues are coming to a head in a few decades.

This is where our analysis meet but solutions diverge fundamentally - I do not believe that federalisation of countries with so deep historical and still unresolved issues is the answer or even a posibility. And most definitely I don't believe that modern EU structures can support federal level in any efficient way. That is where my USSR example comes from. And in particular, I don't see how pension, welfare or healhcare systems can be federalised with so vast differences of wealth between countires in such federation. But I understand the reasoning behind federationism, I simply treat is as political science fiction - an unachievable utopia, even if, in theory, it could solve many of our current problems.

And you missunderstood my Iron Courtain paragraph - it wasn't to diminish Italy's baby boomers role, but to show an underlying mechanisms behind dominating generations. Those generations couldn't really end up in any other posistion, because people that constitute them weren't directly responsible for where they ended up. You still seek answers and reasons in particular people votes within democracies. But how those votes manifest is a simple emanation of underlying "lower order" (underlying) social mechanisms which have nothing to do with ideologies, ethics or "textual layer" of narratives. What I'm trying to show to you in my last posts is that politics and sociology is better understood when approached from reductionistic and mechanistic POV than when approached from ethical or psychological vectors.

[The following is too broad subject to put into the flow of this discussion directly, so just as a sidenote, one "simple" food for thought - what we eat (food production and logistics) has higher influence on social behavior and voting patterns than ethics or programs of political parties. Last 50 years (petrochemic agricultural revolution and birth pill revolution) screwed human species endocrynology so bad, that some populational mental and physical health problems are irreversible at this point (especially prevalence of undiagnosed dystymic disorders and hormonal imballance based neurosis). But to trully understand this layer of social life one must really go deep into medicine related knowledge. This is partially why I'm so disappointed in modern social sciences - they don't operate on scientific method principles, don't act as a agregate of species-related science fields (like e.g. neurosciences) and turned nearly 100% to ethics and armchair philosophy, losing any predictive powers they ever had. This void is recently being filled by Big Data analysis, but as those are mostly corporational tools, they further shift the world towards corporationism. I know I'm really drifting away from Italy here, but when it comes to any social and political analysis I don't think one can really understand what is going on without a really interdisciplinary approach. End of sidenote.]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more thing, about "technological revolution" solution - it is partially happening already with millenial generation, but is a double edged sword. I'm talking about virtualisation of needs - average millenial "happiness wealth level" is order of magnitude lower than generation X or baby boomers because a lot of previously physical needs of entertainment or production means are now worth the cost of a good laptop or a smartphone and an online subscription. It lowers the overall cost of sustainable society, but at the same time screws up the economy based on hoarding one-use goods. And you cannot ever virtualise large categories of goods, so this "satisfying living cost optimisation" will stop at some point.

I don't think that the EU institutions as they exist currently can handle a federal Europe. Even for what the EU is supposed to do now the staff they have is tiny relatively speaking, hardly more than a good sized city. I don't think welfare, pension and healthcare can be federalized because differences are too large. They would still remain in the nation or state budget to an extent. With medicine I'm more in favor of a cooperative push towards the development of cheaper medication as it is far too expensive currently. As discussed a bit in other threads, if the economy changes drastically, who knows what will happen to both welfare and pension regardless. I think in the near future putting some competencies on the EU level would make sense, but a lot of the fundemental parts of the individual states are going to take decades at the minimum to reform or evolve into something that might eventually be federalized. I could likely see a European army or more closely linked financial controls in my lifetime. I hardly think its going to become the European version of the US.

I think we just disagree on the method of approach and the degree if responsibility. I understood what you we're trying to say, but you made it broader while my example was more focussed on the Western Europe specific situation Italy is in. Its not hard to think the millenial generation is going to transition into the baby boomer spot if births keeps declining.

I'm not going to go into the sidenote, as its going to drag this entirely off topic into a lock I think.

