- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 10,032
- Reaction score
- 4,966
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Romanians protest over gold mine | euronews, world news
Ok.
Now there are videos, like the one above, pointing out the fallacies of the above video which is a lot of propaganda.IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO READ ALL THIS WALL OF TEXT, I DON'T BLAME YOU. THE LAST PARAGRAPH IS THE CONCLUSION I HAVE ON THE ISSUE. Though the whole pros and con may be interesting to read.
So I shall detail everything here and you draw the conclusions.
In 2004, we a new center-right president, government and parliament (starting the Orange revolution basically). This was a major game changer since all the years since then, all elections were won by the socialists after communism fell. Now of course, we know now that they were just another bunch of corrupt gangsters like the ones before them. So because the campaign was costly, they wanted to make a lot of money. How to make money when you're in power? You sell the fortune of the people.
So in 2004 the government entered negotiations with a canadian gold company in order to sell the mineral rights to Rosia Montana. Ah, to make things clear, discussions between various gold companies and the state have existed since the fall communism in order to secure the mineral rights to Rosia Montana. But they were always met with opposition from the people. The guys in power were all for selling it all, they don't care. They can sign a crappy deal for the people in which the governments gets peanuts and the very next day, they end up buying houses in Switzerland and 200k$ cars. But we, the people, have always opposed this sort of thing. Now the socialists weren't in a hurry to sell the gold back then, before 2004, because they had other things to sell. Like petroleum. The center-right liberals were interested in selling it.. but they failed. Sort of. Now, since last summer, we have the socialists in power again.
our beloved prime minister, who is an idiot, is critical of the Rosia Montana project and gave people the impression that he will not permit the exploitation to happen. But lo and behold, last week, he tried to sneak in a draft of the legislation giving the go-ahead. Oh my, what changed? Bastard. I will tell you what changed, next year, in november, there are presidential elections and he and his party need money to make expensive campaigns and get their guy elected as president. Bastards. So now of course they're interested in selling the mineral rights, heck, they'd even sell their own mothers to get the money and get the power.
Now. This is all the state business. But people are against it and the Rosia Montana environmentalists have outstanding public support and international support. Mostly from students who are not short sighted and the middle class. In truth, except from people who have directly something to gain from the gold mining, you'd be stressed to find a single person under 40 who supports Rosia Montana exploitation.
But enough about this. Let's see what are the PROS listed by people who promote Rosia Montana. I am against the exploitation btw, and I will tell you why. I shall list all the pros declared by the company and the govt and the people who support it and counter them.
Pros:
#1) Mining jobs -> Really? MIning jobs? Mining jobs should be kept to a minimum. The fewer people work in mining, the better overall. Seriously, it's a dead-end job with huge health hazards. So in my opinion, if you want to give people jobs, tell them to get an education and work in the fields of tomorrow. Not this. this is awful.
#2) Billions of euros in revenue to the govt -> Our government is full of corrupt assholes who award fat contracts to their friends and make themselves rich. the smaller the govt budget is, the better it is for us all. Until we get fed up and start throwing all the old guard out, all of them, preferably throw them in prison, the government should settle for the revenue it gets from our paychecks. Don't sell the natural resources for a quick buck.
#3) The mining company promises to restore past exploitation that did harm to the environment -> This is true. Under communism, the rules of exploitation were very bad for the environment. The mining company promised to clean it up, that, and their mess, after they're done. But come on, if they can do it, surely our politicians can put together some money and make a budget plan to clean the past environmental hazards. If it has money to give to their fat friends who are "kings of roads" every year... every year the same god damned roads need repairing, like they're cursed or something, surely they can find a better road repair company that isn't run by someones' brother-in-law that can fix the roads so they don't need repair every year! And then maybe they'd have some money to clean up the environmental hazards.
So these are the main 3 pros.
Here are the 3 CONS:
1) Open cast cyanide mining. If you don't know how or what open cast mining is, google it. Now I personally am not bothered by this all that much, see conclusions why.
