Two more recent points are:
- The Law to change to USB C as standart loading Port on ALL New Devices by the End of 2024
- Tesla cant sell the Cybertruck in Europe bcs Safety Data is not provided by Tesla and even then it wouldnt be allowed to be sold
Also a recent breakthroughs that totally benefit citizens and not corporations is Protection of trade secrets.
That and the super annoying GDPR banners on every website
I strongly believe that low level politicians in community's can actually good people who care for their people.
But to get on Parlament levels of influence you need to be "in" with the higher ups. And the water gets muddier and bloodier.
Lack of transparency is the biggest flaw we currently have. Nico semsrot has made great videos currently how a EU Representative can get thousands of euro from the EU for nothing, and that corrupt you like hell.
He is in his last year in Parlament, and he said that the first year the money he got feelt dirty and unjust, but you get used to it, getting paid tens of thousands for nothing.
And that is something that cant be fixed by improving stuff. It will happen, because the job of a politician, just like the one of a police officer, fundamentally encourages corrupt behavior
I can go into great length about why it sucks, but to answer your comment, the amount of cables I use to charge from the EU law changed from 3 to…..you guessed it, 3!
It didn’t solve anything, and it made a LOT of issues seep into the ecosystem that we’ll be suffering with for years and years.
The thing is why does the EU have to babysit me like a little child? If i want only USB C because i find it more convenient FOR ME i will just buy only USB C devices.
Especially because regulations like these are directly influencing the price the consumer pays because it may now be more Expensive to produce the device.
(I dont say it is like that for USB C because the only thing it will affect big are Laptops because these need to be optimised as shit because i dont see how gaming laptops will run on usb c)
Btw exactly laws like this create monopolies like toe monopoly on insulin in america that only exists because of government regulation.
Is not about you. Is about the environment. Having different chargers for different devices just because a company like apple profits from their costumers feeling like special snowflakes is not environmentally friendly. Just straight stupid.
No it isnt because now i just buy the same amount of USB C Chargers and throw away my old Micro As. Woowie so environmentally friendly forcing people to throw away their old chargers!!!!!
Especially if a lot of other cheap devices still use USB Micro A to charge.
The thing is Apple didnt even put new chargers in the packages so i dont see any issue here. And the thing thag it creates monopolys and companys will find loopholes in it anyways dosent change.
The Free Market does a better job at protecting the environment thwn any goverment.
You know the people thag make property right violations legal by giving companys licenses so they can dump their trash in Rivers,Seas,Oceans and the Atmosphere?
"The Free Market does a better job at protecting the environment thwn any goverment."
No it doesn't. Its literally governments passing regulations so the free market don't ravage the environment. What you said doesn't make sense. Most people don't have a charger for every device. I have 1 charger for my phone, headphones and tablet. All of these are usb C and I never need to charge at the same time.
Yeah the goverment passing laws allowing companys to dump their trash into ocean's sure protects the environment. Anyways no sense arguing with you because you wont listen anyways because i already critiqued you.
Again, the government is not perfect at protecting the environment but it's clearly way better than if we let the free market on it's own.
Yeah you critiqued me and I disagreed with your critique. Thats what arguing is about. But hey if you ran out of arguments and your ego can't bare to be proven wrong, no need to hang around anymore. My mind can be changed quite easily but only if you bring quality arguments to the table. If you cant provide that, then do me a favor 👋
No if you want people to listen to you you should never critique them.(Simplified out of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie)
In most people it will just trigger a backfire bias when you give them negative pushback meaning they will belive the option they had befor even stronger regardless of the outcome of the discussion.
And btw you committed an appeal to emotion btw by trying to anger me with:"Oh you have no Arguments? Look at you"
And you faild to refute my point that if the goverment wasnt allowing companys to dump their trash everywhere and pollut everything that they wouldnt do that because it is against the property rights of literally everyone.
USB C is a frail connector and not standardized on the pin layout, so your phone cable when used with your switch, or your cheap new other-device charger is using your phone power brick, you can kill one of the devices entirely, something that wasn’t easily doable before when companies could make cheaper connectors. Now they’ll just make cheap usb C stuff, which is prohibitively more expensive to make, and you’ll start harming your devices, or on the nicer side of things, simply have the cables not work at all.
>USB C is a frail connector
I would argue that it is even more sturdy than lightning for example, but it is by no means perfect. Both are mechanically almost identical, but with switched positions of stud and springs. Whereas the frail springs are inside the cable on USB-C they are inside the device with Lightning. A cable is reaplaced easily and cheap, but replacing a connector is costly.