As for the technological revolution, yes its happening to some extent now, but its going to be interesting to see what happens when robots become 'smarter' and more readily available. To what extent would that change society and the economy? Maybe it will solve some of the issues that are currently problematic, depending on capability. I think the relative wealth level also goes beyond virtualisation. As I mentioned, there is a level of unsustainability to the life style of the previous generation. A lifestyle a good deal of the younger generation can't sustain in the current econony. Depending on country of course.

I agree, that we have indeed reached the limits of this conversation and anything else I would like to add at this point would just drag this further and further from OP. Thank you for your time and till the next encounter, cheers!

Thanks guys! Interesting read and it didn't devolve to whom could get closest to the line of getting a lock.

I love it!

I also share the sentiment of unsustainability, and as much as I dislike it I'm also in the camp that a stronger "soft" dictatorship for a brief period would help to clean up a great deal of the Democratic issues.

In Canada, we have a Centre/Left party called the Liberal party. They are the party closest to my own political leanings, but they tend to only function well with a strong, firm leader. I think the closer to centre a political group is, the easier it is for them to be wishy-washy about policy. I think there's a bit of a lax approach because there's no unifying, galvanizing ideal. Just keep things in balance. Make reasonable adjustments to allow for the greater good kind of thing.

It also seems to have a corruption-creep effect. Without that strong hell-or-highwater ideal that more extreme parties tend to pursue, the Liberals seem to have a slow slip into cronyism that needs to be "reset" through the election of another party.

I'm 36 currently, and we have an Ontario election coming up in a few weeks. I can sympathize with a group of people that may want to vote for a party that meets their ideals, but feeling the need to vote for another to create the "reset" effect of the "wrong" party. I mention my age only to indicate my ability to see the pattern over years.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Thanks guys! Interesting read and it didn't devolve to whom could get closest to the line of getting a lock.

I love it!

I also share the sentiment of unsustainability, and as much as I dislike it I'm also in the camp that a stronger "soft" dictatorship for a brief period would help to clean up a great deal of the Democratic issues.

In Canada, we have a Centre/Left party called the Liberal party. They are the party closest to my own political leanings, but they tend to only function well with a strong, firm leader. I think the closer to centre a political group is, the easier it is for them to be wishy-washy about policy. I think there's a bit of a lax approach because there's no unifying, galvanizing ideal. Just keep things in balance. Make reasonable adjustments to allow for the greater good kind of thing.

It also seems to have a corruption-creep effect. Without that strong hell-or-highwater ideal that more extreme parties tend to pursue, the Liberals seem to have a slow slip into cronyism that needs to be "reset" through the election of another party.

I'm 36 currently, and we have an Ontario election coming up in a few weeks. I can sympathize with a group of people that may want to vote for a party that meets their ideals, but feeling the need to vote for another to create the "reset" effect of the "wrong" party. I mention my age only to indicate my ability to see the pattern over years.

Nice to read, that this discussion wasn't just for Disiple's and mine entertainment only. Much appreciated appreciation

As to voting for resets, there is a lesson to learn from the most recent Polish elections, both presidential and parliamentary - not because they resulted in the shift of power to the strongest opposition party in both cases, but because this shift happened in a direct result of a single person starting in a presidential campaign, which lead to a cascade effect of believing the change was possible at all. I'm talking about Paweł Kukiz involvement. He started as a punk rock star in the early '80, but over the last decade he shifted more and more towards antysystemic activism, dissatisfied of post-communist ballance of power in Poland. When presidential campaign started, former president had above 60% votes and largest opposition candidate had less than 20%. After Kukiz announced his start and went full on "let's change the constitution to empower people via stronger referendums and single-member constituency system" style of campaign everyone had to adapt to this narrative, resulting in former president losing to opposition candidate, resulting in turn in a shift in parliamentary elections and giving an unprecedented mandate to current Polish government (nearly 40% of votes in elections with highest voters turnout in our history) and Kukiz becoming third parliamentary power. All of this because Kukiz was a belivable, forthright (?) outsider, who tunneled the frustration of all those people who ceased believing in democracy and restored their involvement in politics (his start upped voters turnout by 10-15% points). Also, his late and unforseeable, spontaneous decision (it happend in the backstage after one "talking heads" type of show, during which a standard "then why won't you start a party and win for yourself" comment has been thrown at him) messed up with meticulously prepared campaigns of both major sides. Our current opposition still cannot fathom how they lost power and continue to ridicule themselves steadily more than two years after elections.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Alternatively, this is what you get when you vote populist buffoons without any competence into government and expect them to solve the nation's problems.

