This thread is about new members entering (e.g. Croatia) and old members leaving (e.g. Britain) the Union, as well as other moves and changes in the European collective collective.
Today is a day to divvy up the spoils. With Brexit EU agencies will leave Britain, and 19 European cities are competing to grab
European Medicines Agency (EMA) and 8 cities are fighting over the
European Banking Authority (EBA).
Politico has an overview of the election procedure, How to watch the Brexit battle for EU agencies like a pro (https://www.politico.eu/article/ema-eba-how-to-watch-the-brexit-battle-for-eu-agencies-like-a-pro/) and helpfully comes up with the bookies' odds.
Fight! It’s the EU agency free-for-all (https://www.politico.eu/article/contest-for-eu-agencies-after-brexit-becomes-free-for-all-as-vote-nears/)For the EMA:Milan — 2/1
Bratislava — 5/1
Lille — 6/1
Amsterdam — 10/1
Copenhagen — 10/1
Vienna — 10/1
Barcelona — 16/1
Dublin — 16/1
Helsinki — 16/1
Porto — 16/1
Stockholm — 16/1
Bonn — 20/1
Warsaw — 20/1
Zagreb — 20/1
Athens — 25/1
Brussels — 25/1
Bucharest — 25/1
Sofia — 25/1
Valletta — 33/1
For the EBA:
Frankfurt — 6/4
Vienna — 2/1
Dublin — 5/1
Paris — 8/1
Prague — 16/1
Warsaw — 16/1
Brussels — 20/1
Luxembourg City — 20/1
Frankfurt is too far ahead of any other to be much of a competition, but my guess Milan
won't get EMA. Which one will get it is harder to say. The Nordic cities have significant medical clusters, but here it's every city for themselves. Stockholm would love to get it, but by participating they make it less likely that Copenhagen would win, likewise with Helsinki's candidature. My guess is Amsterdam or Bratislava (Bratislava is very close to Vienna, but lower cost and wider bloc support). Amsterdam is closer to Britain geographically and culturally, and a cluster of its own. Schiphol is a major hub. While Bratislava is 39 minutes away from Vienna Airport, and 17 minutes away from Bratislava airport, neither are exactly major ones.
Perhaps not a major hub, but I did have several layovers in Vienna Airport before ever visiting the city itself.
By all means, I prefer medium-sized airports to the huge ones for user experience. Heathrow is my least favourite airport i Europe, followed by Charles De Gaulle. Schiphol is number three or four I guess.
For its size I kind of like Schiphol, but all of these have more stress and more walking, while the medium-sized one are smooth and efficient, at least the better ones. I actually haven't been to Vienna airport, but my wife passed through yesterday and liked it. Outbound the transfer was around 50 minutes, which would have been touch-and-go with Heathrow, and a bit stressful in Schiphol, but with plenty of time to spare in Vienna.
Anyway, a medium-sized airport can't compete with the number of departures, so that would be a drawback for an agency that presumably should have good connections to all member countries.
Well I am glad that my nation will in due course be no longer with the shambles known as the EU. It never gets it's books cleared annually and is still in financial problems. I look forward to saying cheerio to it and meantime plan my third trip to the Netherlands!
Today is a day to divvy up the spoils. With Brexit EU agencies will leave Britain, and 19 European cities are competing to grab European Medicines Agency (EMA) and 8 cities are fighting over the European Banking Authority (EBA).
Politico has an overview of the election procedure, How to watch the Brexit battle for EU agencies like a pro (https://www.politico.eu/article/ema-eba-how-to-watch-the-brexit-battle-for-eu-agencies-like-a-pro/) and helpfully comes up with the bookies' odds. Fight! It's the EU agency free-for-all (https://www.politico.eu/article/contest-for-eu-agencies-after-brexit-becomes-free-for-all-as-vote-nears/)
In case you wondered, and of course you did: My hedged bet for EMA was right, Amsterdam will be the new home of EMA (Milan came second, Copenhagen third), while more surprisingly Paris got EBA (Frankfurt second, Dublin third). While Paris like to present themselves as the new London, I didn't expect them to have this pull.
Well it doesn't bother me at all as that was "oak" us being in that financial backwater the EU. They can move the offices where they like as we won't be in the damn club.
In case you wondered, and of course you did:
Of course!
Airbus boss says Brexit risks losing UK aviation's 'crown jewels' to China
UK operations chief tells MPs trade barriers and restricted movement for staff will put thousands of jobs in Wales at risk
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/fa574d28569ca6632bc67d7b10ef1c48f45f26bb/0_146_4368_2621/master/4368.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=79733c93ab5e153784424c036aee662a)
The Airbus factory in Broughton, North Wales pictured in 2006. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian
Airbus has told MPs that Britain risks losing the “crown jewels” of its aviation industry to China as a result of Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum), putting up to 7,000 wing-manufacturing jobs in Wales at risk.
The company’s senior corporate representative in the UK warned the business select committee that the threat of new customs bureaucracy and reduced employee mobility could deter long-term investment and accelerate a shift to Asia.
Though there are no current plans to move, Katherine Bennett said, she was “fighting to ensure that wing design – the crown jewels of aerospace – remains in this country”.
“I need to let you know, committee, that other countries would dearly love to design and build wings,” she told MPs. “Some of them already do; we do build wings in China (https://www.theguardian.com/world/china) now, and believe you me they are knocking at the door as a result of the situation we are in in this country.
“Every single thing we export goes into the EU – we don’t export anywhere else – so non-tariff barriers are a really big thing for us,” added Bennet. “[This is] yet another burden going on my shoulder when I am putting a good case for the UK”. (The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/21/airbus-boss-says-brexit-risks-losing-uk-aviations-crown-jewels-to-china))
There has getting more of those warnings lately as companies are starting to panic and negotiations are not pulling up to speed. How many will actually act on those remains to be seen, with the timer set to 493 days left to Brexit, while 515 days have gone since the referendum.
and meantime plan my third trip to the Netherlands!
Just to remember you that, as a non European member, you'll need to wait in the queue with arabs, africans and others like you in order to enter. I've heard the policemen at Schipool aren't too much gentle with your kind of people.
Enjoy. :)
Amsterdam will be the new home of EMA
Cities prostitution.
EMA and all the other euro-bureaucrats should be sent to Antarctica, right to the middle of pinguins. Others more radical than me would sent them directly to Auschevitz.
Every single thing we export goes into the EU - we don't export anywhere else…
Didn't somebody recently say something about the Commonwealth? :) )Eh,
RJ?)
@
Belfrager: Please start taking your meds again!
Funny to watch an American to say to the founders of Europe to take medicines...
This is really a nice cabaret but I wonder when the naked women will finally appear...
firstly Belfrager. I am not bothered o the queue matter as my country hyas more than done it's bit to subsidise the nations that could only exist with the begging bowl (know what I mean?!). And to dear OakdaleFTL - I got a laugh with you using the Guardian newspaper which is a leftist bundle of rubbish. You of all people? The Commonwealth is more important to me and millions of others than the damn financial mess that is the EU. :happy:
Just to your info.
Since the Guardian changed ownership it ceased to be what it once was and became the same "bundle of rubbish" as the rest of your and our guided mass media. So far you are almost right. :)
BTW, those who miss the old Guardian may check Off Guardian (https://off-guardian.org/).
It is still lefty dear trying hard man. Neither is it's circulation going up either and there are times I wonder if they secretly run the BBC. As for rubbish generally here in GB you should already have some idea of media rubbish over in the ex-colonies. They are so much string pulled by the corporate barons over there and the average Yank is brained under clever propaganda. Time and time again over they years when your people are interviewed on the street by what is happening elsewhere through the news they are lost. All the daft nonsense on Russia pulling election strings is laughable and the way your media waxes on the stuff is laughable. There are aspects in our media I do not like including television and papers both of which do not always report fairly but you have no basis for being smug over there!
Just to your info.
Since the Guardian changed ownership it ceased to be what it once was and became the same "bundle of rubbish" as the rest of your and our guided mass media. So far you are almost right. :)
BTW, those who miss the old Guardian may check Off Guardian (https://off-guardian.org/).
The Guardian, while left of centre, isn't so left-wing as to enthusiastically support Jeremy Corbyn.
It is still lefty dear trying hard man.
Whatever "lefty" means to you...
Once Thales, a "lefty" Greek philosoper (I wonder if you ever heard of him), was asked which city is the best: "The one without too rich and too poor people." :idea:
And considering jax that the only main stream left crowd is the Labour lot run by that Marxist clown says more. Maybe that might register with you. Please take note krake. It IS a leftist paper. originally it was called the Manchester Guardian and published north in that city and came from a Liberal Party kind of tradition. Then changed the name and moved to London but the circulation does not help it much financially and is a continuous anti-Conservative stance.
Brexit broke in the first round.
(http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42231497)
Theresa May fights to save Brexit deal after DUP backlash (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42231497)
Ministers are facing MPs' questions about the failure to strike a Brexit deal following a DUP backlash.
The DUP, whose support the government needs in key votes, said it would not accept a deal on the Irish border which saw Northern Ireland treated differently from the rest of the UK.
And as a staunch Unionist I agree with the DUP.
We have been very good to Southern Ireland and loaned them billions when they had that terrible financial mess. Happy to have a good relationship with that country on the general Border matter and there has been a close association in both North and South of that geographical line covering produce, transport, power, etc, However Ireland is part of the EU and we are getting out so it is unfortunately Dublin's problem being in that association. Dublin is stuck with that European lot and it does finance them as couldn't do it themselves so at the end of the day them still being in the EU is i am afraid their sad problem.
Days left until Brexit (https://howmanydaystill.com/its/brexit-6): 478 (today)
Days since referendum (https://days.to/since/uk-european-union-referendum-vote): 530 (today)
Days since Article 50 was invoked: 252 (today)
Less than half total time, and less than two thirds Article 50-time, remains. The negotiations have barely started, and already halted.
These four requirements cannot simultaneously be fulfilled, and the last two are unacceptable to Ireland. If Ireland says no deal, then there is no deal, and the UK becomes a third world country as far as the EU is concerned.
- A border between the UK and the EU
- No border between Northern Ireland and the rest of UK
- No border between NI and Ireland
- No border between Ireland and the rest of EU
(1) is what the Brexiteers went to election on, (2) is a requirement from the DUP, whose support May's current government depends on, and for (3) and (4) Ireland holds the cards. Ireland (pop. 5M) has never been in as good a negotiating position relative to the UK (pop. 66M, of which NI 2M) as they are now, and they probably never will. They are not going to fold easily.
Short of giving N.I. to Ireland, which would break May's coalition, and requirement (2), they would either have to give Ireland what they want, or bribe them enough not to want it so much. THEN they have to bribe the DUP not to make too much of a stink about it. It's a good time to be Irish it seems.
Of course, if Britain sinks into the sea, that's bad for Ireland too, if not as much as for the British. And it would be bad for the EU as well, if not as much as for the Irish. There is a limit to Ireland's negotiation power, but I don't think it has been reached yet.
The economic rational thing to do would be to forego (1), the Norway option. Business would be happy, Ireland would cease to be a negotiation superpower (but for Ireland and N.I that would be a fallback to status quo, which is a pretty good anyway). Many of the remaining unresolved issues would disappear as if they never were.
The Hard Brexiteers would be furious though. It would be waving goodbye to brave new trade deals with India and Kenya. It too would probably be the end of May's government, and Britain would have been demoted from being the top power player at the EU to being a somewhat larger Norway.
Not doing so, the Ireland negotiations will drag on, leaving less time for the rest and risking EU overtime. In that scenario
every single EU country will become an Ireland.
Btw, don't tell the Brits they're using an airplane called Eurofighter. :zip:
The Eurofighter is not a Britishfighter, not even less a Brexytfigther.
and the UK becomes a third world country as far as the EU is concerned.
It is already.
Imagine a Portuguese coming out with that slagging assertion. Portugal IS a Third World country in practice! It had to be in the U to be able to use a begging bowl as it was not able to look after itself!
The situation re north and south of Ireland is an awkward one but Ireland has no right to try and take the moral high ground as it could only get on by being in the EU and getting money it could not unfortunately do itself. There are things shared across the border and fair enough but Ireland is staying in the messy EU and we are NOT. Obviously some sort of Border co-operation would be good but the EU is NOT making it easy or considering the situation on the island of Ireland. A passing reference to the idea of giving ulster to the South is just a leaf in the wind as it will not happen and would not be voted on either.
If Europe is not prepared to consider the Ulster and Eire situation in a considerate way we will just need to leave the EU and unfortunately it will not help Dublin. I accept that Ireland is trying to do something but they are in that damn Europe club which they need to be to financially exist and as i intimated we helped them financially as well.
Rankings don't really matter and Britain and France have bypassed each other a good number of times throughout history, but Britain has fallen behind France again.
Britain crashes out of world's top 5 economies (http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/22/news/economy/uk-france-biggest-economies-in-the-world/)
Both are well behind Germany, the only European country likely to remain in the top 8 in the longer run. Like the article said India is set to slide ahead of both, and longer-term Germany and Japan as well, while Italy and Canada are likely to slide behind.
Umm. That's pretty stark.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQdgLL9VQAAEfv3.jpg:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQdVDdBX4AA2EuU.jpg)
(Wagging tongues commented that Brexit is a backhanded way for London to get rid of loss-making Northern Ireland.)
Germany runs the EU and at least this third attempt was not a military war. This country, Gt Britain WILL do well in the world at large for all you wax about and we will not be pumping money into a farce of a system that never ever gets it's books cleared so what about that corner, eh?? Ireland was getting nowhere until it desperately joined the EU and like other small poor countries could not financially run itself hence the begging bowl financial game which you know fine well about. If Europe is not prepared to be more sensible there are places over there who are going to suffer when we get out that farce of a system.
On the other hand they may not go out in a blaze of glory after all.
Not much remains of Theresa May's red lines after the Brexit deal (Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/08/not-much-remain-theresa-may-red-lines-brexit-deal))
The first, and biggest, concession is buried in paragraph 49 of the 15-page report published early on Friday morning. Its implications will be anything but quiet in the weeks to come, for it undermines the prime minister’s previous insistence that Britain will be leaving the single market.
It states clearly: “In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union.” In other words, the UK may not be a member of the single market, or have any direct ability to shape its rules in future, but it could yet have to play by them in perpetuity.
(https://www.theguardian.com/info/2015/dec/08/daily-email-uk)
Much will be made of the “in the absence of agreed solutions” caveat, yet what it means in practice is that the UK hopes to flesh out this pledge through a wider free trade agreement with the EU. If the other 27 members were reluctant to allow any wriggle room in the first phase of talks, they are even less likely to budge now that this principle is established as a back-stop.
When the agreement was first drafted on Monday, there was much concern that the promise of maintaining regulatory “alignment” might only apply to Northern Ireland, but the Democratic Unionist party has succeeded in removing any ambiguity and forced Downing Street to spell out that alignment stretches right across the Irish sea.
“The United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom,” says the text now – unless, by some miracle, the Northern Ireland assembly were to decide it did, after all, want to be cut off.
In other words until something else is agreed Britain will remain in the internal market. That is good news for British territorial integrity, for business, and for predictability in 2019 and beyond.
Of course, that is also Norway by default (actually a little less, Norway has a marginal say within the EEA), so everything said about Norway applies.
Oh the Guardian! What a waste of money buying that thing is. It is right behind the Labour lefty crackers and that party IS divided on Brexit and pretends it is not. That Lenin, oops, Corbyn, sat on the damn fence during the Brexit campaign. I wouldn't go with that newspaper even if it kept Edinburgh distant. The only good thing I muse on that paper is that it is struggling on sales etc a bit so hooray! The Prime Minister did achieve something on Thursday and the Guardian's Marxist pal Corbyn came out with rubbish when asked if the decision was a good progress.
I hope the Guardian, the anti Papist, pró-gay pasquim will die soon.
Some it goes for the NYT.
I get annoyed at the BBC in some current affairs programmes as it makes me wonder if they are employed by the damn guardian. Mind you I doubt if anti-Papist or anti-queer as that's my corner!
Yep. Daily Express is the only true newspaper, the only one that realises that fog in the channel isolates the continent.
(https://s17.postimg.org/crapzxcgf/20171210_133455.jpg)
May's triumph? Interesting headline…
May's triumph? Interesting headline...
Nobody takes the Express seriously. Most of their front pages are either about some amazing medical breakthrough (when there isn't one), or some news about Princess Diana, even though she's been dead for 20 years.
You forgot to add the "National" a newspaper that is a waste of time and a much declined sales.....
Yawn... :zzz:
Look pompous you are never able to deal with things face on and go into a pompous and snooty attitude instead. I will give you one kind of positive in that you are regular with body-swerving. We are on the way out and your declining lot of Brigadoons are in the slide. That the national and ever so, ever so Guardian are going down you have little to hold on to!
See previous post, though I don't like repeating myself unlike some people. :whistle:
Oh you are doing well keeping up your would-be liberal minded nonsense. You don't really deal with a point where you are not agreed with you and are part of the modern so-called wide thinking who don't actually practice that in real life. Your mind set is actually now part of the modern narrow thinking. In the past you would have been part of the attitude that would accuse others of being mind controlled but now your corner is the in thing. :yes:
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
Conceited excuse...conceited excuse.
Ah, diddums!
Well in a free country there is always the situation that the small mind will commandeer snobbishness, limited sense and daft smugness. It is normally the self proclaimed open liberal mindset (so called) and as you are a Guardinista you well show that failing. Feel smarty pants if you wish but the hard fact is that Britain is coming out of that fiasco called the EU and your brain lot squeal about the UK but quite happy to give in to Brussels control. So be as cocky as you want because goodbye is coming and we will again have our own country's control back. You sneer at the large numbers who read say the Daily Mail or Daily Express but the National is a wee thing and the Guardian is a struggle. When one considers the size of the Guardian compared to say the Mail you are ridiculing an awful lot of people who read it. And the National? There is another failing so wax away but watch you don't strain your brain cells.
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
Apparently big companies are selling inferior products in Eastern Europe. Pretty bizarre stuff.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/eastern-europeans-tired-of-inferior-products-a-1182949.html
Apparently big companies are selling inferior products in Eastern Europe. Pretty bizarre stuff.
I have suspected this for decades and I have occasionally got direct hints (when doing business with companies) that this is so. Global companies divide the world into regions as they see fit. The former Warsaw Pact area tends to be its own region, separate from Western Europe. Sometimes they are bundled together with Russia. This applies for many products and services so that it's easily noticeable when you spend time in a different country for a little while.
Edit: But I must say your story is a good find. There is precious little journalism on this topic.
I do make allowances for Luxor to be incapable of in-depth stances and hide behind daft passing comments.Snooty and smart alex styles are not a sign of some deep intelligence and appraisal but an incapability. The simple are entitled to a society place like the intelligent but they cannot get away with trying to dominate it and slag ff large numbers of people by hiding behind the Guardian and National guff. Pity there are fewer public toilets as they could have a job being an attendant........ 8)
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
Dear readers it is obvious to grey cell users that Luxor is trying to give the impression of being satirical and like many in his corner as unable to be definitive about anything. So the superficial is in his case not and is instead an inability. The Guardian and the National pontification in hard practice and practicality shows the snobbish lean and part of what is supposed to be modern liberal thinking. In hard factuality it is a snobbish and slightly ignorant thing which dismisses anything outside of those two publications as sniffy. Those of us here who can give a stance can of course sigh and be glad we are not related to him but his education seems to have been wasted....... :no: :faint:
:zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
Just considered by Fitch Rating Agency as similar to Italia. Meaning Above you.
You're Going to suffer a lot and we are going to laugh a lot.
By the way, ever thought abut the British expulsion and property nationalization by the "the third country>" from the "British"? :):):)
Advantages of idiotic Brexits...
Looking for real nice properties right now, only problem the Northern smell...
Re Northern Ireland. One problem with that matter has been the uncooperative attitude if the EU. That, with Ireland and the UK have obligations to support the Belfast agreement but have refused to offer tangeable support, claiming that the UK caused the problem and should solve it by itself. A semantic nonsense: if one has a responsibility one should attempt to support it on some way, not play a blame game.
At the moment there is a fuzzy situation, with alignment with EU regulations for those specific areas related to the Belfast agreement which acts as a diplomatic placebo for tthe Irish but that is, in the end, secondary to reading a good overall agreement. Alignment, by the way, does not mean identical, it means equivalent.
Incidentally, I support rjh on this, the DUP were right to object and saw things clearly when others didn't.
The argument to be used by the UK is clear --- if Northern Ireland can have, effectively free trade with thd EU then so can the rest of the UK.
In the event that there is no deal, the approach by the UK can simply be to declare, unilaterally, on their side an open border between The UK and Ireland, while again unilaterally, that all goods not more than 90% made in EI shall be tagged for later application of tariffs or summer confiscation. There will be some leakage, but who really cares. As for the free mivemdnt part, that would be civered by other means since no-one not from Ireland eould have a valid vusa.
Of course, the Irish or the EU could put up a birder, but that would be their problem, but I doubt they would shirk their responsibilities to that extent.
Re the Airbus thing. I don't think the Chinese option is viable, at least not in the short term. Working practices are set up and agreed, jigs are made and (blast it) the pound has evaluated by around 30% which offsets a bit of tarif.
The Airbus cooperation had it's roots in the inter-European cooperation fostered by ESA in the Space Industry where groups of companies got together to his against competing pan-European Groups. Such things don't spring magically from thin air.
But the most import and comment on this sort of cookery is that nothing has yet been finalised and until it is all of that stuff is pure speculation.
Anyway, last time I looked, China was not in the EU, nor was the EU in China to put the proper perspective on it.
@string :yikes: :insane: :coffee: :hat:
@string :yikes: :insane: :coffee: :hat:
Back with a bump!
As for the free mivemdnt part, that would be civered by other means since no-one not from Ireland eould have a valid vusa.
Of course, the Irish or the EU could put up a birder, but that would be their problem, but I doubt they would shirk their responsibilities to that extent.
Your keyboard is throwing a tantrum, worse than RJ's. You probably need a new one.
I recommend the Motospeed Inflictor CK104 Gaming Mechanical Keyboard. The font is not ideal and I'm not into back-lighting, but the typing feel about equals that of keyboards three times the price like mine. Of course when I bought mine five years ago it was a significantly more niche product, so there was no cheaper option.
(But seriously, my typing looks a lot more like that in my laptop… you easily mis keystrokes on worse keyboards if you're not careful and you have to ram the keys down. Very unpleasant. :) )
I recommend the Motospeed Inflictor CK104 Gaming Mechanical Keyboard.
It would be a great buy, but I already have Cooler Master Devastator, which I believe has somewhat equivalent tactile response, even though it's not mechanical and does not offer changeable keys and has one single modest mode of backlighting.
In different living&working locations I have different keyboards. Cooler Master Devastator is probably the fanciest one, while some weird flat thing with bluetooth is the most expensive one. I bought it to see how usable it is with smartphones and tablets. The conclusion is that it isn't really.
