Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Mar 21 19:37:57 2023

Utopia Talk / Politics / The E.U. is run by cultists
Sun Jan 22 12:00:50
Beurocratic cultists many with strong ties to known terrorists like Klaus Schwab. How can you look at that man and not see bond villain?

Now they are putting dutch livestock farmers out of business to follow their wierd religious beliefs , they want to reduce Dutch greenhouse emissions, which is as silly as it sounds.

Sun Jan 22 13:03:36
This is a really shitty article in that is is fundamentally incorrect.

The urganda case was around greenhouse gases.

The paying of farmers to relocate is about nitrogen pollution.

Neither are driven by the EU commission.
Sun Jan 22 13:04:55
It literally says

"The 2019 ruling, issued by the highest court in the Netherlands, upheld lower court rulings that found the country was failing to comply with European Union (E.U.) environmental regulations. "
Sun Jan 22 13:21:21
I'm sure seb is going to break down each word to explain why what they mean isn't exactly what they mean and should be interpreted differently despite the actual law being interpreted the exact same way as it is written.
Sun Jan 22 15:47:44

The article also says that the scheme to pay farmers to shut up shop relates to carbon emissions, when actually it's toxic nitrogen pollution.

If you go and read the actual details of the ruling, which the article helpfully links to, it actually relies on the Dutch governments obligations under the European Convention on Human rights, which is a treaty entirely outside of the EU, and not EU regulations as the article claims.

Hence, as I said, it's a really shitty article. It's factually wrong on a number of points.

It's true that
Sun Jan 22 16:17:52
1. Seb keeps saying they are relocating the agriculture, but Ive seen no plans for new farms.

2. They are this worried over nitrogen (animal waste) that they are ending a nations domestic supplies of meat, poultry and dairy with looming food shortages on the way. Oh those brilliant autocrats what will they think of next.

Not to mention its putting people out of work, and not for efficiency as some have claimed, when has the E.U. ever been efficient?

This has the same brilliance as Germany's energy policy for the last 20 years.
Sun Jan 22 16:22:02
Take note that Seb couldn't bring himself to admit he was factually wrong that this is happening because of EU federal regulations.
Sun Jan 22 16:29:47
The irony being that they often make things do the exact opposite of what they claim to want.

They wanted hippy electricity with poor planning on energy policy which literally ended up making coal the leading source of electricity again....fucking brilliant!

I know German regulators, not EU ones, I see little difference though.
Sun Jan 22 17:36:17

Have you looked?

"They are this worried over nitrogen (animal waste) that they are ending a nations domestic supplies of meat"

There's no such thing as a domestic supply of meat. Thats the whole point of the single market. The livestock get shipped to places like Romania to slaughter, then back to another country to butcher, and third to be packaged.

"Not to mention its putting people out of work"

Hence the large payments being offered to buy them out.

"when has the E.U. ever been efficient?"

You see how leaving the EU caused the UK trade to plummet, forcing it to hire tens of thousands of new civil servants to oversee customs and standards checks, and massively increased delays at borders and in shipping?

There's where the efficiency is.

"is is happening because of EU federal regulations"

No it isn't. The first case is a Dutch courts interpretation of an entirely separate treaty (which no other country shares) making Holland's govts policy ambition to cut emissions by 40% legally binding.

The nitrogen case relates to the EU regulations only insofar that there are regulations regarding harmful levels of nitrogen that the public can be exposed to. Holland is free to decide how to meet those regulations.

The EU isn't a federal entity so saying "EU federal regulations" is you once again failing to understand anything at all about the EU but not letting that get in the way of talking utter horse shit with the confidence of someone unencumbered with any desire to have a relationship with the truth.

"know German regulators, not EU ones, I see little difference though."

Kinda says it all.
Sun Jan 22 17:37:26
The Holland case is literally an example of the state's right to choose you keep bleating about in other contexts.
Sun Jan 22 19:51:30

1. Have you looked? Who is relocating them? Private entity? Government?

And yes, the E.U. meets the definition of a federation of nations.

Obaminated called it, Seb refuses to call grass green because he refuses to admit he was wrong.
Mon Jan 23 01:32:10

1. What do you mean, who is relocating them? They are business not helpless infants. The scheme is you move your premises and claim a chunk of cash.

2. "And yes, the E.U. meets the definition of a federation of nations."

No, it really doesn't. It's far more intergovernmental than federal. Especially on this point where both the farm payments and emissions issues are the results of Dutch policy and Dutch courts specific interpretations of treaty obligations, not (as you keep eroneously claiming) EU policies.
Mon Jan 23 01:33:10
The problem here is actually that you refuse to admit you are wrong.

The op article itself includes links to source documents that contradict what it is saying.
Tue Jan 24 08:26:46
1. Your working on an assumption that these farms will be replaced. By who and where and when are reasonable questions that you can't ask other than "IDK, mabey eastern Europe" but mabey not, mabey the price of these goods skyrockets, or far less scrupulous suppliers like China step in. You don't know, if you did you would qctually answer the question.

Look in the dictionary for the odd federal and federation.