I'm sure your professional, experienced politicians in Sweden have done oh-so-well over the last few years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
They never even got off the starting line thanks to President Sergio Mattarella, with calls for him to now be impeached.

Personally, I’m pretty disheartened at this turn of events. I’m getting the sense that a large and growing number of Italians are fed up with the euro and being economically shackled to Germany, so they turn to parties offering a different way.

But the pro EU establishment in Italy, probably lent on by Germany and Brussels, can’t have that and so they block them. Are we seeing yet another repeat of the classic EU tactic, make them keep voting until we like the answer? Because it looks like it. I really hope the Italian people don’t take this lying down and return them back with an even bigger majority.

Thank god Britain stayed out of the Euro. It’s been an absolute disaster for everyone. Except the Germans.

Once again the democratic gap rears its head, and they wonder why people can't be bothered to vote any more or are disillusioned with the politicians and institutions that run their countries.

This only damages a country in the long run...

The Italian President is citing investor concern. Investor concern? Don't make me laugh.

The Italian people need to live or die by their own mistakes and choices.

These spivs need to butt out and their President should get shown the door.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT.

Looks like some former IMF technocrat is going to get the nod to be Prime Minister.

I suppose the little people can't be trusted, and they'll need a technocrat to tell them what's best for them.

Feth me, no wonder Western values, and Western Democracy is going backwards at a rate of knots...

And I doubt Italians are going to be happy to have another globalist in the PM's seat. I expect nasty riots in Rome over this.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Alternatively, this is what you get when you vote populist buffoons without any competence into government and expect them to solve the nation's problems.

Not that America's doing that much better...

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Alternatively, this is what you get when you vote populist buffoons without any competence into government and expect them to solve the nation's problems.

I'm sure your professional, experienced politicians in Sweden have done oh-so-well over the last few years.

Unemployment is down, GDP per capita is up, school results are climbing again after having fallen for a while, and public finances are doing well. So yeah, they actually have.

I find that, when making sarcastic snipes, it helps if you have a remote clue what you're talking about.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Alternatively, this is what you get when you vote populist buffoons without any competence into government and expect them to solve the nation's problems.

Not that America's doing that much better...

How is that relevant, other than as a further examplee of what I'm saying?

Italy can't blame Brussels for its descent into the abyss

This chap is saying the same kind of things as me, so obviously he's right.

So tell me everyone, does Italy need a program of austerity to fix itself?

I think they need to have less tax avoidance.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Alternatively, this is what you get when you vote populist buffoons without any competence into government and expect them to solve the nation's problems.

I'm sure your professional, experienced politicians in Sweden have done oh-so-well over the last few years.

Unemployment is down, GDP per capita is up, school results are climbing again after having fallen for a while, and public finances are doing well. So yeah, they actually have.

I find that, when making sarcastic snipes, it helps if you have a remote clue what you're talking about.

B-b-but rape capital of Europe!

Now, being serious, as somebody that is very close to Italy... that country is a hell hole of corruption. Just like Greece and just like Spain. We love to put the blame on others, but at the end of the day most people here see being a corrupt as the "clever" thing to do. If others where in you situation they would surely steal... so why don't you do it?
If you are honest, you are seen as a buffon. And I'm not even joking or exagerating. The dishonest mentality goes from the common people up to the big politicians.

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017

You just need to see what countries are more orange in Europe and what ones are in a worst economical state to create a easy relation. And I know, correlation doesn't mean causation, but...

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1002130775876276224

Italy, Euromedia poll:

How would you vote in an eurzone membership referendum?

Remain: 60% (71%)
Leave: 24% (29%)
Undecided: 16% (-)

Juncker just waded in with his famous tact. I'm a pro-EU federalist, but god damnit I can't wait to vote that prick out at the next European Elections.

