Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
91
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
Quote from: ersi on
I'd really prefer this particular phenomenon to be reserved exclusively for USA rather.
:) My heart goes out to you, ersi!
Remind me: How long ago was it. that I suggested you read C. Northcote Parkinson? (But -of course- what interest would British Naval History have, for an Estonian savant?)

Bureaucracies become "beings" in the Darwinian sense... Their primary purpose is to "live long and prosper"...
92
DnD Central / Re: What's Going on in Russia?
Last post by Frenzie -
Quote
“The fact that the funds have not been transferred to the recipients is not our problem,”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
Not our problem seems very cavalier, but afaik the basic tenet of it is true? That is, if you phrased it as "not our fault" instead of "not our problem" it would be accurate. Because no matter whose fault it is, it is their problem.
93
DnD Central / Re: What's Going on in Russia?
Last post by ersi -
Since direct links to Moody's don't work, let's try a workaround.

Moody’s Declares Russia in Default

Quote from: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/06/28/moodys-declares-russia-in-default-a78127
“Missed coupon payment constitutes a default,” Moody’s said in a statement late Monday.

[...]

The Kremlin dismissed reports that it defaulted on its external debt Monday, saying the
payment had been made in foreign currency in May.

“The fact that the funds have not been transferred to the recipients is not our problem,”
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
Some voices close to the source say the "foreign currency" that Russia attempted to use was RUB. But the (at least two different) bonds (scheduled for last week) are nominated in EUR and USD.

Usually when a country defaults, its rating is downgraded, but credit rating agencies have stopped rating Russia since the war with Ukraine.
95
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Last post by ersi -
The way you describe it is the way I heard things were "in Europe" as contrasted with our not-yet EU country. We were supposed to become an EU member and have things the same way. But reading the EU regulation closely now it's pretty informative how "up yours" things really are.

For you, it could be much worse, if it were exactly as per the regulation. For me, it is as bad as always and there is a regulation to make sure it stays so.
96
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Last post by Frenzie -
But I'm not talking about shared Dutch or French[1] Requesting the translation aid is a non-issue in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Italy in my experience. There's no need for any kind of certified translation because of that piece of paper. It does indeed make you wonder what purpose it serves at all, and some of the authorities involved might eye it suspiciously[2] but your description is simply not how it has worked for me with birth, marriage and residence certificates — I couldn't tell you about death ones, but I have no reason to assume it's any different.
1 NB The language is possibly the least shared in archaic officialese.↵
2 Ew! Foreign!↵
97
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Last post by ersi -
In order to err on the side of caution they should not proclaim simplification when they are in fact complicating things.

Quote from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R1191
In order to ensure the free circulation of public documents within the Union and, thereby, promote the free movement of Union citizens...
This doesn't sound cautious at all. "Free movement of Union citizens" is actually among the four core freedoms of EU, one of its main promises. Is it really safe for the EU to make a mockery of itself on this point?

The more appropriate heading would be "EU regulation that is designed to have no effect, but might help feign ensuring and promoting something". This would sound much more cautious and not stir up vain hopes.

Between Belgium and Netherlands there is a shared language, which mitigates the translation problem. The translation problem exists between countries that do not have a shared language. The allegedly simplifying EU regulation carves it into stone that EU member countries do not need to recognise each other any more than non-EU countries do. And the EU does not know what the word "simplification" means. Or what "free circulation of public documents" could possibly looks like.
98
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Last post by Frenzie -
In my experience the problems you describe don't really exist (in that form) in the Benelux/ECSC. Perhaps it's a mistake not to be more forceful on the matter to the newer members, but I don't think it's a weakness to err on the side of caution when it comes to acting like the Soviet Union would.
99
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Last post by ersi -
Quote from: jax on
You were just shown how it would be all the time if there hadn't been a EU or comparable treaties, and when you have to bootstrap from two countries recognising each other.
Actually, I just learned how things are when there *is* EU. Namely, things are no different, exactly the same as when there was no EU.

Towards the beginning of the century, I was, in Estonia, employed by a translation bureau that made its best money by translating-apostilling official documents. I dealt with documents from countries like China, Kazakhstan, Armenia and others that have no willingness to ever get connected to the EU. I know the procedure from back then. Right now I learned that the procedure between EU members Estonia and Finland - where people commonly understand each other's language without any translation - is as convoluted as if we were having a first contact with an alien civilisation. And these are supposed to be EU members who recognise each other. Clearly the evident fact is that they do not recognise each other and this is apparently okay as per EU regulation that allegedly simplifies bureaucracy.

As to my qualifications to make notarised translations, I had it back when I was employed by the translation bureau. My name was written up with a notary who is no longer in business. I could just as easily write my name up again with some other notary, except I'd have to register a company of translation services of my own, which I do not want to do because this hassle was supposed to have ended with the EU.

My biggest gripe is how the regulation goes about solving a particular problem in exactly the wrong way.

The problem: Translating-apostilling documents between member countries is a hassle.
The solution: Introduce more document forms to "facilitate the translation" i.e. apparently not do away with the translation requirement.
The result: The solution is directly opposite to what is promised in the heading of the regulation. The heading promises simplification, but the solution is a complication. When you add more documents, this is a complication, obviously. And when you keep the translation requirements, you are simplifying nothing.

The regulation is worthless. Issuing regulations that achieve results opposite to what they declare is not an isolated event with the EU. It is a systemic flaw. It is also often the case with their "conflict resolution" efforts: When they step in to resolve conflicts, the conflicts become worse. I'd really prefer this particular phenomenon to be reserved exclusively for USA rather.
100
DnD Central / Re: The comings and goings of the European Union
Last post by jax -
Yes, making a legal document in one country legal in another is in the base case (superlegalislation) an extremely contorted, tedious, slow and expensive process. Even the simplified process as you described above is painful. It is bootstrapped by each country recognising that the other country exists, and by extensions its embassies, registrars and notary offices.

That you think you are qualified to translate a document does not make you qualified to do so. Your country must do so, and the embassy must vouch for the offices, originals and translations in question to the bureaucracy of the other country. If you are really lucky the other country also has to vouch for their offices, originals and translations to the bureaucracy in your country. When you are done with the process you will wish a pox on both their houses.

That is the base scenario unless there is an agreement between the countries in question to do better. There are a few conventions and treaties to do that. At heart the European Union itself is a number of treaties between countries to do better. You were just shown how it would be all the time if there hadn't been a EU or comparable treaties, and when you have to bootstrap from two countries recognising each other. (If they don't recognise each other, you are either out of luck or sometimes you can tunnel through a third country.)