This climate change cult is doing real damage, just as they did on German energy policy.

If they say that they call you a CC denier. I am not denying that certain gases we emit have caused an increase in global temps leading to weather and geological changes.

What I think is terrible and stupid is the approach of people in that mindset.

1. They don't seem to understand what actually could reduce emissions. If it's a global problem, why does it matter if the left side of the street doesn't emit as much because their neighbor will now emit even more?

For all of the programs and money that has been spent in theblast 25 years on reducing emissions, they habe not been very successful, emissions globally have mostly been increasing and coal once again is king.

They also seem to hate the poor and routinely push ideas that largely hurt the poor and working classes while they fly private jets to talk about the evils of cars.

And reducing emissions might not even be the best immediate goal, slowing down the heating of then planet should be first. These are different things, and I realize that still doesn't change things like PH changes in the oceans, but its a start.

Lastly, being prosperous and creating new technology and making older tech cheaper is how we innovate our way out of this problem, instead these cultists want to double down on a failed path that punishes the poor and handicaps our abilities to innovate.
Tue Jan 24 08:49:18
Also, this was started by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2018.

But again according to Sen this has nothing to do with the EU and its absurd regulations. But if it makes him feel better I will agree the netherlands is also run by insane cultists that lack the ability to come up with actual policies that are not both stupid and evil.

Most of Europe has become Joffery Baratheon. We have survived evil leaders and dumb ones, but we will see how well they fare with the combo.
Tue Jan 24 08:50:30

"Your working on an assumption that these farms will be replaced."

No, I'm not at all. You are working on the assumption that they must be replaced. Farming is heavily subsidised in the EU and there is significant over-production of food.

About 37% of the EU budget is spent on subsidising agriculture.

The simple issue here is:

There are too many farms, with too many pigs, in too small a space, too close to areas of population density, and the resulting nitrogen emissions and run off are threatening to human health, so the Dutch govt has decided it is more efficient to pay the farmers to shut down or move rather than invest in any other measures that might be available to control the pollution.

This is like if there was, due to it predating relevant zoning laws, an oil refinery in the middle of a residential area - spewing noxious and carcinogenic toxins out over peoples homes.

It would be a no brainer: pay the firm to move. Even that is absurdly generous.


"Look in the dictionary for the odd federal and federation."

We are not dealing with the definition of Federation, we probably agree on that. What we don't agree on is whether the EU meets that definition. It's intergovernmental, not federal. And in any case this is a Dutch policy.

The nitrogen pollution is an entire dutch policy that is not being pursued in other EU countries, and the other case mentioned around emissions is the dutch judiciary stating that a treaty the Netherlands signed which contained ambitions on climate change emission reduction should be considered binding on the Dutch govt because of its interaction with another treaty.

BTW, this is how you know it is intergovernmental: the Netherlands signed the Paris agreement in their own right (as did all EU members) precisely because the EU does not have competency over a lot of these areas. The EU was also a signatory to the treaty, but that just means the commission is bound to consider it in areas of EU competency.

Note, no US state signed the treaty because (duh) they can't as the US is a federation.

Like I said, intergovernmental, not federal - and you have a long track record of misunderstanding pretty much everything about the EU.

"This climate change cult is doing real damage,"

Except this has nothing to do with climate change. So who exactly is the obsessive cult here that is trying to shift everything back to climate change?

"They don't seem to understand what actually could reduce emissions."
They rather do. You keep insisting that nobody else is cutting emissions, when actually they are - and in any case the intent is to pressure and force other countries to follow suite.

"and coal once again is king"


No it's not. Coal represents a declining source of the global energy mix.

"They also seem to hate the poor and routinely push ideas that largely hurt the poor and working classes"

I think you will find most of the people pushing these ideas are all behind subsidising the fuck out of the energy by taxing the rich and wealthy.

"And reducing emissions might not even be the best immediate goal, slowing down the heating of then planet should be first."

1. That is precisely what reducing emissions does.
2. Really, and how do you plan to do that exactly, without reducing emissions? A giant fucking ice cube in the pacific maybe? Or installing a big fan on the moon?

"Lastly, being prosperous and creating new technology"

Is exactly what the green movement advocates and you insist is wrong.

"and making older tech cheaper"
No, building lots of cheap coal plants is not how we fix climate change.

In any case, the relocation or closing down of pig and poultry farms in Holland has nothing to do with EU policy or climate change.
Tue Jan 24 08:58:42

"Also, this was started by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2018."


No it wasn't, the Urganda case was a ruling of the Dutch supreme court ins 2015.


The nitrogen case was a 2019 ruling of the Dutch administrative courts.

The only EU aspect to this rule is that states that allow breach their own safety limits on pollution are violating their citizens rights.

I.e. you have a right in law not to have the govt let industry poison you in breach of the govts own regulations that say being exposed to that level of toxic chemicals is prohibited.
Tue Jan 24 09:01:06
I find it hilarious that Habebe regularly poses as the defender of the little-guy, but here he is schilling for big agriculture (already heavily subsidised by the taxpayer) to be allowed to poison ordinary folks with concentrated ammonia in the name of higher profits.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share