2) Rosia Montana is not just rich in gold and silver. There are other metals there too. Copper, bauxite and other rare and precious metals. The current draft that is supposed to pass through parliament has no indication about what will happen with those metals. the agreement between the govt and gold company is that they get everything they find in that area, in that mountain, but the govt only gets revenue from the selling of gold and silver. So you see, this is why there is corruption talk. What about the rest?
And 3... and this is the most serious one.
3) The company screwed the pooch badly 4-5 years ago. A massive scandal was discovered. Several anti-mining NGOs and other groups, who were resisting against the exploitation of rosia montana were found to be straw groups. The gold company bought them or set them up to make it look like there is some opposition when in fact, that opposition didn't exist. Now of course, the real opposition is still here. Nothing happened to that. But they paid NGOs to act like they were against the mining operation, then through staged events, made it seem like they were idiots for opposing the mining operation and had some even turn and say that it's a great idea. So basically, they tried to galvanize the entire movement through theater. And this is why I oppose the gold mining exploitation of Rosia Montana. Because the assholes who run the company tried to screw us.
In conclusion.
I am not against the exploitation from historical reasons... yes, there are ancient dacian and roman sites there but there is little tourist attraction even from within our country. The whole thing is poorly done and there is no funding to make it a real attraction. It could be a great tourist attraction, I've been there, there is potential, but I know the country and I know the people who run it and they're never going to make any investments there in that direction. I'm not against it due to the preservation of natural beauty. There are plenty other very beautiful areas in romania, much more beautiful than Rosia Montana. I am against it because the agreement is poorly drawn, with a lot of loopholes and because I don't trust the elected officials to do their jobs properly with the revenues and most of all, I am against it because the company leaders are dickheads and tried to pull a fast one on us.
A seventh night of protests have taken place in Romania over plans for Europe’s largest open-cast gold mine.
The government approved a draft law, which allows for Canadian company, Gabriel Resources, to mine for the estimated 300 tons of gold and 1,600 tons of silver at the town of Rosia Montana in western Transylvania.
Over 1,000 people gathered at Bucharest’s University Square on Saturday night.
One protest said “it had been spontaneous” and he “enjoys that type of demonstration”. He adds that “the majority of people there are young and can’t be manipulated.”
The campaign against mining at Rosia Montana began in the 1990s with environmentalists saying the plan would destroy villages and ancient Roman sites.
Those in favour of the mine have said it will create a large number of jobs and bring billions of euro in revenue to the country.
Ok.
Now there are videos, like the one above, pointing out the fallacies of the above video which is a lot of propaganda.IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO READ ALL THIS WALL OF TEXT, I DON'T BLAME YOU. THE LAST PARAGRAPH IS THE CONCLUSION I HAVE ON THE ISSUE. Though the whole pros and con may be interesting to read.
So I shall detail everything here and you draw the conclusions.
In 2004, we a new center-right president, government and parliament (starting the Orange revolution basically). This was a major game changer since all the years since then, all elections were won by the socialists after communism fell. Now of course, we know now that they were just another bunch of corrupt gangsters like the ones before them. So because the campaign was costly, they wanted to make a lot of money. How to make money when you're in power? You sell the fortune of the people.
So in 2004 the government entered negotiations with a canadian gold company in order to sell the mineral rights to Rosia Montana. Ah, to make things clear, discussions between various gold companies and the state have existed since the fall communism in order to secure the mineral rights to Rosia Montana. But they were always met with opposition from the people. The guys in power were all for selling it all, they don't care. They can sign a crappy deal for the people in which the governments gets peanuts and the very next day, they end up buying houses in Switzerland and 200k$ cars. But we, the people, have always opposed this sort of thing. Now the socialists weren't in a hurry to sell the gold back then, before 2004, because they had other things to sell. Like petroleum. The center-right liberals were interested in selling it.. but they failed. Sort of. Now, since last summer, we have the socialists in power again.
our beloved prime minister, who is an idiot, is critical of the Rosia Montana project and gave people the impression that he will not permit the exploitation to happen. But lo and behold, last week, he tried to sneak in a draft of the legislation giving the go-ahead. Oh my, what changed? Bastard. I will tell you what changed, next year, in november, there are presidential elections and he and his party need money to make expensive campaigns and get their guy elected as president. Bastards. So now of course they're interested in selling the mineral rights, heck, they'd even sell their own mothers to get the money and get the power.