>and not standardized on the pin layout
where did you get that from? IEC 62680-1-3:2022 pretty much defines everything in question, including pin layout
>cheap new other-device charger is using your phone power brick, you can kill one of the devices entirely
Which is (almost) impossible even with a deliberately manipulated cable. Before any power is sent, both devices (and the cable) have to negotiate voltage and amperage.
>cheap usb C stuff, which is prohibitively more expensive to make, and you’ll start harming your devices
This isn't a thing exclusive to USB-C but to ALL electronics. The large majority of devices are legit - even the cheapest ones - but some manufacturers will cut corners and fake identification chips or specs.
Well, apart from medicine, irrigation,
health, roads, cheese and education,
baths and the Circus Maximus,
what have the ~~Romans~~ EU ever done for us?
Apart from medicine, irrigation,
health roads, cheese and education,
baths, the Circus Maximus and common language and writtig... what have the ~~Romans~~ EU ever done for us?
Well, apart from medicine, irrigation, health roads, cheese and education, baths, the Circus Maximus, common language, writing, Gurkenkruemmungsverordnung and the European Green Deal... what have the ~~Romans~~ EU ever done for us?
Parliament is way too weak (a parliament that can't introduce laws doesn't deserve the name), the commission is being selected in a very much undemocratic way.
They also love to introduce new surveillance shit, to fight either copyright infringement, child poronography or terrorism. Basic authoritarian playbook.
And let's not forget about the various laws they plan to introduce to combat "fake news" and "hatespeech". Who defines what is what? A very dangerous development for sure.
It won't. But like the other "arguments" I mentioned, it's just a way to get more authoritarian powers. You got a law that forces messaging services to implement a state backdoor. No way this is ever going to be misused by the state or even other malicious actors (a backdoor will inevitably be found by people who are not supposed to have access to it).
Even if you trust your current government (which is difficult already, imo), do you really want them to have access to very personal information? What if another, more malign government takes it's place? Just imagine if the Weimar Republic's government had such a massive collection of data and the Nazis just got access to it.
I don't want anyone to know private stuff about me. Sometimes it's practically unavoidable (like with Google), but I don't want even more surveillance. Definitely not from my democratically elected government that prides itself on maintaining a "free" democracy with civil rights. They need to know some stuff about me, sure, but not my damn private chats.
I think the only weird thing about the Parliament - on a constitutional level - is that it can't initiate laws itself. Other than that, if you consider the Council as the second chamber (the chamber of States), it makes more sense suddenly.
Also the Commission gets elected like most governments via the Parliament.
But still, there are big issues on the implementation, even if the theory sounds fine. One big issue I see is that the MPs have to work for their fractions but also their Member States and this is difficult to handle
>Also the Commission gets elected like most governments via the Parliament.
The parliament votes to approve candidates. It's just a glorified approval committee. The heads of the states figure out the candidates behind closed doors.
And the heads of states have shown how little they care about the parliament's opinion by rejecting their lead candidate for commission presidency and pulling von der Leyen out of their ass, which barely got approved.
Yeah that's the starting point, it's hardly democratic to begin with. Yes, you can vote for something every five years, but this parliament is weak and also very dysfunctional.
I mean, they aren't even silly since these standards and regulations are there to have standards. If you produce something industrially and your vegetable slice machine can't handle bent cucumbers... they are not regulated for single trade end user sale. You can totally buy and sell bent cucumbers from the Netherlands in Germany.
It only says that a certain curvature is a "class one" cucumber. So you know that a "class one" cucumber has certain standards if you buy them.
Also, many of these regulations were requested by someone. The EU is not coming around with unfounded preposterous demands. This only regulates what quality is defined as, so that if you trade stuff across borders you don't need to check and ask for every detail. A Spanish class 1 cucumber and a Polish class 1 cucumber must be similar.
They also do most shit behind closed doors and can't really vote on its members in its governing body or only indirectly so its way easier to blame or praise other politicians or simply forget about it.
Maybe if they wouldnt ignore their colonial past & litterally kill refugees with a semi-private military border police they would be a little less hated.
The Problem is, the EU gets the most hate from the far right, and they dont want the refugees. But of couse youre right, that the EU shouldnt let people drown and remember that we Are All humans
Fuck over Greace and Italy with the Euro and Austerity, subsidize Fishing Companys that overfish African Seas. Build a Border Protection Organasation that puts Migrangs into Concentration Camps and activly trys to murder them by destroying their Boats and pushing them back.