My apologies for all the spelling mistakes. It's due to me typing on a virtual keyboard whichvsedms which seems to have a mind if it's own. The least pointing error and it goes off on a rampage. The rest is poor lighting, poor eyesight and laziness in proof reading.
Must try harder.
A mechanical keyboard is much better
It would be a great buy, but I already have Cooler Master Devastator, which I believe has somewhat equivalent tactile response, even though it's not mechanical and does not offer changeable keys and has one single modest mode of backlighting.
From glancing at this review (https://tweakers.net/productreview/127381/cooler-master-devastator-ii-gaming-gear-combo-(blue-version-qwerty).html) and Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/MechanicalKeyboards/comments/6k1tte/is_the_cooler_master_devastator_ii_good/) it seems to be some kind of weird contraption that's good for a rubber dome. Which is not a bad thing but I'd get a real one. :)
It's due to me typing on a virtual keyboard...
Ah, typing on a phone, are we...
weird contraption that's good for a rubber dome. Which is not a bad thing but I'd get a real one. :)
Sure, if you say so. I'm happily ignorant in this area - I have no idea what a rubber dome means in this context and what is real and what is not. I don't demand much from a keyboard:
- what goes down, must come up (ever noticed how particularly the spacebar tends to stick with some very cheap keyboards?)
- full size keys (basically, the size I am used to, smaller is bad)
- the common or standard layout of the midsection keys (Ins, Del, Home, End, PgUp, PgDn, etc.)
- long horizontal Enter key, not the all-too-usual crooked thing
- backlighting preferably around the keys, not in them
The first two are requirements, the rest are nice-to-haves. I have touched a few mechanical keyboards, as well as keyboards on both electronic and mechanical typewriters. I am not a connoisseur enough to desire anything beyond Cooler Master Devastator.
Sure, if you say so. I'm happily ignorant in this area - I have no idea what a rubber dome means in this context and what is real and what is not.
It's a question of whether you have to completely press down a key to the very bottom or whether you have to press it down, say, 70% (actuation levels vary). You don't realize how much it's secretly hurting your hands to do so until you've used a proper mechanical keyboard for a while. There's no "I pressed it down and it didn't register".
Also, mechanical keyboard can last over a decade. Rubber domes need replacement after a couple of years. (Okay, you can use them for up to a decade or so but after a couple of years even good ones have degraded into mediocre to bad ones.)
- long horizontal Enter key, not the all-too-usual crooked thing
Unfortunately this Enter key (which I too prefer) is the US-ANSI standard and the bad one is ISO.
I am not a connoisseur enough to desire anything beyond Cooler Master Devastator.
That's where the keyboard I recommended comes into play. It takes away the price distinction.
I am not a connoisseur enough to desire anything beyond Cooler Master Devastator.
That's where the keyboard I recommended comes into play. It takes away the price distinction.
I'll see in about a decade if I need it. Meanwhile I found a review in some sort of colonial French.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5--3KyPpZbU[/video]
some sort of colonial French.
What accent is that? Québécois? I'm actually surprised that I'm able to understand it reasonably well, though I suppose given the point and speak nature of the video the same might apply even if you don't speak French.
I've attached a bad picture of my wife's customized color scheme.
What accent is that? Québécois?
The About page of the youtuber says
- Country: Canada.
In the event that there is no deal, the approach by the UK can simply be to declare, unilaterally, on their side an open border between The UK and Ireland, while again unilaterally, that all goods not more than 90% made in EI shall be tagged for later application of tariffs or summer confiscation. There will be some leakage, but who really cares. As for the free mivemdnt part, that would be civered by other means since no-one not from Ireland eould have a valid vusa.
Of course, the Irish or the EU could put up a birder, but that would be their problem, but I doubt they would shirk their responsibilities to that extent.
There is a catch: More delusions on the Irish border (http://More delusions on the Irish border)
As the weeks pass, so the ideas get sillier. One circulating among certain Brexiters at the moment is that the UK could gain the upper hand over the Ireland issue by simply leaving the Irish border open after Brexit, charging no tariffs and making no inspections, and dare the EU to be the first to put up customs posts. Would this actually work in the real world? No, for many reasons. At the most it is likely to be a crude blame-shifting exercise aimed at getting the British public to point the finger at the Irish when the border inevitably goes up. For a post-Brexit UK to charge no tariffs on imports from the EU would be a massive breach of the rules of the World Trade Organization, which operates on a “most-favoured nation” (MFN) principle of equal treatment. This can be overridden if two or more members sign a formal bilateral or regional trade agreement among themselves. But it will take years for the UK to agree a trade deal with the EU: Britain cannot simply pre-empt it by holding tariffs at zero from the off.
Another thread,
The EU is moving inexorably towards a Federal State.
Individual countries are becoming irrelevant, and relics of yesteryear, curious cultural enclaves gradually losing distinction and individuality and submerging into enforced uniformity.
And that is why in another thread here I have condemned that as don't want to be in a US of Europe.
Yes i dare say that GB could leave the Irish Border open and we have been very good to them south of it loaning them billions at low interest as a help. The Irish Republic unfortunately has never been capable of proper running itself hence the kind of "acceptable" begging bowl attitude re Brussels. The country has completely about turned from decades of mixed ignorance. It is far better educated and the Roman Church been stopped from pulling the strings for generations. The general closeness between Gt Britain the Republic is positive and trust that continues as crossing the border is a lot less inconvenient than decades ago when I was young. However my regard for Ireland does not mean that we can have our strings pulled! :)
Re the border. Yes I do believe it is quite feasible, not optimum certainly but feasible. We could expect many squeaked and moans but in the end if this country agrees to free passage from Ireland there's little that others can do about it.
Britain leaves the EU next year and will not impose border checks; if there are border checks it will be on the Irish side manned by Irish Border Guards or the EU Army (???) troops for all I care. One can be sure of that. What is not so clear yet is the laws which would accompany that: They are unclear because there are many options, for example
o An interim open border until blah blah blah ( wait it out or take it slow)
o All products imported into the UK must have their country of origin available to non-contact sensors
o All non Irish products are considered illegal in the UK unless and until they have passed through a central clearing house
o Illegal products will be confiscated
One could go on, but it's necessary to remind ourselves that this is in the context of no-deal from the EU.
There is a practical point there about the Border as we have made it clear we are content with an open situation. The Irish Government for all it's sense has also been harping I am afraid and what happens after we leave the Euro club it IS Ireland's problem as they will still be in that Union.
Bregrets? Why Britain has had few over Europe (https://amp.ft.com/content/991fe2ca-df21-11e7-8f9f-de1c2175f5ce)
The most likely reason for the steadfast opinions, however, is that the referendum scrambled political identities. Ipsos Mori’s fascinating “Shifting Ground” survey shows how the UK’s political tribes have been reconfigured. Before the referendum, supporters of the Labour party sat on the left side of the economic axis, favouring tax and spend policies. The Conservatives were towards the right, advocating free market economics. On social issues, the Tory tribe flirted with authoritarianism while Labour voters floated towards liberalism. Crucially, there was substantial crossover on all these issues — in the political centre ground.
But Brexit has laid waste to that. The survey shows that the crossover between Leavers and Remainers is much smaller, and that these tribes are more starkly divided on social issues such as the death penalty and the pace of cultural change. Brexit has become a form of identity politics. And healing the divide is going to be difficult.
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4836a3a6-df4b-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c?source=google-amp)
Much of the working class are Brexiteers so good for them. Labour is a question mark over the whole Brexit thing. One Shadow Cabinet member saying one thing and another the opposite. They really have a farce snapping at the Tories but the hard fact is that Labour is going round in circles. The media goes on and on repeating the same boring stuff as they do to the point of boring people stiff.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffun.drno.de%2Fpics%2Fxmas%2Fbrexit.jpg&hash=b8dbd96a6c5f3df58caef598e2c48cfe" rel="cached" data-hash="b8dbd96a6c5f3df58caef598e2c48cfe" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://fun.drno.de/pics/xmas/brexit.jpg)
At least we have our status to look forward to and back where it belongs.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffun.drno.de%2Fpics%2Fxmas%2Fbrexit.jpg&hash=b8dbd96a6c5f3df58caef598e2c48cfe" rel="cached" data-hash="b8dbd96a6c5f3df58caef598e2c48cfe" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://fun.drno.de/pics/xmas/brexit.jpg)
We over here have grown accustomed to this sort of insulting parody but the same can be said of the EU which seems incapable or realising that when you loose a wealthy member state of 65 million you have to be prepared to cut your cloth to suit the new budget reality. I suppose it's possible that the EU machinery is cutting budgets and will live within its reduced means, but if so I must have missed that.
The UK Government has stated from the off that it wished to retain good relations with the EU and that it had a political interest in the EU doing well. That has not been reflected (or only partially) by the EU negotiators who are clearly much more concerned with concepts of punishment and keeping the UK cash flowing into Europe at the same rate as before.
The phrase wanting to "have their cake and eat" it applies in spades to the EU.
The wish to have the EU do well was, I believe, generally well meant and genuine in the UK and that remains the case, but it's not an attitude that would survive much more of the knuckle-dragging attitudes that parody represents.
Maybe the EU does not want good access to the UK market and wants it to become an off-shore competitor instead of a friendly and cooperating neighbour . I doubt that those on either side who do not knuckle drag feel that way but people in Europe should understand that "no deal" is a very real possibility and it would not take much to give that popular appeal in the UK.
Bregrets? Why Britain has had few over Europe (https://amp.ft.com/content/991fe2ca-df21-11e7-8f9f-de1c2175f5ce)
The most likely reason for the steadfast opinions, however, is that the referendum scrambled political identities. Ipsos Mori’s fascinating “Shifting Ground” survey shows how the UK’s political tribes have been reconfigured. Before the referendum, supporters of the Labour party sat on the left side of the economic axis, favouring tax and spend policies. The Conservatives were towards the right, advocating free market economics. On social issues, the Tory tribe flirted with authoritarianism while Labour voters floated towards liberalism. Crucially, there was substantial crossover on all these issues — in the political centre ground.
But Brexit has laid waste to that. The survey shows that the crossover between Leavers and Remainers is much smaller, and that these tribes are more starkly divided on social issues such as the death penalty and the pace of cultural change. Brexit has become a form of identity politics. And healing the divide is going to be difficult.
(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4836a3a6-df4b-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c?source=google-amp)
Personally I'm interested but deeply cynical about such charts especially considering:
o I voted remain but for me that is now history, the job now is to move forwards. A common attitude here but not so easy to place on such a chart. I would not know where to place myself
o the traditional characterisation between Labour and Conservative stereotypes is much too simplistic, if it has any validity now at all which I doubt
o authoritarian crops up now and then. Who was more authority - Stalin or Hitler, Corbyn or May?
o there is a large, oscillating, middle ground of people either don't have opinions on theses things yet or don't care
o In general (to authors of such things) - quit navel gazing, write your paper and get your brownie points but then get on and solve the issue in front of you
... but people in Europe should understand that "no deal" is a very real possibility and it would not take much to give that popular appeal in the UK.
People in Europe
vs people in the UK? :left:
Leaving the EU might become finalized during the next five years but considering the speed of continental drift, I'm afraid that leaving Europe will take much longer... Till then I'd consider the UK still part of Europe - geographically at least.
Well I hope the main trust will be quick and now we have decided to have our former blue passport back - hooray! Time and time again those who go on about what we will "lose" getting out that financially improper running mess tend to ignore that there are a selection of countries across Europe who depend on trading with us. Decades ago we had only joined a trading organisation which morphed into a partly democratic Union. Having visited 2 European countries which I was content with (one twice) I will do one of them for a third trip long overdue. And don't sidestep what I have already aired in that there is a move to get that EU to move towards being a Union getting like America. Well they can go on with that baloney but I am glad we are back to being a proper Britain.
... but people in Europe should understand that "no deal" is a very real possibility and it would not take much to give that popular appeal in the UK.
People in Europe vs people in the UK? :left:
Leaving the EU might become finalized during the next five years but considering the speed of continental drift, I'm afraid that leaving Europe will take much longer... Till then I'd consider the UK still part of Europe - geographically at least.
It's a regular thing in the UK this decade. It's almost as if France, Belgium, and the Netherlands feel closer in 19th century novels.
Personally I'm interested but deeply cynical about such charts especially considering:
o I voted remain but for me that is now history, the job now is to move forwards. A common attitude here but not so easy to place on such a chart. I would not know where to place myself
o the traditional characterisation between Labour and Conservative stereotypes is much too simplistic, if it has any validity now at all which I doubt
o authoritarian crops up now and then. Who was more authority - Stalin or Hitler, Corbyn or May?
o there is a large, oscillating, middle ground of people either don't have opinions on theses things yet or don't care
o In general (to authors of such things) - quit navel gazing, write your paper and get your brownie points but then get on and solve the issue in front of you
These surveys ask a number of questions to pry out the respondents' attitudes. Some questions will be related to one trait, others to another. That way they can distribute the respondents according to not-necessarily-orthogonal axes.
I haven't bothered to look up the survey data from the British Election Study (http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/), but the quoted examples of left/right-prying questions are "For society to be fair, differences in people's living standard should be small" and "The British economy is rigged towards the rich and powerful". Answering "yes" to these will shift you towards the left on the axis, answering "no" towards the right. Likewise "yes" to "These days I feel like a stranger in my own country" and "Things in Britain were better in the past" would nudge you towards authoritarian.
Given a large enough sample you can do a statistical analysis on how correlated each question is with the axes you are looking for. For instance "The British economy is rigged" is a common sentiment on the far right as well as on the left. "Right" here seems to mean friendly to business/market economy, which is fair enough, but there are other ways of defining left/right. The other axis is labeled authoritarian/libertarian, which is a misnomer. For one thing "libertarian" isn't the antonym of "authoritarian", and the provided questions don't measure authoritarianism, but conservativism. There is a correlation, these two traits are more likely to go together than to be opposed. An authoritarian prefer a strong leader over strong institutions, and put greater emphasis on obeying orders and customs than on self-reliance or curiosity. A conservative is not fond of change. The article also used "identity politics", a label with problems of its own, but slightly better.
Having mapped out the respondents according to these axes it is easy to make blobs for Labour/Tory or Leave/Remain, simply by asking them if they voted Labour or Conservative, Leave or Remain at relevant elections.
We over here have grown accustomed to this sort of insulting parody but the same can be said of the EU which seems incapable or realising that when you loose a wealthy member state of 65 million you have to be prepared to cut your cloth to suit the new budget reality. I suppose it's possible that the EU machinery is cutting budgets and will live within its reduced means, but if so I must have missed that.
The UK Government has stated from the off that it wished to retain good relations with the EU and that it had a political interest in the EU doing well. That has not been reflected (or only partially) by the EU negotiators who are clearly much more concerned with concepts of punishment and keeping the UK cash flowing into Europe at the same rate as before.
The phrase wanting to "have their cake and eat" it applies in spades to the EU.
The wish to have the EU do well was, I believe, generally well meant and genuine in the UK and that remains the case, but it's not an attitude that would survive much more of the knuckle-dragging attitudes that parody represents.
Maybe the EU does not want good access to the UK market and wants it to become an off-shore competitor instead of a friendly and cooperating neighbour . I doubt that those on either side who do not knuckle drag feel that way but people in Europe should understand that "no deal" is a very real possibility and it would not take much to give that popular appeal in the UK.
I think you
strongly underestimate the cost of a true "no deal" with no transition deals, referred to as the Belarus alternative. Such a Britain would be in WTO, NATO and UN, and similar organisations, but that would be it. There are thousand of agreements that Britain has done as an EU member that would have to be renegotiated. As an example no planes in Britain could land outside Britain and vice versa. Britain would effectively be under an embargo until this was resolved.
The good news is that neither side seems intent on that happening. There will at least be transition deals, giving Britain time to produce new deals. That would take years, providing many job opportunities for skilled bureaucrats.
On the other hand do you, like many others,
strongly overestimate the impact on the EU economy. The EU has a budget 1% of the economy. It's the 99% that matters to Britain, and all other EU members. Most of the EU funds are redistributive, money comes in from dues, and goes out to fund stuff like Common Agricultural Policy and Structural and Cohesion Funds. Less money is redistributed back to the UK as is paid by the UK, so the UK is a net donor. However, about 40% of the British economy is in the public sector, relatively minor changes here would have a far greater impact than the 0.4% of British GDP (or the 0.07% of EU GDP) that goes out to the EU.
For the EU organisation however the shortfall of 10 gigaeuro is about 7% of the annual budget. That's quite noticable. It could be resolved by members paying higher dues and/or the EU funding less. It most likely will be a bit of both.
Re the underestimation remark - Jax, you make, as usual a lot of good points and I concur with most.
I don't think folk should play down the effects of a no deal Brexit on either side. Harm will be done to both.
But the sad fact is that they tend to be irrelevant in the minds of many. I've noticed it in the Scottish Independence turmoil, in the Catalan independence on-going saga and now also in Brexit. There comes a time when people simply don't care about the economic arguments, the objective becomes limited to jingoistic notions of what winning means and practicalities get pushed aside. The is a context of what is happening when insults get thrown around. A bigger insult than one recieved neans a "win" however nonsensical thd insults were. Independence or bust becomes Independence whatever the consequences.
In my opinion the most vulnerable to falling into that way if thinking are the public who are not aware if the complexities and the political extremists who mould events and public opinion.
So I repeat my claim the a no deal scenario is a real possibility and behind that the argument that insults enhance that as a possibility. That would be a bad result for both sides of the negotiation table. That is why I object to such simplistic insults as having cakes while eating them.
For the EU organisation however the shortfall of 10 gigaeuro is about 7% of the annual budget. That's quite noticable. It could be resolved by members paying higher dues and/or the EU funding less. It most likely will be a bit of both.
Do you not think that the EU Executive should adjust it's plans in the light of it's budget reducing, rather than simply going on spending as if nothing is happening? (Over and above savings made in terminating the contracts of UK staff members that is).
Sounds a bit like sitting on the fence attitude there giving that about how both sides could kind of suffer? This is just like elections where one side wins and the other loses and life goes on and it will be the same effect once we get out of this farce of the EU. I know there are countries in the Union that will bed the knee because they are not capable or able to run themselves that well and the handouts keep them going but that does not mean we have to just drift along with that. Using the liberal political attitude does not work as far as this European club is concerned. We are not some third world or like those pooer ones in Europe and we have a good basis for a world wide position. Like any election or change of direction there are always challenges but here we are totally ignoring the simmering attitude from the strong guys in Europe to move towards a "United states of europe." Utter bonkers and this thread just body-swerves that. The majority of ordinary people in GB who are not cumfy off like others of us want out of the EU and i am glad of that.
As for Scotland a lot of the Brigadoon mob in the Nat corner are emotional tribalism. They fight for independence from the UK and to be governed by Brussels! May I also remind you that the Nationalists lost seats to both Labour and Conservative - especially Conservative. Even that big mouth and stroppy smart alex (Salmond) who used to be SNP Leader got bumped out of Westminster by a Tory. Britain voted to get out and we will and even if teething problems we are basically and economically strong. Roll on the date! :yes:
But the sad fact is that they tend to be irrelevant in the minds of many. I've noticed it in the Scottish Independence turmoil, in the Catalan independence on-going saga and now also in Brexit. There comes a time when people simply don't care about the economic arguments, the objective becomes limited to jingoistic notions of what winning means and practicalities get pushed aside. The is a context of what is happening when insults get thrown around. A bigger insult than one recieved neans a "win" however nonsensical thd insults were. Independence or bust becomes Independence whatever the consequences.
In my opinion the most vulnerable to falling into that way if thinking are the public who are not aware if the complexities and the political extremists who mould events and public opinion.
So I repeat my claim the a no deal scenario is a real possibility and behind that the argument that insults enhance that as a possibility. That would be a bad result for both sides of the negotiation table. That is why I object to such simplistic insults as having cakes while eating them.
That threat is weird, like a jilted lover threatening "If you leave me now, I'm going to stab myself". That is a credible threat, but through self-harm. It would hurt both, but only one would be bleeding.
It seems there is an agreement to put the knife down, to the relief of business and reasonable people everywhere.
Brexit is definitely going to cost economically, any other opinion is simply wrong. However, assuming rational behaviour, that cost should be modest over time.
People make decisions that are economically disadvantageous, and obviously have that choice, either for good reasons or for "blue passport" reasons.
Do you not think that the EU Executive should adjust it's plans in the light of it's budget reducing, rather than simply going on spending as if nothing is happening? (Over and above savings made in terminating the contracts of UK staff members that is).
You mean
the Council of the European Union (i.e. the governments of the member states)? That will be the big haggle. The net donor nations have been firm that they don't want to pay more, rather the opposite. On the other hand it's relatively small money. Like I said, I expect a bit of both.
And it's not like the UK is about to stop paying any day soon. There have been, and will continue to be, reforms. The EU budget has actually been shrinking relative to the economy. We can expect the payments to CAP to keep falling. The biggest battle ground, I guess, will be the second-largest post, the structural and cohesion funds. Infrastructure spending in particular can do much good, even between relatively rich countries as national governments tend to overinvest in infrastructure inside country and underinvest in infrastructure between countries. National government also tend to look at it from the perspective of the capital, not always a good idea. All that said, not all investments have been great, and we can expect slightly less of it in any case.
The big C word is Convergence. Lately there's rather been a divergence in the economies, but the longer-term trend is that relatively poorer countries are catching up, and/or get less farmers. Either way leading to net recipients needing and getting less.
EU: Serbia, Montenegro 'Could Join In 2025' (https://www.rferl.org/a/eu-western-balkans-strategy-bosnia-kosovo-macedonia-montenegro-serbia/28976883.html)
BRUSSELS -- Montenegro and Serbia should be ready for EU membership in 2025 and Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Macedonia should be well-advanced on their path to EU accession by then, according to a draft of the European Commission's Western Balkans strategy seen by RFE/RL.
The strategy, which is expected to be made public on February 6, is part of an EU effort to breathe new life into the accession process for the six Western Balkan countries that remain outside the bloc.
The draft seen by RFE/RL states that "the Western Balkan partners now have a historic window of opportunity" and that "for the first time their accession perspective has a best-case framework" -- but adds that the timeline set out in the paper is realistic only if there is "strong political will, delivery of real reforms, and lasting solutions to disputes with neighbors."
The timeline is "ambitious and is meant to be an incentive," it says.
According to the document, 2019 will be a crucial year.
(https://gdb.rferl.org/31EBB054-E0AB-403F-BFE9-7763D7C453D9_w1597_n_r0_s.png)
Whoever drew that map seems to have had it in for Albania.
It is interesting, though not really surprising, that it is Serbia and Montenegro that are in the fast track category. After all these were the two parts of Rump Yugoslavia that started the Yugoslav wars, and Serbia was finally bombed into submission. A generation later they, and their erstwhile enemies, are set to join the EU. Of course, if it hadn't been for that war these countries would likely have been in the EU already.
