Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
so you can only make an assumption, and it will be nothing more as an assumption
No matter the reason they had, important is that they had doubts and that means almost refusal.
later edit: doubts about Rubinho being a good Belgian.
(edited)
No matter the reason they had, important is that they had doubts and that means almost refusal.
later edit: doubts about Rubinho being a good Belgian.
(edited)
Only thing you can say is that I'm not a good Belgian :p
And I think most Belgians would agree on that :D
And I think most Belgians would agree on that :D
Not really.
Example:
Q: Is Rubinho a good Belgian?
150 votes:
55 votes for
95 do not vote.
So you are saying that 95 voted for "Robinho is bad Belgian"?
But the truth is, that they simply didnt vote, for whatever reason.
Ok, I try again, made a bit of a mess of my other post.
If 150 had to vote for 'Rubinho is a good Belgian' or 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian' and all 150 votes were needed to decide 'Rubinho is a good Belgian' and the 95 knew not voting would mean that from that moment 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian', then it didn't matter if they voted 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian' or not at all, the result is the same. So voting for 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian' and don't vote at all is the same in this case.
The same can be said when a majority is needed, and the ones who didn't vote knew that a majority wouldn't be able without their votes.
(edited)
Example:
Q: Is Rubinho a good Belgian?
150 votes:
55 votes for
95 do not vote.
So you are saying that 95 voted for "Robinho is bad Belgian"?
But the truth is, that they simply didnt vote, for whatever reason.
Ok, I try again, made a bit of a mess of my other post.
If 150 had to vote for 'Rubinho is a good Belgian' or 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian' and all 150 votes were needed to decide 'Rubinho is a good Belgian' and the 95 knew not voting would mean that from that moment 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian', then it didn't matter if they voted 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian' or not at all, the result is the same. So voting for 'Rubinho is a bad Belgian' and don't vote at all is the same in this case.
The same can be said when a majority is needed, and the ones who didn't vote knew that a majority wouldn't be able without their votes.
(edited)
And I think most Belgians would agree on that :D
Looking at the comments you sometimes get on your posts on the Belgium forum, I think you're right ;P
Looking at the comments you sometimes get on your posts on the Belgium forum, I think you're right ;P
One our party (SaS) give good alternative, solution for ESFS... but rest of our government refused it cos opposite party promise vote for in second voting so there was not place for next negotations :-(
We wanted just make every time own voting for giving next loans to each country separately. But new EFSF will have bigger rights, it can give money also for private banks, which is really not good. Giving help (not loans, just "help" for that banks which made this euro crises is really weird.
We wanted just make every time own voting for giving next loans to each country separately. But new EFSF will have bigger rights, it can give money also for private banks, which is really not good. Giving help (not loans, just "help" for that banks which made this euro crises is really weird.
I read a lot of not true comments in UK media today...
Do you know that in economy strength comparison (I think something like donation for EFSF/average hour salary) we will pay the most for EFSF ? Why ? We did not make anything bad and should pay the most on head (according to our average hour salary) ?
Do you know that in economy strength comparison (I think something like donation for EFSF/average hour salary) we will pay the most for EFSF ? Why ? We did not make anything bad and should pay the most on head (according to our average hour salary) ?
No 95 could thing that Rubinho is Subperbelgian :-). Or decent belgian or whatever but not good. This doesnt mean that they think that he is bad Belgian. Just that he isnt a good Belgian.
Its that simple.
Its that simple.
If I understand it right the vote does not stop the approvation of EFSF at all..
another prove of lack of democracy..
nor the gov, nor the opposition is in fact against it.
right?
another prove of lack of democracy..
nor the gov, nor the opposition is in fact against it.
right?
it stop apporovation of EFSF... but after week or two we will pass that stupid law with votes of opposition... :-(
One our party (SaS) give good alternative, solution for ESFS... but rest of our government refused it cos opposite party promise vote for in second voting so there was not place for next negotations :-(
What alternative?
What alternative?
That we will pass law for EFSF but we will be voting about each case for help from EFSF.
So, France and Germany could have its law for their banks and poor Slovaks could approve help just for states in crises, except private banks or cheaters.
Our part of "help" in EFSF is so huge that it is really bad. According to our average salary we pay the most on head! Slovakia as country with health economy and low debt is going to be damaged by this. We are not able to pay back 8 mld or more ! And of course, why to save banks which were giving loans no matter that they know about not possibility to pay it back in the future.
Bankruptcy of some banks is normal, this will not destroy all currency!
sorry of my english :-)
So, France and Germany could have its law for their banks and poor Slovaks could approve help just for states in crises, except private banks or cheaters.
Our part of "help" in EFSF is so huge that it is really bad. According to our average salary we pay the most on head! Slovakia as country with health economy and low debt is going to be damaged by this. We are not able to pay back 8 mld or more ! And of course, why to save banks which were giving loans no matter that they know about not possibility to pay it back in the future.
Bankruptcy of some banks is normal, this will not destroy all currency!
sorry of my english :-)
Bankruptcy of large banks (like Dexia in Belgium) would cause a huge crisis. A lot of people (and our local governments!) would lose, but there is 100.000 euro per (natural, so not for the governments) person guaranteed. Would be a complete disaster, we cannot do something else than save that bank (Belgian governments have bought it now for about 4 billion euros). However, I agree that you shouldn't pay for other banks (just like no other country but Belgium, Luxembourg and France (who are involved) should pay for Dexia).
I agree!
By the way...
why not to buy those banks, instead of helping for free...?
I do not remember those banks owners sharing with us their dividends in last years..
By the way...
why not to buy those banks, instead of helping for free...?
I do not remember those banks owners sharing with us their dividends in last years..
Your state helped Dexia, and some parts are going to be sold. So where is problem ?
Just banks which are unhealthy and stupid will go to bankruptcy. (bank which are investing in losing projects and not health bank, they deserve to be canceled)
Just banks which are unhealthy and stupid will go to bankruptcy. (bank which are investing in losing projects and not health bank, they deserve to be canceled)
Angela Merkel said it very clearly... saving "our" banks is much more expensive than creation of EFSF.
:-)
OK...but why force Slovak poor people to save their banks ?
:-)
OK...but why force Slovak poor people to save their banks ?
because we're citizens until we can choose between things of no importance..
(look carefully at that "we", it's the more important thing of the sentence!)
(look carefully at that "we", it's the more important thing of the sentence!)