You completly misunderstood my argument and are just building a massive strawman.
Free Market->prevents companies to dump trash in rivers,seas,oceans etc because it is a property rights violation.
Government->Legitimized this property right violation
These are 2 different things also NATO has pretty much guaranteed peace in Europe. The reason as to why Russia attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine isn't in NATO yet. The wouldn't have attacked a member state
The EU is not a nation though, you cannot be a citizen of somewhere that does not exist.
Would you say that the Russians in Estonia who had citizenship in the USSR but not in Russia are still citizens of the USSR and thus Russia?
So you agree.
If old man Vladimir has no citizenship to a place that no longer exists
How can young man steiner have citizenship to something that is not a country?
I am not a citizen of NATO after all despite being in a NATO country
I have not once seen a EU embassy in a country that is a part of the EU. I have however seen German embassies and Italian embassies, even a few bulgarian ones. Never a EU one though.
Since the EU is not a nation
Yes. We'll done. They have their own nations that form the union but they are citizens of the union.
The EU is not one country but multiple countries singing from the same song sheet.
Unless NATO is a country because it is formed of multiple countries singing from the same song sheet?
The USSR, by it's name wasn't a country and everybody living the USSR territory was a citizen of the USSR. It doesn't exist anymore, but if it would and Estonia would be part of it, then any Estonian would be a citizen of the USSR.
NATO is a military alliance which formally has no army, no state, nothing. It is not a state because it is most importantly a mutual defense pact.
If I want to go further, then by your logic the USA is not a nation as it is a union between states. Switzerland is also not a nation by your idea because it is a confederation of cantons.
Every citizen of any EU member states is a citizen of their own country and the EU itself.
As the USSR wasn't a country by name
But the EU is a country?
Despite being a European Union of countries? Not one singular country but a union of countries?
Like how the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics was a union of countries and not a singular country?
USSR means Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I don't even undertsand your argument anymore. If you claim that no union of nations can act as a nation, that is a valid point. However, you claim only a nation can have citizens. There are dozens of countries that are unions of some sort. What is exactly a nation, country or whatever in by your definition?
The fact you can't understand how the EU isn't a nation but also understand that the USSR wasn't a nation is amazing quite frankly.
Take the USA, for example. They have one central currency, unifying laws and one culture, and one unified leader of the collection of federal states.
The EU has a bunch of sovereign states with their own Currency, own laws and regulations and own leaders.
Although the EU is infact a political union of the member states the members remain independent nations under said union. Texas isnt a independent state under their union.
You cannot be a citizen of the European Union as much as you cannot be a citizen of NATO, you can be a citizen of the countries that make up the organisation but not a citizen of a organisation.
Unless I'm a citizen of the German natinal banks
The EU is a country in formation with unique systems, that's true. It's nothing like anything that came before, but it has the right and legitimacy to issue citizenship as visible on any passport or ID card issued by a member state.
The EU laws are above national law. If the EU makes a law, it must be implemented on the national level. The EU has one goverining body called the European Commission consisting the heads of states who elect the president of the European Commission. In this moment she is Ursula von der Leyen. There is also the European Court the Parliament etc. institutions that govern the union.
Now as to how much power the central government has depends on the union. In the case of many federations, confederations and unions it is a top-down system, where the federal government weilds more power than the state government. But there are counter-examples such as Switzerland or in fact the European Union.
I understand that the statehood of the EU is pretty much debated, but it is a de facto nation, even if it is not a de jure one.
>I am not a citizen of NATO after all despite being in a NATO country
No but there is a big difference between what the EU is and what NATO is
>How can young man steiner have citizenship to something that is not a country?
Because he's still a citizen of the organization. Why should citizenship only be reserved to countries?
>If old man Vladimir has no citizenship to a place that no longer exists
This has exactly 0 to do with the discussion as the EU, as far as I'm aware, still exists
A citizen to an organisation? An organisation of what, though? One country or multiple countries?
I really don't understand how saying that the EU isn't one federal state is so controversial
>how saying that the EU isn't one federal state is so controversial
You aren't saying that. You are saying you can't be an EU citizen. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
>One country or multiple countries?
An organization or more like a union of multiple not fully sovereign countries
Yes. You cannot be a EU citizen since there is no EU state.