It is interesting, though not really surprising, that it is Serbia and Montenegro that are in the fast track category. After all these were the two parts of Rump Yugoslavia that started the Yugoslav wars, and Serbia was finally bombed into submission. A generation later they, and their erstwhile enemies, are set to join the EU. Of course, if it hadn't been for that war these countries would likely have been in the EU already.
It's stupid rather than interesting. There seems to be a political principle that there must always be someone in the fast track category and currently there is nobody else there so they had to put someone even though they obviously don't qualify. It's just a move for the EU to feel good about itself, because it started to feel bad that things went down the drain with Ukraine and Turkey and what other non-qualifying countries they have been playing with.
There are technical requirements to be fulfilled to become an EU member, and Serbia and Montenegro have progressed the furthest, so based on that it is quite reasonable. There are also many political issues (e.g. the name of Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo, and so on).
These countries are poor (bad), small (good), and not with too many farmers (good), but there is a lot of other baggage. Three of the countries are majority Muslim, but that is not likely to be a major issue. However six more Balkan countries will move the EU voting blocks further to the South-East away from the North and West, as already experienced in the Eurovision.
...as already experienced in the Eurovision.
...which reminds me: Will UK continue participating in Eurovision? Why (not)?
But of course. They are not barbarians. Besides, the EBU predates the EU.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/EBU_enlargement_animation.gif)
Basically no reason why it should not in principle still be in the Euro Song contest. After all hat he deuce is Israel doing in the blessed thing. Yesterday it was still in the Middle East or has it been moved? Pointless nonsense that nation being in the event.
The who Brexit thing and decision would always be a strong reaction but the would be democrats who lost the Referendum cannot grow damn well up. Sniping and demanding like the liberal Democrat Party leader here who is a pest and constant moaner. There is also a Conservative MP backbencher sacked a wee while ago by the Prime Minister. She seems to forget the PM was originally a remainer who accepted the result and got on with it. Our economy has not collapsed the numbers working are the hgihest ever and s on. I dare say there will be passing matters on leaving but the Euro moaners seem to forget that Europe trades more to us than the other way round and they can suffer. Maybe learning to grow up is delayed as they don't want to lose the begging bowl they have?
But of course. They are not barbarians. Besides, the EBU predates the EU.
Right. And it shows that EBU does not reflect the ongoings in the EU at all. Popular voting has no necessary connection to top level political allegiances. So it's inapplicable to infer something like "...six more Balkan countries will move the EU voting blocks further to the South-East away from the North and West, as already experienced in the Eurovision."
Three of the countries are majority Muslim, but that is not likely to be a major issue.
Do you believe that?
Three of the countries are majority Muslim, but that is not likely to be a major issue.
Do you believe that?
I believe that it in fact is a major issue, but experience shows that our dear rulers are often blind to most obvious major issues.
Population (in megapeople)
Albania 2.9 (60-80% Muslim)
Bosnia-Herzegovina 3.5 (46% Muslim, so plurality, not majority)
Kosovo 1.8 (90% Muslim)
Total 8.2
A large number of these are secular Muslims, Muslims as an ethnic marker, but not practising religion. This is very far from Saudi Arabia. The wars radicalised many, but actually less than disaffected youth in Western Europe (SA keeps pushing though). Roughly speaking the total number of Muslims would be the same as the total number of Muslims in France.
Serbia 7.0
Montenegro 0.6
Macedonia 2.1
Total 9.7
The total population of all six countries is less than Romania (or for that matter the number of Roma, gypsies, if we take the upper bound)
The most obvious problem with these countries is that they are dirt poor, even poorer than Bulgaria, today's poorest member. The second obvious problem is that they have all had recent experience with civil war, and there is still plenty bad blood. Third, none of them have good government, plenty corruption and crime. Today none of them would qualify. Would they qualify in 2025? They could, with sufficient improvements. It is also possible that the front-runners will change on the way.
Another class of problems is that they all, except Serbia that may count as mid-size, are small countries. Every country has a veto, and the number of possible vetos would go up from 27 to 33. Even with qualified voting this would be a significant shift toward the Balkans. If you want less power to Germany and France, great. Germany and France might not agree. There would be no obvious sponsors in the North, North-East, West or South-West as in other enlargements. But by virtue of these being small enlargements, they probably would pass, assuming the applicant countries are qualified.
The total population of all six countries is less than Romania (or for that matter the number of Roma, gypsies, if we take the upper bound)
And Romanian gypsies by themselves cause enough obvious problems so that there is a term for them that you have most definitely heard of:
EU-migranter. This euphemism invariably means unemployed homeless wandering beggars-or-worse from Romania.
The most obvious problem with these countries is that they are dirt poor, even poorer than Bulgaria, today's poorest member. The second obvious problem is that they have all had recent experience with civil war, and there is still plenty bad blood. Third, none of them have good government, plenty corruption and crime. Today none of them would qualify.
Romania and Bulgaria did not qualify either, but none of these problems eventually prevented their accession. Occasionally it looks as if the qualifications are: Just stand in line long enough and you're in.
With Bosnia, Kosovo et al, their Muslim population adds another dimension: From then on, there will be no arguments against Turkey's membership. Nevermind the democracy problem, Kurdish problem, and Cyprus problem, because EU leaders have no principles. There will be an opportune moment for every applicant regardless of the so-called qualifications. Ukraine does not qualify because Russia opposes it - that's the real qualification.
Another class of problems is that they all, except Serbia that may count as mid-size, are small countries. Every country has a veto, and the number of possible vetos would go up from 27 to 33.
In practice, the EU has almost solved this particular issue. It's unfeasible for any smaller country to stand alone. Only big countries can afford to veto without having regional allies. The line between big and small seems to go roughly at the point of Poland and Hungary.
From then on, there will be no arguments against Turkey's membership.
That's the real point,Turkey.
May I remind my fellow europeans that Turkey was invited by
Germany the EU for joining the Union. Then, a shaming process of denying our own word lead to the actual situation. Erdogan knows well the weight of Turkey for defending the West so he does what he wants.
So... is it the EU able to not need Turkey?
Or should the EU turn it's strategy against the USA, China and Russia, the real menace, instead spending time with minor Islam problems that takes too much space in our days corrupt media?
When you consider how Turkey is run and what goes on in it keep it distant.
hen you consider how Turkey is run and what goes on in it keep it distant.
It seems that you are the ones to keep distant. Finally.
:D
This is probably the most thorough article about GDPR https://www.politico.eu/article/click-yes-if-you-have-read-and-agree/
The EU Commission's alleged aim is,
"Internet users do not have to click on a banner every time they visit a website," Commission Vice President Andrus Ansip said. "They will be able to make an informed choice."
Let's ignore the fact that Andrus Ansip is the second-most hated politician in Estonia, particularly due to his tendency to get emphatic when he has no clue what he is talking about (that's why we were happy to send him to the EU), and let's just note that the actual effect of prior EU regulation has been the exact opposite. As the article continues,
When the European Parliament reviewed the e-Privacy Directive in 2009, it included the obligation for companies storing data to have people opt in, rather than opt out. Coders started building banners across websites to comply.
[...]
"People who thought cookie banners were annoying will be disappointed to hear that things won’t get better," said Townsend Feehan, head of the Interactive Advertising Bureau for Europe, which lobbies for the online advertising industry trading heavily in data gathered through marketing cookies.
"Without significant improvements to the proposed text, users would have to actively change the settings of every single device and app they use, and more actively deal with constant requests for permission for the use of harmless cookies when visiting websites and using other digital services," Feehan said.
And if you live in the EU right now, you have already detected that Mr Feehan was right and Mr Ansip was wrong. Websites present EU citizens with more aggressive popups than ever. It's the way the websites understand their obligations under the GDPR.
Dodge the headache of compliance for all your 3rd-party tracking pixels (pretty much all social platforms and 3rd-party widgets/plugins employ some kind of tracking – the infamous "Like" button is probably the most prolific), by requiring consent by default. That is, for all your visitors, European or otherwise, before any tracking takes place. That way, there are no grey areas and you minimise any risk of getting this wrong – a high risk considering website content is often constantly in flux...
[...]
Essentially, the approach is that you need to create a compliance alert to your users on their first visit. You probably already have such a message already. However, often I find tracking is already taking place as soon as the visitor loads a page from your site – before they have accepted (or not) your offer to track their activity. That of course is wrong.
[...]
Five tips for compliance consent:
1. Keep your compliance alert in place until your visitor takes action to accept it. If accepted the alert is removed. If the visitor takes no action, then your compliance alert remains in place. That is, there is no available action for the visitor to reject the alert.
In other words, to be legally safe, the cookie-feeders understand that they must block everything from the user and present them with a popup up front, before anything else. This would naturally happen when the website does not recognise the visitor, i.e. when the cookies are purged or turned off, the visitor must be slapped with a popup.
This is of course exactly what all advertisers want: To be legally required to advertise, bug, annoy, troll in your face, get your consent before you get to know what they are selling, completely regardless if you are even shopping for anything.
Thanks again, EU. Likely there is no easy way to redirect all my devices to appear to be outside the EU, but I am actively looking for a way now. You have paralysed my ability to work and I am forced to fix this before it gets too critical.
Likewise, you have a far greater user group trying to VPN themselves into Europe.
Opt-in, much like freedom and democracy, is great in theory, but easily subvertible and subverted in practice. I was sceptical about GDPR initially, but it does seem to be a game-changer. By far not sufficient, but it will make some abuses very much not cost-effective.
There is an absolutely obscene sub-industry based on the repackaging of personal data. Commonly 10% of a web site is pushing content to you, and 90% pushing you to these ad brokers. Where there is profit there is a way, but they will have to work harder for it in the future.
Likewise, you have a far greater user group trying to VPN themselves into Europe.
Why? Because they want to enjoy the circus a little bit? Probably to find some euros to scam from here and there by making people click things evermore.
It cannot be in order to get some useful work done, because GDPR took that away.
Opt-in, much like freedom and democracy, is great in theory, but easily subvertible and subverted in practice.
By what flip of logic do you call it an opt-in when you are presented with a barrier with one single option? What sort of opt-in is it? And how in hell can you compare it to freedom and democracy? I have given you too much benefit of the doubt.
There is an absolutely obscene sub-industry based on the repackaging of personal data. Commonly 10% of a web site is pushing content to you, and 90% pushing you to these ad brokers. Where there is profit there is a way, but they will have to work harder for it in the future.
False. Work on their end did not change one bit. Work on my end was already done - I flatly refuse all cookies, unless I need to log in. Now my work has become impossible, because there are demands for me to enable cookies at every turn.
And you have the balls to say this is freedom and democracy. No. My freedom on the internet has been entirely removed.
I was sceptical about GDPR initially, but it does seem to be a game-changer. By far not sufficient, but it will make some abuses very much not cost-effective.
Can you name some abuse that ceases to be cost effective now?
The way I see it: I used to have a right to refuse cookies. This right was taken away with the cookie directive. Occasionally, when trying to get rid of some above-average nasty banner, I thought "Can this get any worse?" The answer: Of course! When the EU politicians come together, discuss things through with the internet giants and when they sincerely try, yes, they will find a foolproof way to make things worse for everyone!
What they did is legally required abuse!
By what flip of logic do you call it an opt-in when you are presented with a barrier with one single option? What sort of opt-in is it? And how in hell can you compare it to freedom and democracy? I have given you too much benefit of the doubt.
I'm of the opinion that tracking walls are almost certainly illegal under the GDPR. See e.g. https://pagefair.com/blog/2017/tracking-walls We'll have to wait and see what happens, I suppose.
I'm of the opinion that tracking walls are almost certainly illegal under the GDPR.
So you agree with Commissar Ansip's presentation on the subject.
To be sure, I would be happy if it were so. However, leaving aside all the bad things I know about Ansip, there are bad things to be noted that preceded GDPR. Namely, the cookie directive (e-privacy regulation) directly erected the walls and you cannot get rid of them unless you accept. Far from being illegal, walls were the aim and the plan under the regulation.
And Brian Clifton (https://brianclifton.com/blog/2018/04/16/google-analytics-gdpr-and-consent/), who is apparently some cookie expert, interprets GDPR as a straightforward extension of the cookie directive - erect more walls more aggressively. Reality happens to align with this interpretation.
It looks like he's not advocating for a tracking wall per se, like effectively on geenstijl (https://www.geenstijl.nl/), which is what I was referring to, but for its annoying little brother:
The trick is to make the alert “irritating” and “distracting” enough for the visitor to want to take action, but ultimately you cannot stop the user accessing your content if they do not.
I deliberately emphasize irritating and distracting as you must give a strong reason for the user to take action – accept to be tracked. Otherwise you risk large swathes of visitors simply ignoring your alert and continuing to browse your content regardless i.e. you lose a large amount of visitor data!
I would say that's against the spirit of it all but of course there's a large gray zone of acceptability.
He also explicitly agrees with what I intended (and perhaps "Commissar Ansip") in the comments:
BTW, you are not allowed to block access to your content if a visitor does not consent. My analogy is from bricks and mortar retail stores – a store owner cannot stop someone visiting a store just because they don’t like the look of them. That is called discrimination and is illegal in the EU.
Right now, at least Forbes.com, Latimes.com, and everybody related to Oath Group (includes Endgadget, TechCrunch, and HuffPost) block EU visitors. Block as in block - you have no access. Bypassing with VPN they work as usual.
But I think even the earlier cookie popup deserves to be called a wall. Because it is a barrier. The effect of the GDPR is that it amplified the barriers.
I flatly refuse all cookies, unless I need to log in. Now my work has become impossible, because there are demands for me to enable cookies at every turn.
One might wonder what this has to do with EU regulations.
There were sites since ages which didn't deliver content if you had cookies disabled. So they are now.
BTW, in private mode browsing, no data will be stored on your HD.
Right now, at least Forbes.com, Latimes.com, and everybody related to Oath Group (includes Endgadget, TechCrunch, and HuffPost) block EU visitors. Block as in block - you have no access.
Forbes.com, engadget.com, techcrunch.com and huffingtonpost.com are displaying fine with my German IP. Tested right now.
One might wonder what this has to do with EU regulations.
There were sites since ages which didn't deliver content if you had cookies disabled. So they are now.
If the EU so desperately wants to regulate, they could regulate sensibly, such as force such sites to drop their insistence on cookies. Instead, they regulated the opposite: Make everybody insist on cookies.
Forbes.com, engadget.com, techcrunch.com and huffingtonpost.com are displaying fine with my German IP. Tested right now.
They are displaying
what fine?
Since the turn of the week
- Forbes.com redirects to https://www.forbes.com/consent/?toURL=https://forbes.com/ which reads "We want you to experience the full power of Forbes.com, but we need your consent to continue..."
- Latimes.com redirects to http://www.tronc.com/gdpr/latimes.com/ which reads "Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."
- Those others redirect to https://guce.oath.com/collectConsent?brandType=nonEu&.done=https[etc] which reads "... Due to EU data protection laws..."
And the first two are implemented by some hardcore means that cannot be bypassed by simply turning javascript off.
If you are unaffected, then either you are really not using an EU IP or your country has managed to negotiate some exceptions to itself vis-a-vis the US. Not surprised either way. The EU regulations are just for suckers like the Baltic countries.
Well, it's a German IP of a German ISP.
AFAIK Germany is still part of the EU. I'm not aware of a silent Dexit. :)
As for the Baltic states, I thought they are together with the Ukraine and Poland the closest European allies of the US.
BTW, I assume you don't try to access Forbes with an exotic text based browser. ;)
I've attached two pics.
From the first one you can see that I'm correctly identified as an EU visitor.
First I get redirected to Forbes Europe. However there is no problem switching to the US site as shown in the second pic.
first pic (https://ibb.co/kOABqy)
second pic (https://ibb.co/eTKzcd)
A passing thought on Ukraine. The place is a mess hole and corrupt as proverbial hell. As a Glasgow man i would be groaning if I was forced to live in Edinburgh but even that better than living in that place! :D
Well, it's a German IP of a German ISP.
AFAIK Germany is still part of the EU. I'm not aware of a silent Dexit. :)
As for the Baltic states, I thought they are together with the Ukraine and Poland the closest European allies of the US.
This only shows that, as I always knew, there is no equality and no fairness in the EU. And much less of it can be expected from the US.
BTW, I assume you don't try to access Forbes with an exotic text based browser. ;)
You assume false. When I can't get there with one thing, but I need to, then I will try with another thing and another. I have tried text-based browsers - I go there for news articles after all, not for pics.
For me, only VPN works so that I place myself in Asia. It didn't occur to me to try Germany.
I've attached two pics.
From the first one you can see that I'm correctly identified as an EU visitor.
First I get redirected to Forbes Europe. However there is no problem switching to the US site as shown in the second pic.
Good for you. That EU countries are treated differently only makes this nonsense more nonsensical. The GDPR failed completely even before it started. Eurocommissars should disband.
To clarify: Of course I get to the same page as you after clicking on two (!) OK's, but my point is that no OK's should be needed. Those aggressive acknowledgement demands were not there prior to the GDPR.
I do it for work, not for pleasure. My work, physically, consists of clicking on things. I try my best to minimise and optimise it. The GDPR has massively multiplied my work, made it physically impossible. Privacy is not really a concern for me. The number of clicks is very much a concern.
They are not opt-in's. An opt-in is coupled with an opt-out&continue. It's an unjustified barrier with one single option: sign under. It should not be there at all. I have no reason to sign anything when I am not subscribing, just looking at supposedly free unrestricted content.
If the alleged aim of the GDPR was to improve privacy, then it of course failed massively, just like the cookie directive before it. Privacy would be improved by allowing people to set the cookies OFF in their browsers, while the browsing experience should remain the same: No popups, no redirects. What the cookie directive did was bombard everyone with popups to accept cookies (i.e. loudly insist on worsening your privacy) even if you had them already enabled to accept absolutely everything.
I'm generously giving eurocommissars a benefit of the doubt. I assume they know what they are doing (except Commissar Ansip; he never has any personal initiative and thus no personal responsibility; he only does what he's been told). They know that they are not improving any privacy at all. They are simply lying about the privacy. The real aim is different. Perhaps it's a social experiment on how much crap the EU citizens can take. Because the cookie directive was deemed too mild an experiment - everybody swallowed it without any official complaint. The crap, in my case, is the number of clicks. This was increased with the cookie directive and now with the GDPR it massively exploded.
I don't think companies set out to be evil, most of them anyway.
However, the more private information you harvest, the higher your stock price will be, and this has been driving the obnoxious developments the last 15 years. Few companies are in the harvesting business, but wittingly or unwittingly they outsource that to ad brokers, a small part of the whole harvest-for-cash ecosystem. That there are no real reprisals for abuse or negligence adds to the destructiveness of the system. This highly fluid network is like a dark, thorny, malevolent forest. It's not sentient, but behaves as it almost could be. Earlier legalisation tried to prune some thorns. That didn't work. GDPR tries to, we don't know yet how well it will succeed, to attack sources of sustenance, abuse shall not be profitable, and the forest will adapt. Hopefully it will become a little less dark, a little less nasty.
In each and every web/app design office it will be the usual battle between greed (managers wanting ad income), fear (lawyers don't wanting company to be sued), and laziness (do as little as possible). This will go several rounds.
I don't think companies set out to be evil, most of them anyway.
Do you really think so even when your next paragraph completely disproves it? You describe a vicious, completely evil, circle, which I happen to agree with. The more justified idea is that every for-profit company harbours a seed of evil in their heart.
Profit is evil. But livelihood is a necessity and ordinary business should be conducted as per nature of livelihood. Profit is and remains evil.
And this little stray statement is curious,
Earlier legalisation tried to prune some thorns.
Did you mean legislation or legalisation? They are different things, as you well know. Legislation is to give some thing a scope, framework, or structure. Legalisation is to allow or permit the thing.
Legalisation does not try to prune some thorns. Legalisation permits thorns to do whatever it is that thorns do. The cookie directive did just that. The GDPR upped the free rein of banners, popups, splashes, and redirects exponentially. At least this is the observable effect.
In each and every web/app design office it will be the usual battle between greed (managers wanting ad income), fear (lawyers don't wanting company to be sued), and laziness (do as little as possible). This will go several rounds.
I agree that this is how the world tends to operate, but this is not how it should be. In addition to businesses with employers and employees, there is also the state bureacracy that should moderate business relations. Greed is evil, so it should be squished, not fomented. But the GDPR foments greed.
Advertising, getting their commercial message out, is the religion of for-profit businesses. They want to sell their thing regardless if anyone needs it or not. This is evil because it's directed at profit, beyond the nature of livelihood. It's evil because it disregards ordinary everyman's relationships and replaces them with commercial relationships.
A little analogy to help things along. It's my everyman's right to walk in a public space and to see whatever is placed there. Internet is such a public space. Commercially oriented websites want me to buy stuff or at least to click on specific things, which is approximately the equivalent to placing signs outside their shops. The signs are on a public space, they tend to block your steps, they also block your view in some directions to some extent, so the placement of the signs is or should be regulated. They should not disturb ordinary traffic too much.
The cookie directive demands cookie popups, creating barriers to normal traffic. In the above analogy, the cookie directive is equivalent to a legal regulation that says, "Every shop MUST put a sign outside their doorstep."
My faith is crumbling, but I am still trying to believe that you are a reasonable guy who somewhat comprehends that shops in fact WANT to put their signs out in the public space. Because they are greedy. The effect of the cookie directive was to not regulate those signs, not to moderate, but to legalise them without restriction, to give them free rein, ultimately fomenting greed.
The GDPR makes the same thing worse. The GDPR had been negotiated years ago with FB, G, MS, etc. (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/article-29/documentation/other-document/index_en.htm), so the GDPR is not a response to e.g. the recent scandal with Cambridge Analytica, or to Google tacitly admitting having turned evil (https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393). Instead, I think the GDPR is the EU giving the internet giants what they had been lobbying for. I have no idea what the GDPR says, but it's empirically obvious enough what its effects are, and I consider it reasonable to judge the thing by its fruits. Your eurocommissar lied to you, just like he did last time, and the time before that...
Perhaps it's a social experiment on how much crap the EU citizens can take.
That's done all the time. Through consumerism people sold themselves into rats in the lab.
The GDPR nonsense worries Wikipedia too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_Copyright_in_the_Digital_Single_Market
This Wednesday we need your help. On 5 July 2018, the European Parliament will vote on a new copyright directive. If approved, these changes threaten to disrupt the open Internet that Wikipedia is a part of. You have time to act. Join the discussion. Thank you.
Edit: And this http://bnn-news.com/estonian-latvian-wikipedia-protest-against-eu-digital-copyright-directive-187351
The GDPR only adds to the evil. It was visible from afar.
You are completely confusing matters, which is one of the lesser problems with the proposed, and rejected 318-278 (31 abstaining) (https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/1014814460488413185), copyright law. It would be a bad law confused with a good law (GDPR).
Wikipedia, and IT professionals in general, are not against GDPR. It is an uncommonly good thing, but as said just one step on a long parth.
Ah, you are right that I am confusing different EU directives here. However, the Wikipedia article says that it's indeed a bundle of directives, so the matter itself is confused and confusing. And I remind you that you have still not cited a single benefit of the GDPR to counterbalance its already observable evils.