 Galas wrote:
B-b-but rape capital of Europe!

Now, being serious, as somebody that is very close to Italy... that country is a hell hole of corruption. Just like Greece and just like Spain.

Perhaps an European Confederation of the Southern European states would be the way forward? Spain, Italy and Greece, along with erm, "like-minded" countries along the Med?

I'm sure Germany would be happy to loan the seed money to see them all off at once.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Galas wrote:
B-b-but rape capital of Europe!

Now, being serious, as somebody that is very close to Italy... that country is a hell hole of corruption. Just like Greece and just like Spain.

Perhaps an European Confederation of the Southern European states would be the way forward? Spain, Italy and Greece, along with erm, "like-minded" countries along the Med?

I'm sure Germany would be happy to loan the seed money to see them all off at once.

I say three years before said South European confederation collapses.

The Spanish president will be expelled tomorrow with a motion of no confidence for structural corruption of his party after a 8 year investigation, so... I think three years is too much for us, Iron_Captain

Obviously the solution for us is to reinstaurate the Spanish Empire with an hispano-american confederation. Banana republics for everyone! We will make China and USA cover in fear!

Spanish empire? Try Imperium Romanum instead.

 Galas wrote:
The Spanish president will be expelled tomorrow with a motion of no confidence for structural corruption of his party after a 8 year investigation, so... I think three years is too much for us, Iron_Captain

Obviously the solution for us is to reinstaurate the Spanish Empire with an hispano-american confederation. Banana republics for everyone! We will make China and USA cover in fear!

Better find El Dorado this time around then. That might actually go some way to paying of Spanish debt...

Did Drunker make a dig about Italian corruption? Makes sense, as he knows all about corruption. How did his lackey Martin Selmayr get his position again?

Jesus I dispise that smug, arrogant, condescending, specky corrupt bastard.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did Drunker make a dig about Italian corruption? Makes sense, as he knows all about corruption. How did his lackey Martin Selmayr get his position again?

Jesus I dispise that smug, arrogant, condescending, specky corrupt bastard.

Oh don't say that. We should be grateful to him, he was one of the rallying figures for Brexit. Couldn't have done it without the old chap.

I hate him too. That's why I vote socialist rather than EPP in the euro elections. Counting down the days to remove him.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The Spanish president will be expelled tomorrow with a motion of no confidence for structural corruption of his party after a 8 year investigation, so... I think three years is too much for us, Iron_Captain

Obviously the solution for us is to reinstaurate the Spanish Empire with an hispano-american confederation. Banana republics for everyone! We will make China and USA cover in fear!

Better find El Dorado this time around then. That might actually go some way to paying of Spanish debt...

We have one "El Dorado" and its all the money we have lost by corruption.

https://www.casos-aislados.com/en/stats.php

A recopilation. The name, "Casos aislados" means "Isolated event"; and is always used by our politicians to try to deflect all of this from their parties. Here it is used as a mockery, because they aren't "isolated", they are a structure of systematic corruption.

Just imagine whats happening in Italy.

So that's the Spanish version of "Mistakes were made" (... by someone else, not me!)?

The US version is ".... we are looking forward, not backward."

Because if we held the people who di it accountable, how are we going to get away with it in the future too?

 Galas wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The Spanish president will be expelled tomorrow with a motion of no confidence for structural corruption of his party after a 8 year investigation, so... I think three years is too much for us, Iron_Captain

Obviously the solution for us is to reinstaurate the Spanish Empire with an hispano-american confederation. Banana republics for everyone! We will make China and USA cover in fear!

Better find El Dorado this time around then. That might actually go some way to paying of Spanish debt...

We have one "El Dorado" and its all the money we have lost by corruption.

https://www.casos-aislados.com/en/stats.php

A recopilation. The name, "Casos aislados" means "Isolated event"; and is always used by our politicians to try to deflect all of this from their parties. Here it is used as a mockery, because they aren't "isolated", they are a structure of systematic corruption.

Just imagine whats happening in Italy.

There is even a case involving Pokemons in there? Caso Pokemon?