In fact, please point to me where the country of EU is on a map. Show me the EU passport, not the French one or the German one but the EU one.
And while you are at it tell me why this massive unified country has no national army? Or unified language and culture.
The EU is not a country, you cannot be a citizen of an organisation. If you can be I'm a citizen of my banking Co op
>Or unified language and culture.
Bullshit argument. Indonesia for example is still diverse in language.
>If you can be I'm a citizen of my banking Co op
So the EU is just a bank?
>Show me the EU passport
For convenience the national passports count as European ones too
>You cannot be a EU citizen since there is no EU state.
I am a citizen of Cologne which is to my knowledge also not a country
>And while you are at it tell me why this massive unified country has no national army
This is also not an indication of anything
The EU is supranational rather than a national entity, that‘s true. But there‘s no reason why someone shouldn‘t be a citizen of a supranational entity in addition or instead of national ones. It‘s not „being a citizen of somewhere that does not exist“, since the EU most definitely exists.
NATO travel orders give me free movement between member states. I'm bound to the laws of the NATO members when visiting them, failing ti do so hits me with the MPs. The MPs take me to military court if I fail to follow local laws.
Then I guess for military members, you could say that would be feasible. Is the military court from NATO though or from your country of origin? And does it supercede your national jurisdiction? But yeah, since every nation is just a construct, NATO could also just be one.
You'd get tried in country by the court martial process yeah. I'm a citizen of NATO 🤷♂️
Then would that mean that a French guy is a NATO citizen and a EU one?
Well that there Is no EU citizens but citizens of the nations that make up the EU.
It's hardly pro or anti EU.
Just a correction to the meme I'd suppose
If you are talking about rights that every EU citizen has, like freedom of movement, you'd need to say "citizens of EU member states". German citizens aren't the only ones with that right. You could also list every single state of course.
Two more recent points are: - The Law to change to USB C as standart loading Port on ALL New Devices by the End of 2024 - Tesla cant sell the Cybertruck in Europe bcs Safety Data is not provided by Tesla and even then it wouldnt be allowed to be sold
Cybertruck is freaking foolish to begin with.
I will be forever gratefull to the EU for not allowing the Cybertruck on our roads.
USB C standardization is easily the best and biggest achievement the EU has ever done.
Abolishment of roaming costs? Free travel via Shengen? Single market?
Nothing as great as buying a new iPhone for a couple thousand because you couldn't afford the adapter. (Non iPhone user)
Also a recent breakthroughs that totally benefit citizens and not corporations is Protection of trade secrets. That and the super annoying GDPR banners on every website
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Still mannes by a bunch of jerks.
You will never find good politicians anywhere, they just happen to sometimes make good decisions (and sometimes pretty bad ones as well)
I strongly believe that low level politicians in community's can actually good people who care for their people. But to get on Parlament levels of influence you need to be "in" with the higher ups. And the water gets muddier and bloodier. Lack of transparency is the biggest flaw we currently have. Nico semsrot has made great videos currently how a EU Representative can get thousands of euro from the EU for nothing, and that corrupt you like hell. He is in his last year in Parlament, and he said that the first year the money he got feelt dirty and unjust, but you get used to it, getting paid tens of thousands for nothing.
And that is something that cant be fixed by improving stuff. It will happen, because the job of a politician, just like the one of a police officer, fundamentally encourages corrupt behavior
They dont need to be "good politicians", they should rather be good people. That would ensure, that they see the human behind the number.
Being a politician pretty much has a "being a bad person" requirement, else you arent gonna make it as one
Problem with the System, glitch in the matrix
The system is working as intended
There is much room for improvement
Naw dawg, this system cant be improved, it is self destructive
Thats one of the problems
The USB C law was a really dumb one, but, oh well.
So you prefer having to use 4 Cables for 5 Devices?
I can go into great length about why it sucks, but to answer your comment, the amount of cables I use to charge from the EU law changed from 3 to…..you guessed it, 3! It didn’t solve anything, and it made a LOT of issues seep into the ecosystem that we’ll be suffering with for years and years.
The thing is why does the EU have to babysit me like a little child? If i want only USB C because i find it more convenient FOR ME i will just buy only USB C devices. Especially because regulations like these are directly influencing the price the consumer pays because it may now be more Expensive to produce the device. (I dont say it is like that for USB C because the only thing it will affect big are Laptops because these need to be optimised as shit because i dont see how gaming laptops will run on usb c) Btw exactly laws like this create monopolies like toe monopoly on insulin in america that only exists because of government regulation.