If Goebells was around he would be smiling.
If Goebells was around he would be smiling.
Do you think, he would care about Brexit?
Nah he wouldn't be in charge but the control freakery of the EU in Europe would be fun for him!
Ah, you are right that I am confusing different EU directives here. However, the Wikipedia article says that it's indeed a bundle of directives, so the matter itself is confused and confusing. And I remind you that you have still not cited a single benefit of the GDPR to counterbalance its already observable evils.
Actually I did. The Internet has taken a hard dystopian turn the last 15 years. Basically companies have been encouraged to extract as much personal information as possible on their customers and "customers" as they can, whether or not they need it (and they usually don't), because their share price will be higher if they do. To add to the injury, their data security is generally shit, so all your data will pretty much be in the hand of American, Chinese, Russian, and probably other intelligence agencies, plus whatever data freelance hackers come over for resale.
We have moved very fast towards a total surveillance society. Technology would probably have led us in this direction anyway, but business decisions have made the move much faster. GDPR has slowed this trend down, it hasn't reversed it. The companies are now more responsible for the data they collect and trade. It could be likened to how factories early in the industrial revolution could pollute at will, whatever sludge ran from their pipes or gases from their chimneys were of no concern to them. Likewise IT companies could, should, gather data, and whatever happened to those further down the line was not their concern. This is more important long run than the features of GDPR itself. But GDPR has several goodies.
I am no great fan of
consent, because it is not truly informed. With GDPR it is less uninformed, much simpler, and opt-in instead of opt-out. Opt-ins annoy you, but opt-outs aren't consent. Simpler opt-ins means something that can be tracked for you by the browser, which I imagine it will eventually.
Right to be forgotten is a winner, as is
right to access. This gives us access to the same information as the data aggregators have, and we can get them erased. That includes data passed on to other parties. A company can no longer sell data and not care where it is going. Most people would not actively get their data deleted, but with activists enough would to set up a system where this is easily achieved. In other words accountability will be built in, and with opt-in everyone benefits.
This is further enhanced through
privacy by design and
privacy by default. This pushes companies towards minimal data gathering and retention rather than today's maximum and reselling. These don't have much teeth though, but those can be added later.
Finally there are clearer requirements for safeguarding data and reporting breaches. That matters as well. Probably wouldn't stop the aforementioned intelligence agencies, but would give us better checks on the rest.
And I remind you that you have still not cited a single benefit of the GDPR to counterbalance its already observable evils.
Actually I did. The Internet has taken a hard dystopian turn the last 15 years. Basically companies have been encouraged to extract as much personal information as possible on their customers and "customers" as they can, whether or not they need it (and they usually don't), because their share price will be higher if they do. To add to the injury, their data security is generally shit, so all your data will pretty much be in the hand of American, Chinese, Russian, and probably other intelligence agencies, plus whatever data freelance hackers come over for resale.
And how does this counterbalance the evil? It
is the evil.
In the 90's the situation was not so evil. Generally in the services I used, when I stopped using them, the account would self-destruct after a while. A few warnings arrived by email and when I took no action,
right to be forgotten happened by itself!
GDPR allegedly revolves around
right to be forgotten but it is not even attempting to return to those good old times.
I am no great fan of consent, because it is not truly informed. With GDPR it is less uninformed, much simpler, and opt-in instead of opt-out. Opt-ins annoy you, but opt-outs aren't consent. Simpler opt-ins means something that can be tracked for you by the browser, which I imagine it will eventually.
In European Union there is nothing to distinguish opt-in from opt-out. Opt-in and opt-out may exist in USA (and probably un UK), but not in (continental) Europe.
In European Union, there is just one thing: consent. And, with GDPR, it is consent loudly over any alleged rights. The consent is there for you to give consent to whatever the privacy policy demands of you, even though the privacy policy (or, more correctly, the popup for the public to give consent to the privacy policy) has no business to be there in the first place.
Right to be forgotten is a winner, as is right to access. This gives us access to the same information as the data aggregators have, and we can get them erased. That includes data passed on to other parties. A company can no longer sell data and not care where it is going.
Yes, these rights are cool, but GDPR does not address these rights. It does not give you the right to be forgotten. It does not give you the right to access.
GDPR does the opposite. GDPR demands websites to
block public access unless the public acknowledges that they accept to be tracked by cookies, i.e.
the public must give up the right to be anonymous even when they are not signed up or logged in.
Selling personal/confidential data was always illegal. All that needs to be done is to enforce the laws we already have in place. The GDPR should have stopped the practice of writing outrageous things in privacy policies that portals and webservices make you sign when you sign up. Does GDPR make privacy policies sensible and uniform across the board? I guess not.
Most people would not actively get their data deleted, but with activists enough would to set up a system where this is easily achieved. In other words accountability will be built in, and with opt-in everyone benefits.
As long as the self-destruct scheme of unused accounts is not a legal requirement, the situation of zero accountability and outrageous abuse will continue. In fact, it just worsened, because we are made to give consent to random privacy policies that nobody will ever read, and which for this reason should be legally required to be sensible and uniform across the board.
The problem is that privacy policies are stupid nonsense that are not worth reading. They are unlawful to begin with, that's why the only right thing is to ignore them. The effect of GDPR is that we are required to give consent to them even when we are not signing up or logging in anywhere.
This is further enhanced through privacy by design and privacy by default. This pushes companies towards minimal data gathering and retention rather than today's maximum and reselling. These don't have much teeth though, but those can be added later.
Finally there are clearer requirements for safeguarding data and reporting breaches. That matters as well. Probably wouldn't stop the aforementioned intelligence agencies, but would give us better checks on the rest.
You have bought into this bs so deeply there is no way helping you out of it.
The problem is that privacy policies are stupid nonsense that are not worth reading. They are unlawful to begin with, that's why the only right thing is to ignore them.
Exactly.
But ignore it is not enough.
‘United Ireland’ would slash £8.5bn from North’s deficit (https://www.derryjournal.com/news/united-ireland-would-slash-8-5bn-from-north-s-deficit-1-8578805)
(https://www.derryjournal.com/news/united-ireland-would-slash-8-5bn-from-north-s-deficit-1-8578805)
(https://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,q_auto:low,c_fill/if_h_lte_200,c_mfit,h_201/https://www.derryjournal.com/webimage/1.8578804.1532509964!/image/image.jpg)
A new report by an economist who worked with the IMF on German reunification argues the North would cease to be a financial dependency in the event of a ‘United Ireland.’
Dr. Gunther Thumann calculates the North would save £8.5billion a year by leaving the UK and uniting with the rest of the country.
This would bring the North close to a balanced budget in a reunification scenario, working on a reported deficit figure of £9.2billion for 2013/14.
Dr. Thumann’s ‘Northern Ireland’s Income and Expenditure in a Reunification scenario’ report, was commissioned by the Oireachtas Good Friday Agreement Implementation Committee last month and co-authored by the Fianna Fáil Senator Mark Daly.
Contrary to claims the island of Ireland can’t afford the North, Dr. Thumann maintains pension liabilites accrued while the ‘Six Counties’ were part of the UK would be London’s responsibility, slashing £2.8billion a year from the deficit. An annual £2.9billion bill towards UK defence expenditure, debt interest, international service, EU contributions, and the upkeep of the UK royal family and other ‘non-identifiable’ items routinely charged to the people of the North would, equally, be of no concern for the governors of a new agreed Ireland. Up to £1.1bn in accounting adjustment figures attributed by Westminster to the North, meanwhile, would also no longer be applicable.
Dr. Thumann calculates that the amalgamation of the northern and southern public services would save £1.7bn a year resulting in a cumulative saving of £8.5bn without having even taken account of the likely potential for growth in the North as happened in East Germany following its reunification.
(https://www.derryjournal.com/news/united-ireland-would-slash-8-5bn-from-north-s-deficit-1-8578805)A reunified Ireland would certainly have made Brexit negotiations a lot simpler.
Now more guff from EU lover jax. May I remind that Ireland ages back were desperate to get into the Europe club because they were financially a disaster. Even in more recent times we loaned the Dublin corner over 7 billion. Places like Ireland and other strained places like Portugal and others were not capable of a financial basis or run themselves properly and getting into the EU was a desperation and Ireland did greatly change because it could not find capability to manage itself. Southern Ireland has much improved due to Europe handouts and good for them but we can exist with the EU and subsiding the less well off places.
And they are already implementing anti-VPN technologies https://www.is.fi/digitoday/art-2000005588554.html
The evilness is implemented by Kaltura, US-Israeli firm. The relevant error message is "No KS where KS is needed"
Next step: anti-anti-VPN technology! :knight:
I would remind jax in his pomposity that apart from what I said can I remind that Southern Ireland only started getting somewhere because it had to be in the EU to be like countries like Portugal and others for the begging bowl. We DID help Dublin financially. As for the sneaking dig at the Royals I would also remind smart alec jax that we in hard money facts get the profits from the Royal estates side of things and about time that reminder aired.
What I have also said was that the Irish Republic has improved internally on political and religious headaches they had for decades. They are NOT going on about a united Ireland and for all my compliments for some Irish changes there are still aspects of down south that a great many in Ulster would not be happy with.It was that Sinn Fein crowd of very leftist gits that bum on about a united Ireland and as democratic as a bunch of old Soviet mentalities! They won't even sit in the UK parliament because of the royal oath issue. Away back before the 2nd World War we had a couple of Commies in Westminster and they sat there after the oath. It was the same bunch of creeps who bumped off the N. Ireland Assembly by misusing an issue. The SF IS the political wing of the murderous Provisional IRA scumbags and Blair should never have pursued what he did forcing a shared situation.
I figured the European nut lot would make Brexit as awkward as damn possible and put on a front of being wonderful and so on. I am glad we are getting out and back in control and it is a damn disgrace that Euro lot cannot even get their annual "books" sorted year in and year out. They go on yakking about the wonder of it all yet cannot do a decent job when someone democratically wants to leave!
And they are already implementing anti-VPN technologies [...] The relevant error message is "No KS where KS is needed"
Next step: anti-anti-VPN technology! :knight:
Ha, I stumbled on a workaround completely on my own. And I am not sharing :devil:
Netflix has been blocking VPNs for sometime now. I don't remember what method I was using, probably a lazy one. Thought I wanted to watch the new Star Trek (I was wrong about that). I refuse to give CBS any money though. I mean, Netflix paid for it, I pay them - seems reasonable to stay the course. CBS still messed it up. 💩
Theresa May delights us by showing her dance skills
[video]https://youtu.be/Ol15nyxlP6o?t=1[/video]
Theresa May delights us by showing her dance skills
Yes... maybe Putin dances better Afro folklore. I doubt RT to ever show us such splendid spectacle.
Brexit to them, just disappear forever.
Yes... maybe Putin dances better Afro folklore. I doubt RT to ever show us such splendid spectacle.
Putin is no stranger to dancing https://youtu.be/sC2DNWLEDrY?t=45
And not to singing either https://youtu.be/IV4IjHz2yIo?t=80
He is awesome like Yeltsin https://youtu.be/cRysHHzLAmM?t=20
And not to singing either https://youtu.be/IV4IjHz2yIo?t=80 (https://youtu.be/IV4IjHz2yIo?t=80)
I can't help but notice Gérard Depardieu.
I can't help but notice Gérard Depardieu.
Yes, he strikes the screen so powerfully that you barely notice Vincent Cassel, Goldie Hawn, Kurt Russell, Kevin Costner, etc.
Exactly. :)
Putin is no stranger to dancing https://youtu.be/sC2DNWLEDrY?t=45 (https://youtu.be/sC2DNWLEDrY?t=45)
And not to singing either https://youtu.be/IV4IjHz2yIo?t=80 (https://youtu.be/IV4IjHz2yIo?t=80)
He even rides bears half naked, practices karate and plays piano.
That should make him an hero in Russia...
He even rides bears half naked, ...
Would you mind sharing your cartoon collection? :)
Would you mind sharing your cartoon collection? :)
It's public.
(https://image.ibb.co/cmQAoA/main-qimg-d6c9a75c89bb984aae6bec8f199eb610-c.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Yep.. Photoshop probably, fake news. Trump is right.
European Union against Killer Robots
Source Future of Life Institute (https://futureoflife.org/2018/09/14/european-parliament-passes-resolution-supporting-a-ban-on-killer-robots/)
The European Parliament passed a resolution on September 12, 2018 calling for an international ban on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS). The resolution was adopted with 82% of the members voting in favor of it.
Among other things, the resolution calls on its Member States and the European Council “to develop and adopt, as a matter of urgency … a common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems that ensures meaningful human control over the critical functions of weapon systems, including during deployment.”
The UN has not been able to take advances against such important matter because...
The countries that took the strongest stances against a LAWS ban at the recent UN meeting were the United States, Russia, South Korea, and Israel.
Not China? Interesting.
The UN has not been able to take advances against such important matter because...
The countries that took the strongest stances against a LAWS ban at the recent UN meeting were the United States, Russia, South Korea, and Israel.
I wonder who is wagging what tail. Generally, the United States will do as directed by Israel.
At the State Department we used to predict that if Israel's prime minister should announce that the world is flat, within 24 hours Congress would pass a resolution congratulating him on the discovery."- A CHANGING IMAGE, Richard H. Curtiss Foreign Service Officer
The thing is, the best way to understand Theresa May’s predicament is to imagine that 52 percent of Britain had voted that the government should build a submarine out of cheese.
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1072222352035987456
That sounds like one of those '50s cartoons. :)
Brexit timeline: key dates in UK’s divorce from EU (https://www.ft.com/content/64e7f218-4ad4-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b)
The UK is scheduled to leave the EU at 11pm local time on March 29 2019.
Just a little bit more patience :)
Here's a vocab list: https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/brexique-le-lexique-du-brexit.html
EU's final Copyright Reform upholds disastrous upload filters
The final text of Article 11 — which has been the other major bone of contention — also ended up being pretty much what opponents had feared, limiting the ability for any service to show snippets with links.
[...]
Parliament says Article 11 will allow hyperlinks to news articles to be accompanied by “individual words or very short extracts” without payments to rightsholders.
This seems to be about how search results would look like in a search engine. What a stupid thing to regulate. Even more, I think it is a stupid feature of the internet that there have to be search engines that display the results of *web crawlers* rather than what is really live on the internet. Web crawlers prioritise specific websites, say news portals, that they monitor constantly, so you get fresh stuff from those high-priority websites via search engine, while the search engine neglects other stuff. This has always been so, it is bad enough as it is, and it only makes it worse when regulators limit sharing content that is hard to get to in the first place.
The new regulation prevents displaying too much in the search engine, unless the search engine provider wants to "remunerate creators" even when "creators" have made it available to web crawlers. Probably Google's "cached" feature for pdf files in the search results will be gone - or gone for Europeans only. Total idiots at EU Commission.
But if the regulation is about more than just search results, if it's about, say, forum posts, twittering, news aggregators, then the EU Commission pretty much suppresses *sharing.* If so, the only safe place remains IRC. And darkweb.
The thing they should have done is to teach "creators" to not publish their stuff, to not make it available to web crawlers or other eyes on the internet. Don't "creators" have their own private/protected platforms where to share their stuff securely until their stuff becomes ready for publication? I have it (e.g. typing on my computer offline before I publish), so why don't they have it?
The final text of the Copyright Reform will now have to be approved by the Legal Affairs Committee, then voted on by member state governments in the European Council — but it’ll likely be passed there.
Oh, still another vote to go...
The UK is scheduled to leave the EU at 11pm local time on March 29 2019.
Oh no, this is not going according to schedule :(
The UK is scheduled to leave the EU at 11pm local time on March 29 2019.
Oh no, this is not going according to schedule :(
Oh, no! They are becoming Brazilian!
Breakthrough: UK and EU reach post-Brexit trade agreementJust a week before the deadline, Britain and the European Union struck a free-trade deal Thursday that should avert economic chaos on New Year’s and bring a measure of certainty for businesses after years of Brexit turmoil.
A week before the deadline? It always worked thus far to postpone all deadlines. It would have worked yet again as many times more. The negotiations were supposed to be over and out years ago.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “It was a long and winding road, but we have got a good deal to show for it.”
“It is fair, it is a balanced deal, and it is the right and responsible thing to do for both sides,” she said in Brussels.
What does the EU have to show for the deal? The EU members lost fishing rights. UK will not be slapped with trade tariffs as any normal third-party country is. EU has removed BVI, SKN, ATG, CYM, and BMU from the list of tax haven countries in 2020, obviously giving in to UK, because all those countries are the worst tax havens by all measures.
The EU has long feared that Britain would slash social, environmental and state aid rules after Brexit and gain a competitive advantage over the EU. Britain denies planning to institute weaker standards but said that having to follow EU regulations would undermine its sovereignty.
And how will this agreement prevent it? As soon as UK notices that some of their goods will be examined in customs and their citizens cannot retire to Spain and Portugal without any obstacles anymore, they will start whining about their sovereignty yet again as if no relevant agreement had ever been negotiated. The only sovereignty UK is happy with is when nobody else has any sovereignty.
EU gained nothing. UK gained the same special treatment as when they were in EU. Maybe UK gained even better, because UK will push for own sovereignty (i.e. the right to interfere in the affairs of the continent) and EU will simply give in as always.
Johnson, who staked his career and reputation on extracting the country from the EU, said Britain will always be a strong friend and partner to the bloc.
“Although we have left the EU, this country will remain, culturally, emotionally, historically, strategically, geologically attached to Europe,” he said.
I mostly agree with your vision ersi, but bottom line to me is that the EU gained to get rid of the UK. The European project doesn't need traitors.
This deal is nothing, mainly about some minor fishing, nothing about finance or economics. A way to the UK government to make the British population believe they still have any negotiating power. They don't.
I have to salute the Scottish prime minister's words that they didn't vote nothing of this and this is the moment for Scotland to become an Independent European nation. Be welcome.
Scottish prime minister's
She's just called the First Minister, not PM.
The increased political incentive for Scotland leaving the United Kingdom for the European Union is offset by the even stronger economic disincentive of a border between Scotland and England. In Northern Ireland the incentives go in the same direction. It makes more sense for Northern Ireland politically and economically to join Ireland (and the EU), though some will benefit from the current dual UK/EU regime.
Now, if Boris Johnson could follow through on his proposal to build that bridge from Scotland to Ireland there would be no reason for Scotland not to secede.
She's just called the First Minister, not PM.
Gabh mo leisgeul
:up:
For the detractors of the EU, the centralised vaccine acquisition process by Brussels for 27 countries was a fantastic thing allowing smaller countries to have the same negotiating power as the bigger ones.
Was not for that and people from Malta or Portugal or Estonia or many other nations would be vaccinated maybe by 2025.
A rare (very rare) example of the benefits of a centralised model of government, the same way the international co-operation between scientists was also a rare example of globalisation benefits.
Well, to Caesar what belongs to Caesar....
I would remind you jax that Scotland is not a sound financial place whatsoever. I am sure you do know that every year Scotland gets a very nice sum of money via the Barnett Formula and this tear got an even extra sum on top of that. Without such would mean a dashed shortage of money. Even with that money given to Scotland by the GB Government how would we properly exist? Indeed we also have the highest tax system of the 4 parts of Gt Britain thanks to to you know who. As for throw in in that rather excellent idea of the PM regarding an Irish Sea crossover between Ulster and Scotland as a wonderful part of Irish unity, dear, oh dear. in passing I also hope that Salmond the ex-First Minister scuppers that mouthy wee Sturgeon. :D
Yes, setting up barriers to trade with the larger economy comes at a significant economic cost, but citizens may still prefer it for sovereignty or something.
Even with that money given to Scotland
Are you really going to start with this repetitive nonsense again?
We are given nothing, it's already our money, If anything it's the other way around. Why the hell do you think the rest of the UK want's to hold on to us? It's certainly not for our bloody charm. If we were subsidised by the rest of the UK we would have been jettisoned long before now. It would be a blessed relief for them to get rid of us moaning Scots and save some revenue for themselves.
(https://i.imgur.com/Eqffqho.png)
The Barnett Formula Myth Destroyed – It does not subsidise Scotland (https://www.businessforscotland.com/the-barnett-formula-myth-destroyed-it-does-not-subsidise-scotland/)
Arguably the most misunderstood part of the UK public sector budgeting mechanism is the Barnett Formula. The vast majority of people, politicians and the media seem to think that Barnett represents a subsidy to Scotland. Many Westminster MPs (mainly Conservatives) have described it as English taxpayers subsidising Scottish public spending, and the mainstream media have run headlines along those lines. There is just one little problem with that idea – it’s complete and utter nonsense.
<Repetitive nonsense removed.>
Moderator message: Once again you are just repeating everything you've been repeating for 7 years now. We're all fed up reading it. That means this thread and damn near every thread you post in. Take it elsewhere, it's not going to be tolerated here anymore. You have already been told about this, you're walking a very thin line now Rj.
Russia humiliates Borrell in Moscow (https://euobserver.com/foreign/150844)
In hindsight I can somewhat forgive to Merkel and Hollande when they sucked up to Putin some ten plus years ago. It was still stupid and dangerous to suck up to Putin, but times looked bright, particularly in the Western Europe, so their ignorance was somewhat understandable.
But Borrell's behaviour is dangerous and absolutely unforgivable. He is straightforwardly treasonous, because everybody should understand that this is a time of near-war wrt Russia. In order to restore the credibility of the EU, Borrell must be deposed swiftly.
I wonder what Germany, Poland and Swede are waiting for deporting Russian Ambassadors as a reciprocity measure. This is in the first place a problem with those countries, the EU as a common organization should be supporting its members, not sending an idiot to Moscow.
Berlin, Warsow and Stockholm announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats as retaliation .
That's better.
For the detractors of the EU, the centralised vaccine acquisition process by Brussels for 27 countries was a fantastic thing allowing smaller countries to have the same negotiating power as the bigger ones.
Was not for that and people from Malta or Portugal or Estonia or many other nations would be vaccinated maybe by 2025.
A rare (very rare) example of the benefits of a centralised model of government, the same way the international co-operation between scientists was also a rare example of globalisation benefits.
Well, to Caesar what belongs to Caesar....
Highest marks I would give to the EU for being instrumental in setting up COVAX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVAX). Belatedly, from 21 January this year, the US joined as well. China joined a few months before that. Russia hasn't, their official position may be described as COVAX neutral. COVAX is a reasonably enlightened global initiative, between vaccine nationalism and pure altruism. "Everyone gets, but I am first in line, because it's my party."
Now, at the point of highest demand and lowest supply, those good intentions are strained. Rich countries are not happy, and poor countries aren't getting it, and they need it. Add to that the long-running debate on intellectual property on medicine, regional and global rivalries between major powers, propaganda wars, and that this is D-day for anti-vaxxers everywhere, the noise level is high.
https://youtu.be/JV9lZjyn_to
"Everyone gets, but I am first in line,
Why I don't get surprised with Israel and GB to be the two with biggest percentage of people already vaccinated?