Now. This is all the state business. But people are against it and the Rosia Montana environmentalists have outstanding public support and international support. Mostly from students who are not short sighted and the middle class. In truth, except from people who have directly something to gain from the gold mining, you'd be stressed to find a single person under 40 who supports Rosia Montana exploitation.
But enough about this. Let's see what are the PROS listed by people who promote Rosia Montana. I am against the exploitation btw, and I will tell you why. I shall list all the pros declared by the company and the govt and the people who support it and counter them.
Pros:
#1) Mining jobs -> Really? MIning jobs? Mining jobs should be kept to a minimum. The fewer people work in mining, the better overall. Seriously, it's a dead-end job with huge health hazards. So in my opinion, if you want to give people jobs, tell them to get an education and work in the fields of tomorrow. Not this. this is awful.
#2) Billions of euros in revenue to the govt -> Our government is full of corrupt assholes who award fat contracts to their friends and make themselves rich. the smaller the govt budget is, the better it is for us all. Until we get fed up and start throwing all the old guard out, all of them, preferably throw them in prison, the government should settle for the revenue it gets from our paychecks. Don't sell the natural resources for a quick buck.
#3) The mining company promises to restore past exploitation that did harm to the environment -> This is true. Under communism, the rules of exploitation were very bad for the environment. The mining company promised to clean it up, that, and their mess, after they're done. But come on, if they can do it, surely our politicians can put together some money and make a budget plan to clean the past environmental hazards. If it has money to give to their fat friends who are "kings of roads" every year... every year the same god damned roads need repairing, like they're cursed or something, surely they can find a better road repair company that isn't run by someones' brother-in-law that can fix the roads so they don't need repair every year! And then maybe they'd have some money to clean up the environmental hazards.
So these are the main 3 pros.
Here are the 3 CONS:
1) Open cast cyanide mining. If you don't know how or what open cast mining is, google it. Now I personally am not bothered by this all that much, see conclusions why.
2) Rosia Montana is not just rich in gold and silver. There are other metals there too. Copper, bauxite and other rare and precious metals. The current draft that is supposed to pass through parliament has no indication about what will happen with those metals. the agreement between the govt and gold company is that they get everything they find in that area, in that mountain, but the govt only gets revenue from the selling of gold and silver. So you see, this is why there is corruption talk. What about the rest?
And 3... and this is the most serious one.
3) The company screwed the pooch badly 4-5 years ago. A massive scandal was discovered. Several anti-mining NGOs and other groups, who were resisting against the exploitation of rosia montana were found to be straw groups. The gold company bought them or set them up to make it look like there is some opposition when in fact, that opposition didn't exist. Now of course, the real opposition is still here. Nothing happened to that. But they paid NGOs to act like they were against the mining operation, then through staged events, made it seem like they were idiots for opposing the mining operation and had some even turn and say that it's a great idea. So basically, they tried to galvanize the entire movement through theater. And this is why I oppose the gold mining exploitation of Rosia Montana. Because the assholes who run the company tried to screw us.
In conclusion.
I am not against the exploitation from historical reasons... yes, there are ancient dacian and roman sites there but there is little tourist attraction even from within our country. The whole thing is poorly done and there is no funding to make it a real attraction. It could be a great tourist attraction, I've been there, there is potential, but I know the country and I know the people who run it and they're never going to make any investments there in that direction. I'm not against it due to the preservation of natural beauty. There are plenty other very beautiful areas in romania, much more beautiful than Rosia Montana. I am against it because the agreement is poorly drawn, with a lot of loopholes and because I don't trust the elected officials to do their jobs properly with the revenues and most of all, I am against it because the company leaders are dickheads and tried to pull a fast one on us.