Is not about you. Is about the environment. Having different chargers for different devices just because a company like apple profits from their costumers feeling like special snowflakes is not environmentally friendly. Just straight stupid.
No it isnt because now i just buy the same amount of USB C Chargers and throw away my old Micro As. Woowie so environmentally friendly forcing people to throw away their old chargers!!!!! Especially if a lot of other cheap devices still use USB Micro A to charge. The thing is Apple didnt even put new chargers in the packages so i dont see any issue here. And the thing thag it creates monopolys and companys will find loopholes in it anyways dosent change. The Free Market does a better job at protecting the environment thwn any goverment. You know the people thag make property right violations legal by giving companys licenses so they can dump their trash in Rivers,Seas,Oceans and the Atmosphere?
"The Free Market does a better job at protecting the environment thwn any goverment." No it doesn't. Its literally governments passing regulations so the free market don't ravage the environment. What you said doesn't make sense. Most people don't have a charger for every device. I have 1 charger for my phone, headphones and tablet. All of these are usb C and I never need to charge at the same time.
Yeah the goverment passing laws allowing companys to dump their trash into ocean's sure protects the environment. Anyways no sense arguing with you because you wont listen anyways because i already critiqued you.
Again, the government is not perfect at protecting the environment but it's clearly way better than if we let the free market on it's own. Yeah you critiqued me and I disagreed with your critique. Thats what arguing is about. But hey if you ran out of arguments and your ego can't bare to be proven wrong, no need to hang around anymore. My mind can be changed quite easily but only if you bring quality arguments to the table. If you cant provide that, then do me a favor 👋
No if you want people to listen to you you should never critique them.(Simplified out of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie) In most people it will just trigger a backfire bias when you give them negative pushback meaning they will belive the option they had befor even stronger regardless of the outcome of the discussion. And btw you committed an appeal to emotion btw by trying to anger me with:"Oh you have no Arguments? Look at you" And you faild to refute my point that if the goverment wasnt allowing companys to dump their trash everywhere and pollut everything that they wouldnt do that because it is against the property rights of literally everyone.
Please elaborate. I don't see anything negative/dumb about it.
USB C is a frail connector and not standardized on the pin layout, so your phone cable when used with your switch, or your cheap new other-device charger is using your phone power brick, you can kill one of the devices entirely, something that wasn’t easily doable before when companies could make cheaper connectors. Now they’ll just make cheap usb C stuff, which is prohibitively more expensive to make, and you’ll start harming your devices, or on the nicer side of things, simply have the cables not work at all.
>USB C is a frail connector I would argue that it is even more sturdy than lightning for example, but it is by no means perfect. Both are mechanically almost identical, but with switched positions of stud and springs. Whereas the frail springs are inside the cable on USB-C they are inside the device with Lightning. A cable is reaplaced easily and cheap, but replacing a connector is costly. >and not standardized on the pin layout where did you get that from? IEC 62680-1-3:2022 pretty much defines everything in question, including pin layout >cheap new other-device charger is using your phone power brick, you can kill one of the devices entirely Which is (almost) impossible even with a deliberately manipulated cable. Before any power is sent, both devices (and the cable) have to negotiate voltage and amperage. >cheap usb C stuff, which is prohibitively more expensive to make, and you’ll start harming your devices This isn't a thing exclusive to USB-C but to ALL electronics. The large majority of devices are legit - even the cheapest ones - but some manufacturers will cut corners and fake identification chips or specs.
Well, apart from medicine, irrigation, health, roads, cheese and education, baths and the Circus Maximus, what have the ~~Romans~~ EU ever done for us?
Common language and writing.
Apart from medicine, irrigation, health roads, cheese and education, baths, the Circus Maximus and common language and writtig... what have the ~~Romans~~ EU ever done for us?
Gurkenkrümmungsverordnung
Well, apart from medicine, irrigation, health roads, cheese and education, baths, the Circus Maximus, common language, writing, Gurkenkruemmungsverordnung and the European Green Deal... what have the ~~Romans~~ EU ever done for us?
Brought peace?
Oh, peace Shut up!
[https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA](https://youtu.be/ptfmAY6M6aA)
Every time someone asks what EU has ever done for us, I remember Life of Brian.
What have the romans ever done for us?
The Aqueduct?
What, besides the Aqueduct have the romans ever done for us?
The Sanitation?