Could the EU save the Baltic nations from Russian military?
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNOGBRdGxnE[/video]
The short answer: No. The longer answer (spoiling the video): EU cannot muster the unity and efficiency needed, therefore the Baltic countries would be lost, but since Russia would likely lose Kaliningrad in the process, an attack is not expected.
Well, I agree. The EU is a scam in many ways, most lucidly when it comes to its foreign policy which does not exist. The kind of flip-flopping that we have seen with regard to Russia has done irreparable damage to security at the Eastern border of the EU, encouraging Putin's finger-itch as the western member states of the EU keep demonstrating that they do not have interests with the eastern member states.
And no, I don't think the EU needs an army. Nato will be good enough, if we kick USA out of it. We should have used the good opportunity when Trump was the president.
In other news, Denmark's Secret Service betrayed EU internet users to NSA (as already earlier revealed by Snowden, except for the nuance that NSA apparently obtained the data officially via a weak link among EU members) https://thehackernews.com/2021/06/report-danish-secret-service-helped-nsa.html
NATO, with respect to the Baltic States, is in defense of the indefensible. NATO is significantly stronger than Russia everywhere in its territory, except for the Baltic States. So if Russia wanted to harm NATO for the sake of harming NATO, the Baltic States would be the place to go. A small area, a small population, with little defensive terrain. easily isolated by the Suwalki gap and the Gulf of Finland (the Suwalki gap has replaced the Fulda gap in NATO parlance).
have no idea why you mix in EU into this. The EU member countries are the NATO member countries plus Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Finland, but minus Norway, Turkey, USA, Canada, and recently UK. Not what you usually would consider a good swap, though relevant for the Baltic. After all the EU has succeeded where Sweden failed miserably in their great power years, taking control of the Baltic Sea.
Not only Russia's Near Abroad (https://twitter.com/carlbildt). The Baltic Sea is kind of the EU Mare Nostrum.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0IsHTPXsAEWJe2?format=jpg)
The main risk is that in case of a Baltic invasion or incursion the NATO/EU countries won't come from "EU disunity", but from a Russian belief, warranted or not, that the US (or France or Britain) wouldn't go to full thermonuclear war to intercede in a "quarrel in far away [countries}, between people of whom we know nothing" populated by six million people in total. Worst case the Russian leadership would believe NATO wouldn't while they actually would. In a full war with NATO Russia loses. Anything less than that and Russia (if not Russians) could win.
But in one regard EU is relevant. Military powerful NATO members are not in the EU, but Sweden and Finland are in the EU and not in NATO. In a Baltic conflict, we'd be busy trying to postpone defeat, but assuming this wouldn't happen, Sweden and Finland would be useful forward bases on attacks on Russia itself. Not merely on Königsberg, but also recognise the liberated Republic of Karelia, foment a new Russian revolution in Petrograd, liberate Belarus, free Siberia. None of these might happen, all of these would bother Moscow greatly. Russia in turn might feel more comfortable around the Black Sea, even with all the oligarch dachas there obliterated.
Assuming a Western commitment to the Baltic State and a willingness to do to Russia what Russia has been doing to them, little green men in the Baltics wouldn't be a winning move. That's what the EU might accomplish, making that commitment believable.
(I) have no idea why you mix in EU into this.
Surely you have some idea.
But in one regard EU is relevant.
See, you have some idea :)
Currently the most urgent point is how Denmark's Secret Service betrayed the entire EU with their machinations with USA's NSA, indicating a principled lack of commitment on security cooperation within the EU. You might say that this betrayal was towards USA, so it is less serious than if it had happened towards Russia, but it is evidence of how easy the EU is to pick apart on any issue, something that has been accomplished on a number of occasions both by USA and Russia.
At the current stage, some affected countries have individually expressed their disappointment at Denmark. Let's see if it escalates to the EU level.
I wouldn't automatically trust the French to come to the aid of the Baltics in every possible situation. For them there are bigger fishes in bigger seas.
A little more complicated... (https://katherinewikoff.com/2014/03/10/the-russia-ukraine-syria-connection-and-why-turkey-may-be-in-crisis-next/)
That's a fair assessment, as in the map above. However like @Frenzie mentioned it gets more complicated yet with Cyprus and our Middle Sea, the 3C (https://3seas.eu/) biggie, including the part you refer to as the Middle East. Turkey's interests don't align closely with the EU's, nor with Russia's.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0Ml6XuXIAYHMwy?format=jpg)
Not to speak of the even bigger picture,
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0Rx_0sXsAEotiZ?format=png)
NATO/E3 have potential weaknesses too. The British ruling elite might live fat off Russian oligarch money, the Americans might elect another Russian puppet. Canada might be concerned about their Russian neighbour, but be unable to project that concern.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E119ZUvXIAM_kpb?format=jpg)
All this bother and worry notwithstanding, a Baltic gambit would be a long-term losing move for Moscow. It could be a short-term bet, and that would be a problem, not the least for those living around it.
Currently the most urgent point is how Denmark's Secret Service betrayed the entire EU with their machinations with USA's NSA, indicating a principled lack of commitment on security cooperation within the EU. You might say that this betrayal was towards USA, so it is less serious than if it had happened towards Russia, but it is evidence of how easy the EU is to pick apart on any issue, something that has been accomplished on a number of occasions both by USA and Russia.
At the current stage, some affected countries have individually expressed their disappointment at Denmark. Let's see if it escalates to the EU level.
This is late NSA fallout. To reconstruct the timeline:
1952: NSA was born. Like the CIA it was a continuation of offices running intelligence during WWII, with NSA signals intelligence.
1969: The internet was born. 1971 email. 1973 first connection outside USA (to Norway and UK). 1980 Usenet. 1989 WWW.
Mass communication meet mass (signals) surveillance. It's been a 50 years battle so far between those who want privacy and security, those who want to eavesdrop, those who want to make money, and those who like to watch a video of their nephew. Suffice to say, the eavesdroppers won most of the battles.
In part because people in positions of power tend to worry about them more than they worry about us, and because there is more money and success to be had by not worrying. We are having this discussion on Facebook after all.
2005: General Keith Alexander became director of the NSA, at a time where covert global surveillance became a technical possibility. NSA were the first, but are no longer the only.
2013: Edward Snowden took a trip to Hong Kong
2014: The head of Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) took note of that recent refugee and started a secret internal investigation ("Operation Dunhammer") to uncover if Danish communication cables had been part of NSA operations, and against whom.
2015: The reports says "Yup", and names names. He tells his new boss, and the buck (assumedly) stops there. Notably they neglect to tell the Intelligence Oversight (TET) committee.
2018: A whistle-blower fixes that Oversight oversight and handles over a cache of documents. TET start an investigation of their own.
2020: TET delivers a massive and crushing report of the DDIS and a press conference, "historic scandal". Five bosses are fired, including the two above. The government gives itself a year to investigate the investigation of the investigation of the NSA leak.
2021: The investigation of the investigation of the investigation of the leak is leaked.
Presumably the NSA has learned and is a little more circumspect and careful in their global surveillance now, but we also got more actors.
It highlights the umbrella problem. Currently we use the American umbrella, and are a part of that platform and that includes being their eyes and ears. French presidents since forever and to forever want us to use their umbrella. Apart from this being an inferior umbrella, it would entail buying into their post-colonial foreign policies. We might be headed that way anyway.
Does the Baltic states have any better solution to face Putin than to integrate EU and Nato?
Fear not.
There is only one option: Union. Either European Union or something like Soviet Union.
But every choice constrains the subsequent choices. And we have to build on the actual actions, not scenarios and modelling.
The way actual (analysis of) international relations work, everything is in the toolbox: Considering past choices and current options as a start, and then building on this by means of scenarios and modelling. Without the latter, one would be unable to assess the consequences of one's own action or inaction - such assessment being the main goal of analysis -, and one would be unable to draw lessons from the past.
And, yes, the EU demonstrates itself time and again unable to draw lessons from its own past mistakes. They have a really hard time bringing themselves to acknowledge that they have done mistakes. They would perhaps excuse themselves "We made no promises" which is just totally irresponsible, criminal stupidity.
Here's an overview of the strategic partnership between Russia and Europe (https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/russias-strategic-partnership-europe), the way the EU was seeing things in 2004. The author correctly sees Russia and Putin as quite incompatible with the EU, both as indicated by natural interests of the entities and by direct official statements of Putin.
However, in 2004 the aim was to give some "partnership" a try and the author proposes a test case: To resolve the Transnistria conflict by means of multilateral cooperation. From most of the article I'd deduce that the author was smart enough to understand that the proposal was ridiculous and it was only thrown out as a joke, as an indication that there is really nothing the EU and Russia could meaningfully partner on. Namely, the Transnistria conflict is 100% manufactured by Russia, so to try to resolve it with Russian cooperation means to deploy Russia to work against its own interests, which is sure to backfire even if the conflict were nominally "resolved" with something stupid such as joint peace-keeping patrols.
A side point in the article caught my attention:
Putin has gone to great pains to put the question of visa-free travel on the agenda with the EU and has met with some success.
So, the author is saying that the initiative for visa freedom between Russia and the EU came from Russia. But on the Baltic countries it was pressured entirely by German chancellors. The simple conclusion is that German chancellors are Putin's puppets, nothing less. I did not know that Germany was this corrupt. But now I can reasonably assume that it is far more corrupt than public information lets on.
International relations are like that, very behavioristic. If you behave well you get candy, if you don't you get coal. That applied to Putin too. He got plenty of candy his first years, but now he sits on a pile of coals. Like any other weapon, it's more efficient used sparingly.
This goes for other leaders across the world as well. There might be a Reset button waiting for them in their future too, but it depends on what they are doing and how needed they are. Russia was once part of G8, another candy.
Trade policy is one such relationship. 11.2% of Estonian imports (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore?country=72&product=undefined&year=2019&tradeDirection=import&productClass=HS&target=Partner&partner=undefined&startYear=undefined) are from Russia. That is five times as much as the 2.2% of German imports. This does not make either Estonia or Germany into "Putin's puppets", nor is it "corrupt" unless the trade or interaction is against the interests of the country or corporation.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPvfOuaXEAIyWZ5?format=png)
Going back to the EU:
MEPs demand full embargo on Russian imports of oil, coal, nuclear fuel and gas (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220401IPR26524/meps-demand-full-embargo-on-russian-imports-of-oil-coal-nuclear-fuel-and-gas)
In a resolution adopted with 513 votes to 22 and 19 abstentions on Thursday, MEPs call for additional punitive measures, including “an immediate full embargo on Russian imports of oil, coal, nuclear fuel and gas”.
This should be accompanied by a plan to ensure the EU’s security of energy supply, as well as a strategy to “roll back sanctions in case Russia takes steps towards restoring Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders and completely removes its troops from the territory of Ukraine”.
Exclude Russia from G20 and other multilateral organisations
Existing sanctions must now be fully and effectively implemented throughout the EU and by the EU’s international allies as a matter of priority, insist MEPs. They call on EU leaders to exclude Russia from the G20 and other multilateral organisations, such as UNHRC, Interpol, the World Trade Organisation, UNESCO and others, “which would be an important sign that the international community will not return to business as usual with the aggressor state”.
To make the sanctions more effective, the Parliament calls for Russian banks to be excluded from the SWIFT system, for all vessels connected to Russia to be banned from entering EU territorial waters and docking at EU ports and for road freight transport from and to Russia and Belarus to be prohibited. MEPs also demand the seizure of “all assets belonging to Russian officials or the oligarchs associated with Putin’s regime, their proxies and strawmen, as well as those in Belarus linked to Lukashenka’s regime”.
Pointing to Belarus’ involvement in the war in Ukraine, the resolution demands that sanctions on Belarus mirror those introduced against Russia in order to close any loopholes allowing Putin to use Lukashenka’s aid to circumvent sanctions.
Arms deliveries must continue and be stepped up
International relations are like that, very behavioristic. If you behave well you get candy, if you don't you get coal. That applied to Putin too.
False. Putin got candy before he had done anything good at all. His first action was the second war in Chechnya. And he kept getting candy after he had become all-out evil. Yet according to you, Crimea did not qualify.
Whereas the Baltic countries kept getting the whip despite exemplary behaviour. The whip includes demands from Putin's EU puppets to sign border agreements with Russia, ignoring existential threats from Russia.
So, no, the consequences of one's actions have nothing to do with one's own behaviour. Particularly when it comes to smaller countries, it's just bigger countries trampling on them.
Trade policy is one such relationship. 11.2% of Estonian imports (https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/explore?country=72&product=undefined&year=2019&tradeDirection=import&productClass=HS&target=Partner&partner=undefined&startYear=undefined) are from Russia. That is five times as much as the 2.2% of German imports. This does not make either Estonia or Germany into "Putin's puppets", nor is it "corrupt" unless the trade or interaction is against the interests of the country or corporation.
Schröder is not a "trade policy". Schröder is a thoroughly corrupt Putin's puppet. Merkel is not far off - visited Russia consistently on May 9th, then after annexation of Crimea on May 10th instead. You know what day that is? Or are you too much into "trade policy" to know?
How come the Russians celebrate that on 9 May rather than 8 May btw?
You mean V-E Day?
How come the Russians celebrate that on 9 May rather than 8 May btw?
Aren't you the guy who downloaded the entire Wikipedia?
But I can tell you something that Wikipedia doesn't tell you. After the war tide in the Great Patriotic War had turned, a legend emerged (likely propagandistically manufactured) about celebrating the final crushing of Berlin on Red Square in Moscow. Obviously there's some distance between Berlin and Moscow, so when the idea is to celebrate the victory in Moscow, it cannot be on the same day when Berlin falls.
And they even made a sweet war&love movie out of it: В шесть часов вечера после войны. The movie was released in 1944, i.e. before the final victory, also meaning that it is outright war propaganda. But on IMDB I read it had some distribution in USA too as "Six PM", so I guess it's censorship-approved for both sides :up:
Oh, and it is on YT! Enjoy it like I did in my youth, before nasty bourgeois imperialists take it down:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osWFODWZhJ4[/video]
"Victory in Europe" depended a lot on where in Europe: Czechs mark anniversary of liberation by American troops in WWII (https://www.dw.com/en/czechs-mark-anniversary-of-liberation-by-american-troops-in-wwii/a-5540923)
Norway was unique in actually being part liberated by the Soviets (liberated as the Nazis being kicked out without subsequently being occupied). When the Nazis decided against a last stand in Festung Norwegen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festung_Norwegen), victory in Europe was also victory in Norway.
Aren't you the guy who downloaded the entire Wikipedia?
Wikipedia doesn't give me the Soviet Union inside scoop.
"Victory in Europe" depended a lot on where in Europe: Czechs mark anniversary of liberation by American troops in WWII (https://www.dw.com/en/czechs-mark-anniversary-of-liberation-by-american-troops-in-wwii/a-5540923)
Liberation Day is something very different than the day Germany capitulated, even in the Netherlands where it's mere days apart. Because the German army in the Netherlands surrendered on May 5, 1945. Germany capitulated on May 8.
France and Germany armed Russia with €273 million (£230 million) of military hardware now likely being used in Ukraine, an EU analysis shared with The Telegraph has revealed.
They sent equipment, which included bombs, rockets, missiles and guns, to Moscow despite an EU-wide embargo on arms shipments to Russia, introduced in the wake of its 2014 annexation of Crimea.
Both Paris and Berlin have resisted an EU ban on buying gas from Russia, with the bloc currently paying Moscow €1 billion (£840 million) per day for energy supplies.
Criticism increased when it emerged that German firms had used a loophole in an EU embargo on arms exports to Russia, making sales worth €121 million (£107 million) of “dual-use” equipment, including rifles and special protection vehicles, to Moscow.
Berlin defended its use of an ambiguity within the EU’s 2014 arms blockade, insisting that the goods were sold only after the Kremlin guaranteed they were for civilian use, rather than military application.
“If there were indications of any kind of military use, the export licenses were not granted,” a spokesman for the country’s economy ministry added.
France was also found to have been responsible for sending shipments worth €152 million (£128 million) to Russia, as part of 76 export licences. Paris allowed exporters to fulfil contracts agreed before 2014, using a backdoor technicality in the EU embargo.
Alongside bombs, rockets and torpedoes, French firms sent thermal imaging cameras for more than 1,000 Russian tanks as well as navigation systems for fighter jets and attack helicopters.
The loophole, eventually closed on April 8, was only shut after mounting protests from Baltic and eastern member states.
Envoys from Poland and Lithuania ensured the text of the original 2014 arms embargo was amended when it emerged weapons were still pouring into Russia.
According to European Commission data, EU countries last year sold Russia weapons and ammunition worth €39 million (£33 million) as the Kremlin prepared for its invasion of Ukraine.
Am I still hoping that the EU can muster sufficient integrity, to become less corruptible and harder for enemies (namely, USA and Russia, which are the testbed for China) to pick apart? Maybe. Why? Because for now it looks like May 9th is ruined for Putin this year. However, I do not trust that the current momentum carries to next year's May 9th.
Ally, competitor, enemy — the progression is uniquely European? :)
Gerhard Schröder insists on incriminating himself - and entire Germany - pretty thoroughly in this interview to NYT.
Mr. Schröder distanced himself from the war, though not from Mr. Putin. I asked about the by-now notorious atrocities in Bucha, a Kyiv suburb. “That has to be investigated,” Mr. Schröder said, but added that he did not think those orders would have come from Mr. Putin, but from a lower authority.
“I think this war was a mistake, and I’ve always said so,” Mr. Schröder said. “What we have to do now is to create peace as quickly as possible.”
“I have always served German interests,” he added. “I do what I can do. At least one side trusts me.”
That side is not the German side.
Since Russia’s attack on Ukraine began, the entire staff of Mr. Schröder’s parliamentary office resigned in protest, including his chief of staff and speechwriter of 20 years, who had been with him since his days as chancellor.
[...]
But even his fiercest critics acknowledge that Mr. Schröder’s close and lucrative dealings with Russia are also emblematic of his country’s decades-old approach of engagement with Russia. Lobbied aggressively by Germany’s export industry and cheered on by labor unions, successive chancellors, including Ms. Merkel, collectively engineered Germany’s dependency on Russian energy.
“Schröder is the tip of the iceberg,” said Wolfgang Ischinger, a former ambassador to the United States and veteran diplomat. “But there is a whole iceberg below him.”
[...]
“What I can tell you is that Putin is interested in ending the war,” Mr. Schröder said. “But that’s not so easy. There are a few points
that need to be clarified.”
[...]
Mr. Putin spoke fondly of Mr. Schröder in February during a joint news conference with Mr. Scholz, the current German chancellor, who visited the Kremlin in a last-ditch effort to avert war.
“Mr. Schröder is an honest man whom we respect and whose goal is first and foremost to promote the interests of his own country, the Federal Republic of Germany,” the Russian leader said.
“Let German citizens open their purses, have a look inside and ask themselves whether they are ready to pay three to five times more for electricity, for gas and for heating,” Mr. Putin added. “If they are not, they should thank Mr. Schröder because this is his achievement, a result of his work.”
On Russian state television, Mr. Schröder is frequently cited as a Western voice of reason, proof of the Kremlin’s contention that Europe’s current leaders have sold their countries’ interests out to a “Russophobic” United States.
Meanwhile, SPD discovered that Schröder is still a member (https://www.luxtimes.lu/en/european-union/long-shadow-of-germany-s-top-putin-ally-is-hemming-in-scholz-6266ce7ede135b923641ec80) of the party. I'm getting the feeling that the handling of the Ukraine war will thoroughly be botched under the cheerful leadership of Germany and France. Then the EU will disband because this sort of EU does more harm than good to all countries between Germany and Russia.
Russian gas giant Gazprom (GAZP.MM) cut supplies to Poland and Bulgaria on Wednesday after they refused to pay for gas in roubles, marking Moscow's toughest response yet to sanctions imposed by the West over the conflict in Ukraine.
Bulgaria and Poland had already said they would not renew contracts with Gazprom after they expired at the end of this year and say they can secure supplies from other sources.
So, Bulgaria and Poland stood firm when Putin demanded them to go rouble. Meanwhile, Germans again obey:
Uniper says it will pay in euros which will be converted into roubles, meeting a Kremlin demand for all transactions to be made in the Russian currency.
Other European energy firms are reportedly preparing to do the same amid concerns about supply cuts.
Uniper said it had no choice but said it was still abiding by EU sanctions.
There's also the news (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-27/eu-tells-companies-paying-for-gas-in-rubles-breaches-sanctions) that "European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen warned companies not to bend to Russia’s demands to pay for gas in rubles..." but this appears to be against Hungary (https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-04-08-22/h_fa7065e787fefaff368b02dc2150d472) instead of against those already bent. Unsurprisingly. When it comes to Uniper, I guess they may be gently goaded out of the breach by fully compensating their loss of expected profits - or, more likely, no action will be taken.
EU sanctions have loopholes by design. Poland and Bulgaria will not be rewarded for standing firm, but rather suffer the economic consequences. Uniper and other companies bend knees for Putin and will not be punished for this, but rather be rewarded with profits. It keeps getting clearer how fundamentally different western EU and eastern EU are.
Ursula's stance looks good until you make the connection that it is a warning to Hungary, not anyone else. It can be that Putin managed to pick the EU apart yet again. I really was not expecting that he can celebrate his May 9th in good spirits this year. This is way too quick.
Ursula's stance looks good until you make the connection that it is a warning to Hungary, not anyone else. It can be that Putin managed to pick the EU apart yet again. I really was not expecting that he can celebrate his May 9th in good spirits this year. This is way too quick.
Update:
EU clarifies how companies can legally pay for Russian gas, ENI and RWE open bank accountsThe European Commission has confirmed how European Union companies can pay for Russian gas without breaching the bloc’s sanctions against Russia, in updated guidance on the issue seen by Reuters.
Problem number one: The newest guidance is "seen" by Reuters, not published by the Commission (not found over there (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/home/en) at least). Why lack of transparency from the commissars?
In updated guidance, shared with EU countries on Friday and seen by Reuters, the Commission confirmed its previous advice that EU sanctions do not prevent companies from opening an account at a designated bank, and companies can pay for Russian gas – so long as they do so in the currency agreed in their existing contracts and declare the transaction completed when that currency is paid.
[...]
Companies should make a “clear statement” saying that when they pay euros or dollars, they consider their obligations under existing contracts to be fulfilled, the guidance said.
It should be understood that “such payments in that currency discharge definitively the economic operator from the payment obligations under those contracts, without any further actions from their side as regards the payment,” it said.
This is loophole-talk. The scheme Putin insists on is as follows:
1. The European gas-sucker has, in addition to other accounts, a rouble account at Gazprombank.
2. The European gas-sucker deposits €$ at Gazprombank.
3. The €$ are converted to roubles
and deposited to the gas-sucker's rouble account after the conversion.
4. The roubles are then drawn to Gazprom from the gas-sucker's rouble account.
From Putin's/Gazprom's point of view it is immaterial who does the conversion. It is important that the conversion takes place before the transaction enters Gazprom's books.
The EU commissars "do not prevent companies from opening an account at a designated bank" which seems to indicate permission for gas-suckers to hold a rouble account at Gazprombank. For gas-suckers to be able to formally declare "the transaction completed when [€$] is paid" while at the same time holding a rouble account where Gazprom gets paid from seems to run against the spirit of the sanctions, if not the letter, to put it mildly.
This is exactly how Italians and Germans have figured the procedure works:
"Eni is taking a bit more time to assess developments but will have to start procedures to open a rouble account next week or risk being in breach of contract," one of the sources said, asking not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.
[...]
Under the new Russian payment system, buyers are obliged to deposit euros or dollars into an account at private Russian bank Gazprombank (GZPRI.MM), which will convert the cash into roubles, place the proceeds in another account owned by the foreign buyer and transfer the payment in Russian currency to Gazprom.
[...]
German gas importer VNG [RIC:RIC:VNG.UL] said it will transfer euro payments for Russian gas to Gazprombank in the future and expects no problems during a conversion to roubles.
[...]
Gazprom has written to companies explaining in part the roubles scheme. According to one source, Eni received letters saying the contract and payment would remain in euros while Gazprom would assume all subsequent risks including conversion into roubles.
The last point means: Gazprom is sending out encouraging consolation letters to European gas-suckers about assuming all risks regarding conversion into roubles. The payment still occurs from the gas-sucker's rouble account. If the commissars unexpectedly get their shit together and decide this breaches sanctions after all, Gazprom will bear (part of) the costs to the gas-sucker - in roubles, I suppose, which would give further traffic to roubles.
Those commissars are full of loopholes. Why are they working so hard to give wins to Putin?
Once upon a time, before there was EU in my particular neck of the woods, I was in the business of, among other things, translating and apostilling official documents between countries. As the EU was approaching, one of its perks was supposed to be that this business would no longer be required, just like with the arrival of euro currency there was no longer a need for currency exchange.
So, meet EU 2016/1191.
Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union [...]
(19)
In order to promote the free movement of Union citizens, the public documents covered by this Regulation and certified copies thereof should be exempted from all forms of legalisation and similar formality.
(20)
Other formalities, namely the requirement to provide in each instance certified copies and translations of public documents, should also be simplified to further facilitate the circulation of public documents between the Member States.
Thus far sounds like no translation and legalisation business anymore, right?
But let's read further.
(21)
In order to overcome language barriers and thereby further facilitate the circulation of public documents between the Member States, multilingual standard forms should be established in each of the official languages of the institutions of the Union for public documents [...]
(22)
The sole purpose of the multilingual standard forms should be to facilitate the translation of the public documents to which they are attached.
Now it's beginning to sound like, instead of abolishing the translation-apostilling business between member states, the EU instead introduces "multilingual standard forms" to be "attached" to the original documents. That is, more documents upon the documents we already had previously. So, contrary to the rumours of simplified bureaucracy between the states, we got tricked. The opposite is the case. It so happens that issuing these "multilingual standard forms" is not standard at all and if you fail to explicitly ask for them, you will get the same old full procedure.
I ran into this quirk personally recently. I knew about this supposedly simplifying EU regulation before. It applies to common life event documents such as birth, death, marriage, residence etc. So, a related event happened in another member state and was registered there. I have some stuff to do related to the event in my own country, but I found out that in order to do it I must, according to the reading of the regulation by the relevant state authority in my country:
1. Obtain the relevant document from the other country - on paper!
2. Translate it into the official language of my country (not by myself, mind you, even though I know all the languages all the way up to university degrees and whatnot; must be a notarised translation which is one step further)
3. Present the notarised translation to the state authority in my country
4. The state authority in my country will then issue a paper of their own saying the same thing which was already said by the authority of the other member country and which was just translated to our language too.
Somehow the above procedure - which is 100% the same as before the EU - counts as "simplified requirements" and the EU thinks it has successfully promoted the free movement of its citizens by this regulation. And somehow it counts as reasonable for a state authority to officially recognise a translation of a document smuggled by a private person from another country instead of officially recognising the *original* document issued by the authority of another member country.
The simplest procedure would obviously be for my state authority to check with the other country's authority electronically to verify the event, you know, as in paper-free green sustainable and really-truly simple. They do this checking with each other for other purposes all the time anyway. Why all this fuss to get one event recorded twice, by means of a cumbersome intermediation of private individuals? What is the EU good for? I used to naively assume there was something, like a teeny weeny little something, to be gained by it, but no, the EU only has empty declarations. Or ignorant and harmful ones.
Yes, making a legal document in one country legal in another is in the base case (superlegalislation (https://www.czechuniversities.com/article/apostille-superlegalization-and-verification-of-foreign-documents-in-the-czech-republic)) 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.)
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.
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.
In order to err on the side of caution they should not proclaim simplification when they are in fact complicating things.
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.
But I'm not talking about shared Dutch or French 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 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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rTNBn7aDpI
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law)? (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"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rTNBn7aDpI
That the EU is a "regulatory superpower" is a nice idea, but not quite working out in reality. As the discussion just above showed, there are EU regulations that the Western EU does not follow - because they already have a smoother practice in place - while the Eastern EU tries to follow the regulation to the letter with rather adverse results to the common citizen. Much of the regulations appear to exist only to annoy the new joiners. The entire declaratory "values" part is definitely there exclusively for the East and the for rest of the world, not for the EU biggies.
Since the EU is internally divided in various ways, North versus South and East versus West, its position in the world - assuming it has one - is threatened. Not only by the outside forces such as USA and Russia who have repeatedly picked the EU apart driving through their own agendas on GMO foods, passport checks and gas transports, but also inside forces. By now it should be clear to everyone that the worst enemy of the EU have been the biggies themselves, failing most badly at geopolitics, but failing at other things too.
Let's take the video on its own terms.
1. Market regulation (7:26): The EU has fined Google repeatedly for anti-trust/monopoly violations, and now 130 countries in the world have similar competition practices.Not sure how similar the practices are. They are not very similar even inside the EU. Google, Amazon and many other important websites are different depending on the location where you open them up - inside the EU. There are still e-commerce and banking corporations that classify everything east of Germany as some third world region, not on the same terms as the Western EU, offering higher prices and less perks for purchases, deliveries and services. This point was supposed to be fixed the moment we'd become a member of the EU, but still waiting for the "single market" to take effect.
2. Digital economy (5:13): Privacy is a fundamental right as per GDPR.Somewhere in mid-90's the university that I was attending created the first ever login credentials for me. This was for email, internet access, and to be able to use printers. When not used for a year or so, the credentials would expire. This should still be a good standard practice, but it was lost somewhere along the way, and the GDPR has not brought it back.
In the 90's - and well into this century - it was possible to refuse all cookies from websites that you visited but did not want to log in to. If the website did not have a login in the first place, it behaved no different regardless if you refused the cookies or not. What GDPR has achieved is that the simplest visit to the simplest website, for example to check the train timetables, is an arduous fencing with cookie popups. The cookie popups have destroyed the user experience particularly badly on modern mobile devices.
There appears to be no standard to cookie popups. From the ordinary consumer point of view, it should be possible to dismiss the cookie popups - as any popups - with a single press of the Escape key, but this is not so. Or all popups should have an immediate up-front "No, refuse all" option, but this is not so. Better still, it should be possible to refuse all cookies in browser settings - and then there should be no reason for the popup in the first place, but these happy times will likely never return thanks to GDPR. GDPR insists on cookie popups even when you have refused all cookies in the browser settings.
Messenger apps and all other connectible apps are essentially little web browsers and they should have the same options as web browsers, including cookie options so that the user could control the tracking. Moreover, those apps want to copy and upload all your contacts and other data from the device, and it is not easy to refuse it because the insistent request is issued repeatedly at different times with different button placements or with colours making it appear as if the "No, thanks" option were inactive. GDPR does not address this trickery at all.
To summarise, the most visible effects of GDPR are outright evil. The less visible effects, such as fines on some companies and institutions who treat your data and credentials badly, are incremental. Historically the situation used to be better long before GDPR.
3.
Consumer health (7:31): The EU rejected Cameroun's cocoa beans due to the presence of harmful chemicals (https://www.businessincameroon.com/cocoa/1203-3968-ban-on-cameroon-cocoa-exports-feared-in-europe).
Without the full story, it is more plausible that bans or threats of bans on imports of raw materials, playing with tariffs etc. is a game of colonialism by the EU. Some countries occasionally lash back (https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Why-Ghana-will-no-longer-sell-cocoa-to-Switzerland-1206019) against European colonial attitude.
while the Eastern EU tries to follow the regulation to the letter with rather adverse results to the common citizen.
Your example above doesn't seem to show that. Crudely paraphrased, the situation regarding
direct neighbors hasn't changed substantially, therefore the EU is useless. In practical terms that'll be true much of the time because of course you deal with Finland and Latvia more than with Belgium or Spain. In this limited sense the EU is useless for the entire EU. But when you deal with France or Greece, you're
also treated the same way as an EU citizen. The fact that this will often be invisible to a big minority or small majority of the population hardly makes it a net negative. I don't know why you would expect the EU to have much of an impact on relations with your neighbors whom you already had good relations with. When an Estonian peat company ships peat to the Netherlands, it can do so without having to deal with all manner of complex customs nonsense due to common peat standards. The Estonian government would have had to negotiate an individual peat agreement with every country it wants to export peat to. Instead it can just export peat to all of the EU, and outside of the EU on the basis of EU peat trade negotiations with for example the United States.
But I wonder if people younger than you would even agree that it's all that invisible unless you look. Universities are full of Erasmus students from Estonia (and from all over the EU) for example.
To summarise, the most visible effects of GDPR are outright evil. The less visible effects, such as fines on some companies and institutions who treat your data and credentials badly, are incremental. Historically the situation used to be better long before GDPR.
That's not true at all. The situation was significantly worse before GDPR. If it didn't improve in Estonia, then you've disproved your earlier statement that it's just for new members that EU rules make a difference, although obviously any prospective new member will have to align with the EU rather than the reverse. No matter the subject, the situation won't improve in some member states because the EU enforces a certain minimum and any member state is free to go beyond. GDPR makes it so that all of Europe is now similar to how it already was in Germany with regard to personal data, and that's a great improvement pretty much anywhere except for Germany and Estonia.
Without the full story, it is more plausible that bans or threats of bans on imports of raw materials, playing with tariffs etc. is a game of colonialism by the EU. Some countries occasionally lash back (https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Why-Ghana-will-no-longer-sell-cocoa-to-Switzerland-1206019) against European colonial attitude.
Switzerland isn't in the EU last I checked.
while the Eastern EU tries to follow the regulation to the letter with rather adverse results to the common citizen.
Your example above doesn't seem to show that. Crudely paraphrased, the situation regarding direct neighbors hasn't changed substantially, therefore the EU is useless. In practical terms that'll be true much of the time because of course you deal with Finland and Latvia more than with Belgium or Spain. In this limited sense the EU is useless for the entire EU. But when you deal with France or Greece, you're also treated the same way as an EU citizen.
Here you are assuming my treatment by the other countries, but in my example, I was talking rather about my country's treatment of the documents issued by other countries.
Before we joined the EU, I knew the procedures in my country. Before we joined the EU, I knew the procedures in the EU. Now we have joined the EU and the fact is that the EU procedures have not reached my country. So I look up the regulation and, lo and behold, it effectively perpetuates what has been going on in my country all along.
There are two superbig problems here. First, the procedures are not harmonised. Second, were we to harmonise them as per the regulation, they would become as bad as in the rest of the world, not as good as in the Western EU. Seriously, why is the regulation so stupid and insane? And why is only the Eastern EU following it?
When an Estonian peat company ships peat to the Netherlands, it can do so without having to deal with all manner of complex customs nonsense due to common peat standards. The Estonian government would have had to negotiate an individual peat agreement with every country it wants to export peat to. Instead it can just export peat to all of the EU, and outside of the EU on the basis of EU peat trade negotiations with for example the United States.
Yes, this is obviously the greatest perk of the EU. There are still problems though, such as in in e-commerce we are still occasionally treated as a third-world country lumped together with Russia, despite over ten years of eurozone membership.
But I wonder if people younger than you would even agree that it's all that invisible unless you look. Universities are full of Erasmus students from Estonia (and from all over the EU) for example.
The students have gone haywire all over the place by now. My youngest sister studied in Brazil and Turkey. The EU was not enough. Whereas I in my time went to study in Finland, competing with ordinary Finns to become a student, by brute force of my intelligence, without any helpful programme, but rather with all the drawbacks of having to comply with residence permit and monetary requirements.
That's not true at all. The situation was significantly worse before GDPR. If it didn't improve in Estonia, then you've disproved your earlier statement that it's just for new members that EU rules make a difference,...
Now, GDPR in particular is such that it better not be different anywhere, if it is to have any point at all. And it isn't. It has a uniform global effect. Namely, the cookie popups are pretty much global. Another reaction from many American websites is to just block European visitors. The cookie popups and visitor-blocks are global effects of GDPR, but definitely not good effects.
But if you are not experiencing cookie popups globally, then again we have a difference...
Without the full story, it is more plausible that bans or threats of bans on imports of raw materials, playing with tariffs etc. is a game of colonialism by the EU. Some countries occasionally lash back (https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Why-Ghana-will-no-longer-sell-cocoa-to-Switzerland-1206019) against European colonial attitude.
Switzerland isn't in the EU last I checked.
And the original video does not give the full story about the Cameroun cocoa ban. I can assume it's related to some big European chocolate producers, such as Belgium and France. The other story I linked was to indicate that I know that there is some cocoa war going on between Europe and Africa. From sub-Saharan African perspective, Switzerland is in the same gang as Western European ex-colonists.
Before we dig in deeper into the cocoa war, would you be ready to bet that the EU has been handling it any better than it did Bosnia and Ukraine? In Bosnia and Ukraine the EU had stakes, because these are geographically plausible member candidates, and look how they got treated. In Africa, the EU has no reason to keep up good appearances, so...
Overall, the video is from an EU-positive British perspective. Brits and Western Europeans have in common a denial of their colonial attitude. They think they have grown past it and replaced colonialism with positive values, something like when Americans say they are exporting democracy. But from the perspective of those in the receiving end of the alleged democracy, this is not so. By the way, Brits were kicked out of the EU, for several good reasons. Just recently there were more than enough reasons to kick out France and Germany. They still have to prove themselves. The EU is in a very sorry state.
Now, GDPR in particular is such that it better not be different anywhere, if it is to have any point at all. And it isn't. It has a uniform global effect. Namely, the cookie popups are pretty much global. Another reaction from many American websites is to just block European visitors. The cookie popups and visitor-blocks are global effects of GDPR, but definitely not good effects.
But if you are not experiencing cookie popups globally, then again we have a difference...
The technically legal in some circumstances cookie popups already existed prior to GDPR. The ePR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPrivacy_Regulation) was supposed to come into effect at the same time as GDPR in 2018, but is largely separate except for where the handling of personal data part overlaps.
There is indeed a failure of sorts there being fueled largely by France if I'm not mistaken.
Overall, the video is from an EU-positive British perspective. Brits and Western Europeans have in common a denial of their colonial attitude.
I'm not sure if it's helpful to analyze certain types of at best unhelpful protectionism as colonialism, but yes, it's unfortunately all too present in recent years.
Some time ago I came across this article justifying colonialism (https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/the_case_for_colonialism). The first few pages I thought it was tongue in cheek, but it's not. See if you can find the counterexamples and counterarguments to every point, if you are interested. It's a good article to test one's level of colonialism.
The first few pages I thought it was tongue in cheek, but it's not.
It seems to be riffing on things people wrote back in the 1920s and 1930s, that we read in history class. The gist of it being self-governance is a lofty goal, but these people aren't ready for it yet.
I find it somewhat amusing that within the internal logic of the article, most of the "anti-colonialism is bad, actually" shtick reads to me like Russian colonialism is a lot worse than Belgian/British/Portuguese colonialism, rather than an actual absence of colonialism.
Put another way, it's not so much the case for colonialism, but the case for 1930s style Western European colonialism.
A random thought:
“Since gaining independence, Congo has never had at its disposal an army comparable in efficiency and discipline to the former [Belgian colonial] Force Publique,” was Van Reybrouck’s sad conclusion.77 Maybe the Belgians should come back.
The army was there to fight Germany and the locals. It's unclear why we should assume there's some inherent good in it?
The end values and framing of the topic matters a lot. His end values are governance and socio-economic indicators as defined and measured by World Bank and the like, which is perfectly scientific as far as economics and economic history goes. His framing is "colonial legitimation", i.e. the more natives become employed by the colonial institutions and receive its services such as healthcare and education, the more it counts as (legitimate) colonialism, whereas mere slave trade will not count as colonialism insofar as slave traders are mobile between trade posts and do not govern a colony. They are ungoverned and unaccountable, therefore not a proper example of colonialism. But as soon as (governed) colonies reach the point of civilisation where slavery is abolished, it counts as fully legitimate colonialism, thus abolition of slavery is a benefit to the natives that they gain with colonialism. Moreover, in order for the natives to enjoy these colonial benefits, colonial intervention is necessary, destined.
This framing is nifty. It is difficult to argue against the loads of visible material and social benefits, infrastructure, industrialisation, lasting institutions and the transformed way of life left behind in the colonies. However, it all comes with a cost of having wiped away a previous way of life with its fragile institutions.
Insofar as the colonial power wipes away a previous way of life, I would say colonialism is never legitimate. When colonists build a school, it is likely to be in the language of the colonists and reflect their mindset. By whipping, most local natives may receive education in those schools, but how do numbers obtained by whipping legitimise education? Or healthcare, when the diseases are imported by the colonists? Besides, assuming that education and healthcare are such awesome values, Marxist-socialist-commie regimes have achieved numerically far better results in these areas and much faster too. Western colonial education never aimed for, say, 100% literacy, but commies did and practically achieved it too.
There's this anecdote I remember from Soviet times:
Africa. A black man is lazying under a coconut tree. A coconut falls down from the tree. A white man approaches him and says, "Hey, why are you lazying here? Why don't you gather coconuts?"
Black man, "Why should I gather coconuts?"
White man, "If you gather all these coconuts and go sell them in the market, you will have lots of money."
Black man, "What should I do with lots of money?"
White man, "You can hire other black men to gather coconuts, sell all the coconuts in the market and you will have even more money."
Black man, "What should I do with even more money?"
White man, "You will have so much money that you do not have to work anymore. You can retire and enjoy lazying."
Black man, "But I enjoy lazying already now."
The end values and framing of the topic matters a lot. His end values are governance and socio-economic indicators as defined and measured by World Bank and the like, which is perfectly scientific as far as economics and economic history goes. His framing is "colonial legitimation", i.e. the more natives become employed by the colonial institutions and receive its services such as healthcare and education, the more it counts as (legitimate) colonialism, whereas mere slave trade will not count as colonialism insofar as slave traders are mobile between trade posts and do not govern a colony.
Unfortunately I can't remember who wrote it (perhaps the minister of colonies?), but as I said that was almost exactly the argument for why Indonesia shouldn't be independent.
Incidentally, the former colony learned how to be invited as a colonial power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Free_Choice
European Commission clarifies to Lithuania that sanctions are not meant to be taken too seriously.
The EU's executive body, the European Commission, announced that Lithuania must allow sanctioned Russian goods to transit between the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad and Russia proper. Sandwiched between Poland, Lithuania, and the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad has suffered escalating economic and energy challenges over Lithuania's enforcement of the EU's sanctions that were introduced following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Those sanctions prohibited the use of EU territory for the passage of restricted Russian goods. On Wednesday, however, the European Commission invented the notion that its sanctions did not apply to Russian rail transports between the Russian mainland and Kaliningrad.
Lithuania's prime minister said (https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1738843/lithuania-not-responsible-for-ec-s-kaliningrad-transit-decision-says-pm) that it would have been a real victory for Russia if EU members and institutions continued arguing about the sanctions with each other, so that's why Lithuania gave in to the commissars. She added also that the responsibility for the commission's current stance is on the commission.
About EU in a positive light for a change. In the aftermath of the Uber scandal, EU commission is pondering a directive to improve worker rights. The commissars have labelled the problem as "platform work" and, in response to the problem, they have proposed the following definition of employment (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/platform-work-eu/):
- it [i.e. the platform provider, the contracting employer] determines the level of remuneration or sets upper limits
- it supervises the performance of work using electronic means
- it restricts the freedom to choose one's working hours or periods of absence, to accept or to refuse tasks or to use subcontractors or substitutes
- it sets specific binding rules with regard to appearance, conduct towards the recipient of the service or performance of the work
- it restricts the possibility to build a client base or to perform work for any third party
If at least two criteria are fulfilled, it is an employment relationship, no matter what the contract or T&C between the platform provider and the platform client say. Which is all good, though it remains to be seen how watered down it will end up when taking effect.
(And the positive light is additionally dimmed by the fact that, as usual, it's only eastern member states who need to implement directives to the letter and obey commissars promptly, while western member states carry on as per their own usual.)
Scholz says,
Der Zustand unserer Bundeswehr und der zivilen Verteidigungsstrukturen, aber auch unsere allzu große Abhängigkeit von russischer Energie sprechen dafür, dass wir uns nach Ende des Kalten Krieges in falscher Sicherheit gewiegt haben. Allzu gern haben Politik, Wirtschaft und große Teile unserer Gesellschaft weitreichende Konsequenzen aus dem Diktum eines früheren deutschen Verteidigungsministers gezogen, wonach Deutschland nur noch von Freunden umzingelt sei. Das war ein Irrtum.
Germany is re-militarising. The effect will not be a militarily stronger and geopolitically more conscious European Union. The effect will be a more dangerous Germany, repeating history all over again.
Sweden is remilitarising too. This will be very consequential assuming this will last longer than a couple years (otherwise it would just be kicking off the rust of mothballed equipment), as it most certainly will. It is fairly logical that we will remilitarise, as the conditions for demilitarising no longer hold. While it is clear there will be consequences, it is less clear what those consequences will be.
There will be opportunity costs. Partly in government spending, which will be significant, but not all that much. We'll be on a cold war footing, not on a war footing. More in the changes in attitude and strategies, and their outcomes.
Greater uncertainty lies in what this remilitarizing would consist of. Easy to say we are going to spend more money, but on what, and for what end? When?
As frequently noted, with increases Germany will have the largest military budget in the world, after the US and China. Sure, that is a handful of euros. The EU needs to become more German, but are the Germans themselves up to this? Indications so far are not too impressive. They have been kicking that aforementioned rust, announced that they will be buying some US equipment at inflated prices. That is not upgrading capabilities, that is re-defending the Fulda Gap. Of course, now we got the Suwałki Gap, but that we probably could defend anyway. Russia picks up Estonia, we pick up Königsberg. A little prisoner exchange, and status quo ante. Russia cannot win, Russia will not try.
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/bridge_of_spies.jpg)
Preparing for this would be another version of fighting the last cold war.
By default the Three Seas initiative would have succeeded in that the Baltic Sea (certainly), the Black Sea (probably) and not just the Adriatic, but entire Mediterranean would be under EU dominance. The split along the Scandinavian Keel has mended. The Nordic countries were split between the Atlantics (Norway, Iceland, Canada, US, UK; in NATO, not EU) and the Baltics (Sweden, Finland; in EU, not NATO), with Denmark more Atlantic than Baltic. The Atlantic and Baltic were distinct and disconnected zones. Now the Cap of the North (https://www.government.se/49a4d8/contentassets/50afebe322d54940b69c91751db2305c/deterioration-of-the-security-environment---inplications-for-sweden-002.pdf), the Nordic area north of the Arctic Circle is one military zone. Germany like Denmark is both Atlantic and Baltic, more the latter. However, for the rest of this decade, Germany is unlikely to do much more than catch-up (https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-military-upgrade-hampered-by-bureaucracy/a-62046032).
The European Defence Fund (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Fund) is more interesting for direction. It is a tiny fund (in military terms), but it shows priorities. Same goes for the European Defence Agency (https://eda.europa.eu/). I don't think Germany will be the instigator of change, but it can become a conduit.
Scholz held a grundsatzrede in Prague. I'm taking just one programmatic point from there: Enlargement.
Yes, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and, down the line, also Georgia and, of course, the six countries of the Western Balkans belong to the free and democratic part of Europe. Their EU accession is in our interest. [...] Realpolitik must mean involving friends and partners with shared values and supporting them in order to be strong in global competition through cooperation. [...] Together, we stand the very best chance of helping to form and shape the 21st century in our own, European, vein – as a European Union of 27, 30 or 36 countries, which will then have over 500 million free citizens enjoying equal rights, with the biggest internal market in the world, with leading research institutes, innovations and innovative companies, with stable democracies, with social welfare and a public infrastructure that is without parallel around the world. That is the ambition that I associate with a geopolitical Europe. [...] Where unanimity is required today, the risk of an individual country using its veto and preventing all the others from forging ahead increases with each additional member state. Anyone who believes anything else is in denial about the reality of Europe.
So, the enlargement will continue on apparently discounted terms. There's no way the two poorest countries in Europe (Ukraine has surpassed Moldova in poverty since Crimea was annexed to Russia) qualify according to the present requirements. Accepting new members on discounted terms has never gone well.
"Six countries of the Western Balkans", hmm, let's count:
1. Bosnia
2. Montenegro
3. Albania
4. Kosovo
5. Serbia
6. North Macedonia
So, Bosnia, which is a non-country - it is three constitutionally separated bantustans with conflicting interests - should become a member. Kosovo and Serbia, who do not recognise each other, should somehow miraculously start getting along, share values and support each other. They should somehow all jibe well with the common interests of a "geopolitical Europe". Sorry, but this is bringing more Cyprus-like warzones and at least one outspoken Trojan horse into the union. What kind of Realpolitik is this? Scholz is offering no solution to the conflicts, but going on with the old EU policy - hope the old conflicts fade away, probably by Brussels diktat, after bringing the new members in. This is the usual geopolitical suicide that the EU has been practising thus far.
Moreover, note the unanimity and veto bit - the EU must move to majority/plurality decision-making some time very soon. Thus the new members will be joining a different EU where their voice is simply disregarded, if it proves too bothersome. Why would the new and smaller members accept this unbegrudgingly? In the EU, where grudges have been mounting, Scholz plans to introduce more grudges.
Speaking about grudges, Scholz conspicuously failed to mention Poland in a few places where it would have been absolutely imperative to mention Poland:
We [Germany] are compensating the Czech Republic and other countries with tanks of German build for their provision of Soviet tanks to Ukraine.
On this very topic, i.e. compensating for tanks sent to Ukraine, Germany has no quarrel with Czech, but does have a quarrel with Poland. Why not say something to mitigate this? Too complicated? Too recent grudges?
Circumventing the debates that were typical of the past, we have taken in millions of women, men and children from Ukraine seeking refuge here with us. The Czech Republic and other countries of Central Europe in particular have demonstrated their big heart and great solidarity. You have my very greatest respect for this.
Again, Poland has taken in most refugees by far. This is a very conspicuously missed opportunity to express respect to Poland for dealing with the refugees.
Of course, Poland was watching carefully, took note, and decided that now's a good time to ask some trillion in WWII reparations from Germany (https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220901-poland-seeks-%E2%82%AC1-3-trillion-from-germany-in-reparations-for-nazi-occupation).
Scholz's grundsatzrede ended up highlighting how screwed up relations in the EU are. Sure, things must be done to make the EU truly geopolitical, and the protocol of the most important meetings should change, but they should have been changed long ago when smaller members called for it. Also, Macron did a similar programmatic speech (https://international.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2017/09/29/macron-sorbonne-verbatim-europe-18583.html) some years ago (with its own problems) that Merkel simply ignored. Right now is a bit too late, and Germany has accrued too much ballast and cannot be trusted to drive the changes.
Edit. Different from Merkel ignoring Macron's grundsatzrede of 2017, Macron immediately responded favourably to Scholz's.
In a nearly two-hour speech meant to outline the goals of the French diplomacy in the upcoming year, Macron praised the views expressed by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz earlier this week in Prague as “fully in line” with his own plea for a stronger, more independent and sovereign Europe.
So, what is the line?
“We cannot let Russia militarily win the war,” Macron said in a speech to French ambassadors at the Elysee presidential palace.
He set the goal of enabling Ukraine to either win militarily or be put in a strong position to achieve “a negotiated peace.”
“We must get prepared for a long war,” Macron said, adding that this would involve tensions escalating over Ukraine’s nuclear plants.
These are the strongest pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian statements yet from Macron. But it would be moving the goalposts from his position earlier this year and the commitment to Russia actually losing remains to be seen. What may have brought about the moving of the goalposts?
Macron vowed to “keep talking” to Russia despite criticism from some countries, especially in eastern Europe, which defend a hardline stance against Moscow. “We must do everything to make a negotiated peace possible” when Russia and Ukraine will be ready to sit for talks, he said.
“We must not let Europe get divided” over the war in Ukraine and its consequences, Macron said, adding that the EU mustn't align itself with “warmongers” or allow countries from eastern Europe to act alone in support of Kyiv.
I see. The motive is to catch up with the sentiment and level of commitment that eastern EU members are displaying. So it's a rhetorical move. Macron does not like when somebody else is ahead in initiative.
« Il faut assumer de pouvoir toujours continuer à parler à tout le monde, surtout ceux avec qui nous ne sommes pas d’accord. Qui a envie que la Turquie soit la seule puissance du monde qui continue à parler à la Russie ? », a lancé le président devant les ambassadeurs français réunis à l’Elysée.
Oh yes. It is not good to see Turkey ahead in initiative either. Must outtalk Erdogan.
By the way, both Ukrainians and Russians call Macron's behaviour "macroning".
Countries don't have to join the EU if they don't want to, but there is no reason to exclude them if they do fulfil the requirements, and those requirements are not lower than they were when earlier entrants joined.
And there would have to be different rules when the EU approaches 40 members than when it had 6 or 12. The greatest problem isn't the threshold to join, but what happens after, as Poland and Hungary have shown.
There are many potential Hungaries, particularly among the candidate countries, but also the existing members.
The greatest problem isn't the threshold to join, but what happens after, as Poland and Hungary have shown.
What have Poland and Hungary shown? Why are they the problem? How was the problem not foreseen? And why is it not being dealt with? Doesn't it all indicate some structural rigidity in the EU that has not been repaired and likely cannot? And if this is the case, the real problem lies with the founders and drivers of the EU, not with the later members.
I have re-read some of the older posts here from some five years ago. My position used to be that the EU is inherently irreformable - and that it is good this way. I think I was spot-on on the first point. However, due to rigid irreformability the EU is now in imminent danger to fall apart and this is not really good in a crisis situation.
Why is the EU irreformable? Because any change requires consensus. And also because in this consensus the drivers of any change would be the most powerful members, the biggies as I call them.
But there are even more problems. The biggies, due to being the biggies, and also due to being the founders of the EU, have not allowed any input from the newer members. Even right now when it is lucidly clear that the newer members have been correct about Russia as the threat to the EU - and therefore pushing for a geopolitical focus in the EU - and the biggies have been wrong about this, there is zero acknowledgement and zero respect given to the newer members on this. Instead, the biggies want to make it seem that the upcoming proposals of change are entirely the initiative of the biggies. This will not wash. This will only deepen the mistrust that has already accrued and the EU will certainly fall apart.
The EU biggies will not give up their leading position which they have mishandled. They will try to hold on to their leading position, thus only mishandling it further, because they do not know how to handle it properly. They will not become good masters of their position in half a year. They have mismanaged every single crisis thus far, except perhaps the covid crisis. The crisis we have right now, the Ukraine invasion, they have not managed at all, but *followed* the drive of USA/Nato and eastern EU. EU reform, if any, should be derived from who have the initiative right now, because the eastern members have shown they can see a crisis coming and they know what to do in a crisis. The biggies will not be given their position back anymore. The biggies have demonstrated themselves utterly incompetent and cannot be trusted for a moment. The biggies, even though they can apparently admit a mistake, they still cannot allow that anyone else is in the right. Therefore the fate of the EU is to dissolve. The sad thing is that it is happening in a crisis instead of in calm times.
Your position those years ago was that the EU is a club of dogs, that there are big dogs and smaller dogs and that the smaller dogs should behave as per the barking of the bigger dogs. Well, this leads to the same conclusion: The smaller dogs will get fed up with the misbehaviour and bullying by the bigger dogs and leave.
There are many potential Hungaries, particularly among the candidate countries, but also the existing members.
The funny thing is that Hungary's Russia-policy was identical (actually milder) to Germany's and France's until the invasion. It was less dangerous because Hungary mattered less. So, yeah, there is a Hungary in the EU. There is also a Poland. There is also a Cyprus, perhaps the point with most explosive potential even though it hasn't exploded. But they are not as dangerous as Germany and France who want to introduce yet more Hungaries, Polands and Cypruses, after having demonstrated that they have no clue how to deal with any of those except by making relations with them worse after admitting them into the union.
We now have Ursula's state of the union address also. Different from Scholz, she manages, in addition to admitting a mistake, to acknowledge those who were right.
We should have listened to the voices inside our Union – in Poland, in the Baltics, and all across Central and Eastern Europe.
They have been telling us for years that Putin would not stop.
And they acted accordingly.
Our friends in the Baltics have worked hard to end their dependency on Russia.
Applause. It is probably very hard for Westerners to acknowledge that someone else, particularly Poland, was right. But if you want to keep the EU together, there is no other way. The Western mistakes had accumulated too far. It is extremely sad that these were mistakes of diplomacy, the field where Western Europe was supposed to be the best in the world. Correcting this will not be easy. I personally am still skeptical.
Hardly a state of the union goes by without a shoutout to candidate countries:
So I want the people of the Western Balkans, of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia to know:
You are part of our family, your future is in our Union, and our Union is not complete without you!
Let's be realists here. Most of these are countries in war and can only join after the wars have ended. Some of these are even at war against each other, such as Kosovo and Serbia, or even against itself, such as Bosnia. In the foreseeable future, they cannot realistically join. Whoever sincerely wants them to join ("accept them as they are") wants the implosion of the EU.
The EU mission of Transnistria has been deeply flawed. This needs to be fixed, namely the mission's goal must be the abolishment of Transnistria, end of discussion. There is no ethnic issue there and there is no "partnership" role Russia can have. There is only the issue of eradicating a Russian military base. Then Moldova can join.
Georgia is more complicated. Georgia has real conflicts with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In the foreseeable future, these can only be resolved with force, such as Georgia abusing the current moment of Russia's weakness. This would resolve the territorial conflict as understood by the majority of the international community, but it would not resolve the ethnic issues. Moreover, military force would not be in harmony with European values. So, realistically there is no way for Georgia to join in the foreseeable future, provided that the EU remains true to its values.
And then there's Ukraine. The EU needs to understand the difference between peace and a ceasefire. Give Putin a finger, such as Sevastopol, and it is only a ceasefire, not peace.
Oh, there's also Albania. This would be the first Muslim country ever to join the EU. Other than that, I am not familiar with Albania. The last time I heard about it was when there was a crackdown of an international investment scam headquartered in Kiev - I know that the perpetrators moved on to Albania https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/fraudfactory/
Ursula and Scholz are not just from different parties, but represent different political cultures.
Die EU-Kommissionspräsidentin erinnerte daran, dass die Ukrainer „diesen Kampf für uns alle“ kämpfen. Nötig sei der Sieg der Demokratie.
For a "geopolitical Europe" (a term from Scholz's grundsatzrede) to be a thing, it is important for the EU members to demonstrate coherence and consistency with regard to Ukraine war. Instead, Scholz is playing a solo Nein-policy (https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/scholz-verteidigt-nein-zu-lieferung-von-kampfpanzern-102.html).
At the same time, Scholz eulogises Germany as the future main defence pillar of Europe.
„Eine gut ausgerüstete Bundeswehr, die ihren Auftrag zum Schutz unseres Landes erfüllen kann, ist für mich eine Selbstverständlichkeit“, sagte Scholz. „Dafür stehe ich als Bundeskanzler – und darauf können Sie sich verlassen.“ Die Bundeswehr solle zum Grundpfeiler der konventionellen Verteidigung in Europa werden, „zur am besten ausgestatteten Streitkraft“. [...] „Der Kernauftrag der Bundeswehr ist die Verteidigung der Freiheit in Europa!“
No, Scholz. A soloing Germany always meant destruction and devastation to Europe. You are hell-bent on repeating Germany's biggest past mistakes.
Scholz is playing a solo Nein-policy (https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/scholz-verteidigt-nein-zu-lieferung-von-kampfpanzern-102.html).
Still?
As Europe Piles Sanctions on Russia, Some Sacred Cows Are SparedThe Belgians have shielded trade in Russian diamonds. The Greeks ship Russian oil unimpeded. France and several other nations still import Russian uranium for nuclear power generation.
[...]
“We would love to have everything included, diamonds and every other special interest hit, but I am of the opinion that, if sparing them is what it takes to keep everyone together, so be it,” [Jacob Kirkegaard, a senior fellow in the Brussels office of the research group the German Marshall Fund,] added.
No. Bending the knee to special interests like this means everyone is not together.
Varoufakis is an odd mix of euro-optimism and euro-skepticism. Almost like me, but I'd say he is less reconcileable with himself. I'm quoting just a bit from the beginning of this speech/dialogue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u4YdHAgwd4
There will be peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, presided over by United States. There will be other countries represented as well, hopefully China, hopefully India. [...] Who is going to represent the EU in those talks? Olaf Scholz of Germany and Emanuel Macron of France will be vetoed by Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and maybe by Finland and Sweden, because they (Scholz and Macron) are considered too close to Putin. What I am trying to say is that the EU has become geostrategically irrelevant within the continent of Europe. [...] In other words, the war in Ukraine has accelerated the process of the fragmentation of the European Union.
I generally agree (always have) with his analysis, even though I (always) disagree with his proposed remedies. I agree that the EU has always been broken along multiple faultlines. I disagree there is any remedy available, such as new EU constitution, which is what Varoufakis is effectively proposing for at least the financial-fiscal-monetary aspect of the EU.
In my opinion, nothing short of total collapse and starting the EU anew from scratch gets it a new constitution. Right now when Russia is on its knees and (with some help) would fall over into mud, this is the time to go through the EU collapse too. There is no other relatively safe opportunity for it. Germany and France have consistently demonstrated themselves incapable of any negotiated reform (particularly of finances-fiscals-monetaries which is what Varoufakis is concerned with most), they have discredited themselves in the face of every single threat to peace in Europe, they royally messed up every single reconciliation effort they participated in, they concretely threatened the existence of some new member states in peace time, etc. etc.
So, I'd say the EU has always been geostrategically irrelevant, and this means its existence as it has been thus far is unjustifiable. It must end and the best time for the end is now. Germany and France deserve to go through mud almost as much as Russia does. Without a total collapse of the current EU there will be no chance for its improvement, because as long as this EU stands, Germany and France will continue to delude themselves of having done at least some things right, when they have actually done absolutely everything fatally wrong.
Hopefully China? You're serious underestimating their ability to facilitate diplomacy.
You're serious underestimating their ability to facilitate diplomacy.
Hm. Are there any indications of an inclination to "facilitate diplomacy" from the CCP? :)
Good ole Google provides this:
When did China get veto power in UNSC?
China turned abstention into an "art form", abstaining on 30% of Security Council Resolutions between 1971 and 1976. Since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, China has joined Russia in many double vetoes. China has not cast a lone veto since 1999.
The answer was no. Google not required. Not like they need to. Anyone gonna stop buying Chinese products? Got something otw from China right now probably?
Russia has embarrassed itself and China would do no better. Sure a pain. Sure, pointless loss. All just Russia trying to remain relevant. China already is so no need for them to do much of anything. What's India gonna do? Try to scam them with bad grammar while trying to act official?
The US & EU should of done more to shutdown aggression when the Ukraine first asked. The only reason not to is China... There you go. Why would anything change?
I haven't killed a thread like this since Opera. I truly am home. :pirate:
I haven't killed a thread like this since Opera. I truly am home. :pirate:
Congratulations. Good job.
It was fervently hoped that this winter should be the winter of our discontent(s). Didn't quite pan out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cM-hvzHTtiA
While national governments may often struggle with their popularity, the EU is popular and improving (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/10/13/positive-views-of-european-union-reach-new-highs-in-many-countries/) in both soft and hard power.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ft_2022.10.13_viewsoftheEU_02.png)
Popular support for Ukraine and the energy transition (https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2872) remains strong.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fss-ptMWAAAJ_jD?format=jpg)
EU seals deal to send Ukraine 1M ammo rounds
(https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-seals-deal-send-ukraine-1-million-ammo-rounds-shells-war/)The EU has reached a deal to send Ukraine 1 million rounds of ammunition within the next 12 months.
The plan — seen by POLITICO — will see the EU both donate ammunition from its own stockpiles and also jointly purchase new shells for Ukraine. It also leaves open the possibility that the EU could help countries collectively buy missiles for Ukraine. And it sets a goal to “jointly procure” these munitions “in the fastest way possible” before October.
Diplomats and ministers finalized the strategy during meetings in Brussels on Sunday and Monday. EU leaders are expected to give their final blessing at a summit in Brussels later this week.
[/font][/size][/color]
The deal represents a landmark juncture for the EU, marking the first time the self-described peace project has plotted to jointly buy arms for a country at war. Officials have argued the EU must evolve to meet the extraordinary moment — no less than the fate of democracy on European soil is at stake, they insist.
FAST TRACK PROCEDURE FOR 155mm ARTILLERY ROUNDS (https://eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2023/03/20/eda-brings-together-18-countries-for-common-procurement-of-ammunition)
In the run-up to the informal meeting of the Ministers of Defence Council, which took place in Stockholm on 7 and 8 March, Head of Agency Borrell set out three complementary tracks to deliver more artillery ammunition and to deliver it more quickly: first to help Member States in sending such ammunition from national stockpiles or from pending orders; second to aggregate demand and quickly move to 155mm collaborative procurement; and third to ramp up the manufacturing capacity of the European defence industry.
Despite popular support for the EU, Britain left it. Despite popular support for the EU, the EU has done absolutely everything wrong when it comes to geopolitics and security. Each and every time - Bosnia, Kosovo, Transnistria, Crimea - the EU has been a massive failure. The EU learned nothing from these mistakes and may now commit the biggest mistake yet. The EU has failed so hard that as soon as the war broke out, Finland and Sweden rushed to knock on Nato's door. The EU has proven itself not worth any trust.
As it stands, it is still not clear that the EU is committed to Ukraine's victory and that they henceforth handle Russia with more maturity. My educated guess is no and no. The EU is not committed to Ukraine's victory and the biggies are biding time to reward and hail Putin for this invasion too as soon as USA looks elsewhere.
There was popular support for EU, except when it mattered. Which in itself is interesting.
(https://www.economist.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=834,quality=80,format=auto/sites/default/files/20180623_WOC220.png)
With a predictable outcome.
(https://www.economist.com/img/b/400/436/90/media-assets/image/20230107_BRC258.png)
Us joining NATO is a vote of confidence in the EU. It has made Norway joining EU more likely, and the EU debate has started. Not happening soon nor in any hurry anyway, with Norway in NATO and the EEA.
The Muscovite Empire will dominate EU foreign and security policy the rest of this decade, but ultimately it will not be our primary concern. Putin has pushed a path East, so now not only Ukraine and Moldova will become members, uncertain even unlikely otherwise, but Georgia as well. That means that the EU will not just practically bordering the Levant (Cyprus), but practically border the Caspian Sea and Iran as well (Georgia).
Thanks to member state colonialism EU practically borders everywhere else too, but that is a different story.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Map-Europe-Outermost-regions-fr.png)
By becoming NATO members, the last two military significant EU members that were not NATO members have now joined. Sure, Austria, Cyprus, Ireland, and Malta are still not NATO members, but while they may strategically or otherwise matter, militarily they don't. It is a bit like the Swedish oral tobacco exemption, or maybe more seriously the Danish opt-out on Common Security and Defence Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy) (CSDP), which Denmark voted just a few months ago to drop.
Denmark, Sweden (soon), and Finland are now fully integrated in the European security system, and Norway and Iceland pretty much are as well.
NATO is a club. Club members are the EU countries (with those four exceptions), prospective EU members (though Turkey's prospects aren't that good at the moment), EU peripherals (Iceland, Norway, UK), and the former colonies as rjhowie would have said (currently self-governing). In addition to a military platform, it is a contact group, with some outreach to South Korea, Japan and Australia. It is not very formal, but it is quite useful to keep club members on at least adjacent pages.
Us joining NATO is a vote of confidence in the EU.
It's a vote of no-confidence to the EU.
Denmark, Sweden (soon), and Finland are now fully integrated in the European security system, and Norway and Iceland pretty much are as well.
Nato *is* European security system, but fully separate from the EU institutions. Namely, a European security framework as an EU institution doesn't exist (that's why EU members join Nato, duh). Germany and France are superannoyed by this and keep making proposals for an EU security framework, silently intended to replace Nato. Just ask Macron and Scholz (or better, observe). Luckily their project is stuck for three main reasons:
- Germany and France cannot agree on the details among themselves
- Nobody trusts Germany and France on anything security-related
- There's already Nato that serves the purpose more than well enough
The Muscovite Empire will dominate EU foreign and security policy the rest of this decade, but ultimately it will not be our primary concern. Putin has pushed a path East, so now not only Ukraine and Moldova will become members, uncertain even unlikely otherwise, but Georgia as well.
You mean the Georgia that locked up Saakashvili? Under Saakashvili, Georgia was a contender for the EU and Nato with some potential, but by now it is closer to Armenia in its EU-mindedness and EU-readiness, well behind Moldova.
If the Ukraine war ends with even a square millimeter left to Putin, then Russia will spin it either as Russian victory or as interrupted due to meddling by the collective West, i.e. the war continues and Ukraine's membership would cause only trouble to the EU. Sevastopol must be taken away from Russia, otherwise there's no hope for the EU.
Moldova can join when Transnistria is wiped off the map. In this, the EU has demonstrated utter incompetence, reluctance and impotence.
Bosnia can join when it becomes first one administrative entity with a single national identity and then a country, instead of a protectorate (not in our lifetime). Kosovo can join when it becomes a country instead of a protectorate and appendage of Albania (not in our lifetime). Serbia can join when relations with Kosovo and Bosnia normalise (not in our lifetime). And the situation in Ukraine and Moldova is behind compared to Balkans, not ahead.
And "ultimately [the Muscovite Empire] will not be our primary concern" is exactly the attitude that has perforce made it EU's primary concern for the rest of the century, if the EU refuses to win this war. Muscovites thoroughly corrupted London. Can you imagine, London?! Every other Western capital goes without saying.
That means that the EU will not just practically bordering the Levant (Cyprus), but practically border the Caspian Sea and Iran as well (Georgia).
Oh yes, Cyprus, an early diplomatic and geostrategic blunder by the EU that was never fixed. The EU just keeps making similar blunders.
Jax has always seen the EU farther east than actuality permits. Byzantine logic? I'm still waiting for North Africa to be mentioned. 😋
Jax has always seen the EU farther east than actuality permits. Byzantine logic? I'm still waiting for North Africa to be mentioned. 😋
Putin changed the status of Ukrainian membership from "unlikely" to "inevitable". The only question is when and how. It is possible that it would happen before the remaining Balkan states.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/European_Union_member_states_and_candidates_v2.svg/1280px-European_Union_member_states_and_candidates_v2.svg.png) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_enlargement_of_the_European_Union)
Blue are member states, green are candidates, yellow are applicants, and red are frozen candidates. Certainly there would be those who would prefer no eastward expansion, like France or Spain, and every country has veto power.
Still it is a political and economic impossibility not to admit Ukraine. We have experience with earlier expansion, and it is extremely costly. Germany spent 2 trillion euro and thirty years on getting East Germany up to scratch, and it still isn't really. Western Europe has spent a lot on Poland, Baltic states, Central Europe and Romania/Bulgaria. That too is pretty much a work in progress.
Ukraine are all three big bads. It is big, poor, and agricultural. Add to that war-damaged, post-Soviet and corrupt. Basically the funds that go to the current Southern and Eastern Europe will go further east.
Still, it is feasible if Ukraine is on a membership path. Then we can expect massive FDI as well as domestic investments.
Nato *is* European security system, but fully separate from the EU institutions. Namely, a European security framework as an EU institution doesn't exist (that's why EU members join Nato, duh). Germany and France are superannoyed by this and keep making proposals for an EU security framework, silently intended to replace Nato. Just ask Macron and Scholz (or better, observe). Luckily their project is stuck for three main reasons:
Obviously NATO is a good and useful thing. To trot out Lord Ismay (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hastings_Ismay) again,
[The purpose of NATO is] to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.
With Brexit, the British went down instead, but two out of three is still not bad.
"Keeping the Americans in" is as important as before. NATO has let North America and Europe do more with less, and the time of Western supremacy and US hegemony is over. However you should see the difference between these two organisations.
NATO is a what, EU is a how. NATO is a club. EU is a guild. NATO has no rules. EU has rules for everything (a mild exaggeration, there are plenty of things EU has no rules for yet). NATO is also a weapons platform as vangrieg (https://web.archive.org/web/20131110200515/http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=196818&t=1384113914&page=17#comment12981752) (Mikhail Grigoryev) once pointed out. NATO has been, and can remain, very useful, but it only goes so far.
It also bends and extends in other ways, not only by having the US (and now Britain) in it, and Canada with Russia & EU & US as neighbours, and the not-yet-ready-for-EU members, but also with South Korea and Japan, and indirectly Australia and New Zealand. All good Europeans.
Like NATO has an article 5, the Treaty of Lisbon has an article 42.7. The latter is actually more definitive, but as until now unused.
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Article_51), will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council). Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Cancer);
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Article 42
(ex Article 17 TEU)
- The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. The performance of these tasks shall be undertaken using capabilities provided by the Member States.
- The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework. - Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy, to contribute to the objectives defined by the Council. Those Member States which together establish multinational forces may also make them available to the common security and defence policy.
Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities. The Agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments (hereinafter referred to as "the European Defence Agency") shall identify operational requirements, shall promote measures to satisfy those requirements, shall contribute to identifying and, where appropriate, implementing any measure needed to strengthen the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, shall participate in defining a European capabilities and armaments policy, and shall assist the Council in evaluating the improvement of military capabilities. - Decisions relating to the common security and defence policy, including those initiating a mission as referred to in this Article, shall be adopted by the Council acting unanimously on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy or an initiative from a Member State. The High Representative may propose the use of both national resources and Union instruments, together with the Commission where appropriate.
- The Council may entrust the execution of a task, within the Union framework, to a group of Member States in order to protect the Union's values and serve its interests. The execution of such a task shall be governed by Article 44.
- Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by Article 46. It shall not affect the provisions of Article 43.
- If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
Commitments and cooperation in this area shall be consistent with commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which, for those States which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation.
In the case of Ukraine, the country is neither member of NATO or EU, so the respective articles don't apply, but both organisations have had their uses. The EU is more crucial long-term.
Obviously NATO is a good and useful thing. To trot out Lord Ismay (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hastings_Ismay) again,
[The purpose of NATO is] to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.
And from this it should be obvious how misaligned the EU and Nato are. The purpose of France and Germany is to invite Russians in. France and Germany envisioned a rapprochement with Russia, visa freedom and gas pipelines, that would culminate in Russia's EU membership. Boris Johnson, while mayor of London, invited Russians to take over the properties in London, and they did.
Also the purpose of France and Germany is to push Americans out, most recently for a 200th time declared during Macron's visit to China.
And also, after UK got kicked out, the EU is now led by France-Germany tandem, so the purpose is not to keep the Germans down, but on a par with the French. In actuality, Germany massively outplayed France under Schröder and Merkel, and now under Scholz Germany has announced a programme of remilitarising itself. Germany is absolutely not being held down.
NATO has no rules. EU has rules for everything
In reality, whatever lack of rules Nato has, it works even with rogue members such as Turkey. Whatever rules and principles and values and directives the EU has, they fail. For every rule the EU also has exceptions, exclusions, loopholes and copouts. For example with regard to the current sanctions:
The Belgians have shielded trade in Russian diamonds. The Greeks ship Russian oil unimpeded. France and several other nations still import Russian uranium for nuclear power generation.
I have already cited this earlier in this thread. The list is not exhaustive, obviously.
The current faultline in the EU can be compared to what happened during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. Back then, the eastern EU members were pro, western ones against. Nato is seen as an actual geostrategic factor among those who live next to Russia, whereas the EU is correctly seen as a dangerously duplicitous hypocrite or at least a wuss and idiot. In the western EU, however, Nato is seen as an annoying intrusive extension of USA. They don't want Americans in. They want them out.
Back then, Chirac said (https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/les-petites-phrases-de-jacques-chirac-26-09-2019-2337965_23.php) "Ces pays [eastern EU members] ont perdu une bonne occasion de se taire" and Rumsfeld divided the EU into "old Europe" and "new Europe". The end result was that the EU was, once again, picked apart by an outside power and the outside power did what it wanted with it.
Meanwhile there was a time when the EU biggies participated in the Minsk agreements delusion. And right now Macron tours the world with his EU "strategic autonomy" delusion. Yes, the diplomacy that the EU participates in has turned out to be a delusion and a mistake every time.
Now, being picked apart by outside powers is a serious problem, indicative of lack of cohesion of the EU. What's worse is that it is an oft-recurring problem. And what's worst is that this is due absolute lack of any sense of geostrategy at all in the EU. The Lisbon article 42.7 may exist, but it is less worth than the paper it is printed on. There is no institution for the supposed common defence and security strategy in the EU and western EU members do not recognise Nato as serving as the missing institution. Therefore the Lisbon article is de facto null and void. Luckily Nato exists and serves its purpose to fill the void. The cost is that outside powers can pick the EU apart on geostrategy every single time, but apparently the western EU members like to be screwed over every now and then, because they are refusing to fix the problem. Sucking up to Putin means that the western EU members to this day do not practically recognise eastern EU members as actual members that should be protected from the threat that Russia poses. If the Lisbon article had any perceptible effect, Finland would not have had to join Nato.
Geostrategy is not hard: Just recognise threats correctly with regard to the entire EU. The most actual geostrategic and military threat to the EU was always Russia. But for Macron right now as we speak, the most acute threat is USA (https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-china-america-pressure-interview/). Whereas Putin is good for dialogue. What a complete dumbass.
Implosion of the EU would reduce the quantity of idiotic hypocrisy in the world approximately by half. Probably a good thing.
I'm still waiting for North Africa to be mentioned. 😋
He has mentioned it repeatedly under the name Sahel. Such as here:
...the EU is taking over the G5 Sahel as a European issue...
In my view, a lucid indication of lack of sense of geopolitical direction.
At best, focusing on Sahel would be a distraction. Its inevitable consequence would be increased ire of the people of the region, since it is France's national project, their colonial heritage. And therefore 100% hypocrisy. At worst, it would divert attention and resources from actual threats and opportunities, also from necessary tasks at hand in Europe, such as the Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus.
Jax has always seen the EU farther east than actuality permits. Byzantine logic? I'm still waiting for North Africa to be mentioned. 😋
Morocco already applied for European Community in 1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco%E2%80%93European_Union_relations#Membership_application), and was rejected. Of course, this was a different time and different rules, but it is highly unlikely they will send another application. Morocco benefits from a good and close relationship with EU, but integration is a few steps too far. It is our line in the sand so to speak. Besides Ukraine already fills the quota for big, poor and agricultural countries. They are about the same size, but unlike Ukraine, Morocco's population is growing, if not by a lot.
But we got the
Union for the Mediterranean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_for_the_Mediterranean), basically Roman Empire 2.0 plus some barbarian states that were not a part the first time around.
This is something French presidents fiddle around with when bored, but this Club Med, or some club like it, will gradually start to matter.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Union_for_the_Mediterranean_-_updatable.svg/1024px-Union_for_the_Mediterranean_-_updatable.svg.png)
He has mentioned it repeatedly under the name Sahel. Such as here:
...the EU is taking over the G5 Sahel as a European issue...
In my view, a lucid indication of lack of sense of geopolitical direction.
At best, focusing on Sahel would be a distraction. Its inevitable consequence would be increased ire of the people of the region, since it is France's national project, their colonial heritage. And therefore 100% hypocrisy. At worst, it would divert attention and resources from actual threats and opportunities, also from necessary tasks at hand in Europe, such as the Balkans, Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, and Belarus.
I would actually agree with that, the "ire" part that is. There is no win in this at the moment, except for preventing opportunity losses. And that is not done by force. Militarily the EU has withdrawn from Sahel, but Russians rush in where Europeans fear to thread.
Africa is going to matter far more to Europe in the future than Russia will (Ukraine, Moldova, the remainder of the Balkans, and perhaps Georgia and Belarus will become part of Europe). It is Russia that is the distraction, not the Sahel.
https://youtu.be/vQa-o8lkmPM
Politico published an editorial that attempts to be visionary, titled
The EU in 2035: Bigger, messier, tougher. Let's give it a read.
For one, the EU will have more, not fewer, members by the mid-2030s — possibly as many as 36 compared to today’s 27.
It will be a bigger, messier yet tougher EU, shaped — as always — by unexpected events, and the bloc will struggle to defend its interests and values in a world of great power rivalry.
The editorial does a fair job of keeping the thrust ambiguous in the beginning. The word choice "tougher EU" suggests overall EU-optimism and positivity though.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year, geopolitics has become the strongest driving force raising pressure on Brussels and Western European capitals when it comes to removing long-standing roadblocks to the EU’s further enlargement.
It's true that geopolitics is now at the forefront - for the eastern members it always was and always will be. However, it is not the driving force for the whole EU. An strong counterforce is the attitude of Germany and France. Most recently, Macron outed himself on his China-visit as a committed putinite. For this, he morally deserves the treatment that Orban has been getting, but of course there's nobody in the EU to give Macron and Scholz the treatment they deserve. Instead, German president gave the former Bundeskanzler Merkel the highest honour of Germany, earlier only received by Konrad Adenauer and Helmut Kohl. Of course, Germany's president Steinmeier is himself a committed putinite, probably more hardcore committed than Macron, though luckily of less diplomatic prominence. We can be thankful that he did not give the honour to Schröder.
Political pressure to admit all the countries to the west of the new Iron Curtain — including Ukraine, Moldova and six Western Balkan aspirants — will likely be overwhelming, provided they make the required reforms.
Given that, as suggested by the previous point, the EU must get its shit together when it comes to geopolitics (but won't, according to me), it's not just about the reforms that the candidates must make for the membership. It's more importantly about having a geopolitical risk picture at the level of EU and behaving in harmony with that picture.
Anyway, my prediction is that the EU will be incapable of developing any coherent sense of geopolitics. To achieve the sense requires a reform in the command lines of the EU that reduces the prominence of Franco-German axis in the EU structures, and this is something that shall not pass. Therefore, as the EU expands further, it will also weaken and fracture further, instead of becoming tougher as hoped in the title.
Brexit has been a salutary lesson to most Europeans that life is warmer and more prosperous inside than on the outside — especially with a revisionist Russia banging on the gates.
To most Europeans, yes, but not to EU biggies. And since the EU is not a democracy and will in the foreseeable future be even less of it, the elite of the EU biggies always matters more than most Europeans, whichever way you slice "the most".
For the EU biggies, Russia is just as legit a superpower to hang themselves on as any other. Even more, due to geographical proximity, Russia would qualify as a prospective EU member in their mind. For now, admitting the temporary inconvenience posed by the war in Ukraine, this outlook has been modified to that Russia must not lose face and the EU must not be the vassal of US, nevermind that the EU biggies have been pretty much vassals of Putin and Putin has now in turn been reduced to a vassal of Xi Jinping.
Even the most outspoken populist Euroskeptic politicians in France, Italy, Poland, Hungary and the Netherlands have stopped advocating for an exit now, as they would rather stay and obstruct, or simply disobey, or reshape.
Indeed, there's no outspoken threat from that corner. But there's another fatally bad option for the EU that I have not seen any analyst or commentator pick up: Implosion. Given the fact that the power in the EU irreformably rests with the biggies and the only reform they foresee is a further erosion of the voice of what the perceive as the buffer zone rubble, the rift along the EU's West-East faultline may crack. Of course, the biggies may continue with their own rump-EU and call it whole as if nothing happened, but it would be a step back to pre-Nice, maybe even pre-Maastricht EU.
Ultimately, I don’t believe either France or Germany would dare block Ukraine’s path to membership if it enthusiastically embraced EU-mandated reforms after the war. However, along with other member countries, they will press for long transition periods before new members can gain the full benefits of membership, whether that be in terms of EU funds, farm subsidies, the free movement of workers or, possibly, veto rights and their own commissioner.
Again, dear eurooptimists, EU membership is not just a matter of letting countries join, but what constitutional, economic, demographic and geopolitical picture will follow from this - in terms of risk, not only in terms of enlargement euphoria. From this perspective, Ukraine is in a worse state than any of the Balkan countries.
Ukraine is also in a worse state than Moldova, which sits in a strategic catastrophe by itself. Ukraine and Moldova are in their situation due to no fault of their own, but it would the EU's duty to fix them up if the EU fancies them to join. Given the EU's track record of diplomatic ineptitude in the Balkans, in Transnistria, and in Cyprus, not to mention the current reluctance to punish the current red-alert aggressor in Ukraine, there's no glimmer of hope in the relevant direction.
The Continent will still need the United States as its guardian nuclear superpower, however, but when it comes to providing conventional armed forces, it will have to fend for itself more, and take more responsibility for its neighborhood as Washington focuses on China.
Yes, these are minimum necessities for survival. At the same time, the EU biggies consistently scoff at survivalist mentality. Someone somewhere noted, and I agree, that Germany simultaneously lets USA pay for its defence, gets alarmed by American influence over European matters, makes geopolitical decisions that directly aid and abet the enemies of Europe, and is condescending to Americans for the failures of American welfare state. The level of delusion (or cynicism) in this kind of psyche is comparable to Russia. The same can be said about France as exemplified by Macron.
Such piecemeal integration in response to crises such as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine is far more likely than either a federal leap forward or a nationalist unraveling of a Europe built over seven decades of common legal, economic and political construction.
This presupposes a continued presence of external threats that prompt a constructive reaction with integrative effect by the EU. The wars and crises of Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo-Serbia, and Crimea were not enough. Even the current war of Ukraine looks like will not be enough. And what if such threats stop happening or assume a different nature? It was high time quite a while ago for the EU to learn the lessons and get its shit together without further need of outside prodding. Did not happen, so never will.
Russia eases travel restrictions on Georgian nationals, in the latest sign of thawing ties.President Vladimir V. Putin on Wednesday ordered the restoration of direct flights from Russia to the mountainous former Soviet republic of Georgia starting May 15 and abolished visa requirements for Georgian nationals, in the latest sign of continued rapprochement between the two nations.
The relationship with Russia has been a subject of a heated and polarizing debate in Georgia, where many members of the pro-Western opposition argue that the country must impose sanctions on Moscow and be more active in supporting Ukraine.
Roman Gotsiridze, a Georgian opposition lawmaker, said in a statement on his Facebook account that Mr. Putin’s decisions on travel and visas had “put Georgia on the same rank” as Belarus, “a friendly state for Russia.”
So this is the status in Georgia, the country whom the EU leaders see as a hopeful member.
Incidentally, I visited Georgia last week. The majority of the people seems to be upset by Russia's attack on Ukraine and alarmed by the mass of Russians fleeing mobilisation. But the government seems to see the situation as a great opportunity to take a cut of the trafficking of forbidden goods between Russia and Turkey.
Africa is going to matter far more to Europe in the future than Russia will... It is Russia that is the distraction, not the Sahel.
You are not talking about times when Russia is gone, no? In that case you are wrong. Russia matters as long as it exists. Russia matters even in Sahel. For example, Central African Republic is orienting itself away from France. Central Africa invited Wagner in and French forces retreated to avoid direct fighting - because in his alternate universe, Macron is making a peace agreement with Putin. I know that some outlets report that France first wound down its troops in Central Africa and then Russians moved in to fill the void, but this is deceptive reporting to avoid talking about French motivation in Sahel - colonialism. If things were going well, why would France pull the troops and leave a void after themselves? Answer: Things were not going well, that's why they pulled the troops.
Sahel is fed up with the EU. For them, the EU is unambiguously and straightforwardly a colonial power. The only way Sahel "matters" for the EU is colonialism. This is, it matters only for the former colonial powers who still operate on colonial instincts. For the eastern EU members, Sahel does not matter at all. There's nothing to do there. We are not planning to colonise anybody and we do not support you when you plan colonisation. Except perhaps if you supported us in standing up against Russia's colonial efforts, but you say Russia don't matter, so...
Another way Sahel can matter for the EU is when talking about the future rump-EU consisting of Western European colonial powers. Then, seeing that their games with Russia ended in a catastrophe, the rump-EU would satisfy itself with adventures in Sahel instead.
Austrian Kanzler hates card payments (and maybe digieuro also) so much that he's making it a matter of constitutional crisis.
Die Liebe der Österreicher zum Bargeld ist groß, noch größer die - wohl unbegründete - Angst einer Abschaffung. Und das, obwohl in den meisten westlichen Ländern das Bezahlen mit Karte oder Smartphone bereits gang und gäbe ist. Doch Bundeskanzler Karl Nehammer will dennoch das „Recht auf Bargeld“ in der österreichischen Bundesverfassung verankern. Die Menschen in Österreich hätten „ein Recht darauf“.
Daher will der Kanzler die Sicherstellung von Scheinen und Münzen als Zahlungsmittel in die Verfassung bringen. „Die Menschen müssen eine Absicherung haben, dass Bargeld ein Zahlungsmittel bleibt und die Möglichkeit haben weiterhin mit Bargeld zu bezahlen. Und sie müssen eine Grundversorgung mit Bargeld in zumutbarer Entfernung haben. Das ist auch eine Frage der Unabhängigkeit und der Krisenvorsorge“, so der Bundeskanzler. „Die Bedeutung des Bargelds in Österreich zeigt sich auch an einer eindrucksvollen Zahl: Pro Jahr werden rund 47 Milliarden Euro an Bankomaten in Österreich abgehoben.“
Als ersten Schritt habe er daher den Finanzminister beaufragt, diese drei Forderungen auszuarbeiten. Im September soll es dann zudem einen Runden Tisch mit den zuständigen Ministerien, Branchenvertretern und der Nationalbank geben. „Bargeld ist als Zahlungsmittel elementar, es ist wichtig, dass wir einen unmissverständlichen Rechtsrahmen schaffen, um es auch entsprechend abzusichern “, so Nehammer.
Sounds good to me. :yes:
It so happens that money is in Estonia's constitution. The constitution says that Bank of Estonia is the sole issuer of money. In reality of course the ECB has become the issuer of money currently in effect in Estonia, so the constitution appears to be in conflict with the way money is issued. According to our legal commentators on the constitution, the conflict is genuine. I also happen to know that when Estonia was in the middle of negotiations with the EU, the ECB demanded this section of our constitution be deleted. But it is notoriously hard to change the constitution. Probably Estonia had to promise or give away something more for not changing the constitution.
This section of the constitution will become handy when the EU falls apart. If Austria takes its own initiative seriously and attempts to put money into constitution and the ECB obstructs (as one would expect), it will reveal again that countries (governments) have catastrophically little control over money (which should have been obvious when they gave away all control over monetary policy) and that would become a good reason to leave the eurozone.
A fun little article reminding about Borrell's misadventures. However, he has his defense:
In Borrell’s defense, he wasn’t the only EU big beast to get trampled on in Moscow in recent years.
The EU is nicely defended by the fact that there is not just one idiot on the top job (and who is apparently unfierable), but many.
Arte.tv documentary looking into sanctions-shmanctions after two years of war in Ukraine. I can confirm that the journalists are on the right tracks. In April-May last year I visited Georgia and Turkey and the situation was evident even as a tourist, so this barely scratches the surface.
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/115997-000-A/russia-forbidden-business/
Yes, seen the same documentary.
Where there are sanctions, there will be sanctions busting. Inevitably, and every time as long as the sanctioned has money to pay for it. And a siege of Russia is not a practicality.
However, where there is sanction busting, there can be sanctions busting busting. And while sanctions have never brought down a regime, not even South Africa, and can make people connected to the regime even richer, they do impoverish a country. That however is a long game.
Doesn't mean they are useless, only that they are gradual and not a replacement for more direct action. Ukraine's "sanctions" inside Russia are pretty good, even though they too are gradual.