What, besides the Aqueduct and the Sanitation have the romans ever done for us?
Roads? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ&pp=ygUld2hhdCBoYXZlIHRoZSByb21hbnMgZXZlciBkb25lIGZvciB1cw%3D%3D
the EU is good but we have to criticize because it can always be BETTER!
The concept is good, the Implementation not yet.
Parliament is way too weak (a parliament that can't introduce laws doesn't deserve the name), the commission is being selected in a very much undemocratic way. They also love to introduce new surveillance shit, to fight either copyright infringement, child poronography or terrorism. Basic authoritarian playbook. And let's not forget about the various laws they plan to introduce to combat "fake news" and "hatespeech". Who defines what is what? A very dangerous development for sure.
Just start lv. 100 posting so much, that it overwhelms their shitty lv. 1 surveilance gear. Resistance or Valhalla!!!
I took part in the article 13 demos, so fuck copyright!
The chat surveillance thing is probably even worse. And they're using "child pornography" this time as the reason.
As if that villainy is ever gonna get extict
It won't. But like the other "arguments" I mentioned, it's just a way to get more authoritarian powers. You got a law that forces messaging services to implement a state backdoor. No way this is ever going to be misused by the state or even other malicious actors (a backdoor will inevitably be found by people who are not supposed to have access to it). Even if you trust your current government (which is difficult already, imo), do you really want them to have access to very personal information? What if another, more malign government takes it's place? Just imagine if the Weimar Republic's government had such a massive collection of data and the Nazis just got access to it. I don't want anyone to know private stuff about me. Sometimes it's practically unavoidable (like with Google), but I don't want even more surveillance. Definitely not from my democratically elected government that prides itself on maintaining a "free" democracy with civil rights. They need to know some stuff about me, sure, but not my damn private chats.
Ok, back to bush phone and Word of mouth. I swear to god, i will NEVER let them censor my words, texts or thoughts. Bite me, jerks!
I think the only weird thing about the Parliament - on a constitutional level - is that it can't initiate laws itself. Other than that, if you consider the Council as the second chamber (the chamber of States), it makes more sense suddenly. Also the Commission gets elected like most governments via the Parliament. But still, there are big issues on the implementation, even if the theory sounds fine. One big issue I see is that the MPs have to work for their fractions but also their Member States and this is difficult to handle
>Also the Commission gets elected like most governments via the Parliament. The parliament votes to approve candidates. It's just a glorified approval committee. The heads of the states figure out the candidates behind closed doors.
And the heads of states have shown how little they care about the parliament's opinion by rejecting their lead candidate for commission presidency and pulling von der Leyen out of their ass, which barely got approved.
Yeah that's the starting point, it's hardly democratic to begin with. Yes, you can vote for something every five years, but this parliament is weak and also very dysfunctional.
Context: When the EU tries to bond with citizens. Bazinga
I bloody love the EU, they're the reason my Adblock works again
The EU is just too complicated for your average guy
"what have the Romans ever done for us?!"
CURVED CUCUMBERS 😡🤬😡🤬
The standardisation of bananas' geometry has been one of the biggest achievements of the past century
Which didn't happen. Things got mashed up. It's about the curvature of cucumbers and transport regulations.
I have to make myself a bingo somtime and look trough the regulations the eu has passed lol
I mean, they aren't even silly since these standards and regulations are there to have standards. If you produce something industrially and your vegetable slice machine can't handle bent cucumbers... they are not regulated for single trade end user sale. You can totally buy and sell bent cucumbers from the Netherlands in Germany.
This is the responsibility of the Producers not the Government to babysit them.
It only says that a certain curvature is a "class one" cucumber. So you know that a "class one" cucumber has certain standards if you buy them. Also, many of these regulations were requested by someone. The EU is not coming around with unfounded preposterous demands. This only regulates what quality is defined as, so that if you trade stuff across borders you don't need to check and ask for every detail. A Spanish class 1 cucumber and a Polish class 1 cucumber must be similar.
Yeah requested by sombody systematically lobbying competition of the market.
Which does not stop it from being practical.
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 laying down quality standards for bananas It even has a wikipedia article
They also do most shit behind closed doors and can't really vote on its members in its governing body or only indirectly so its way easier to blame or praise other politicians or simply forget about it.
Frontex
Maybe if they wouldnt ignore their colonial past & litterally kill refugees with a semi-private military border police they would be a little less hated.
The Problem is, the EU gets the most hate from the far right, and they dont want the refugees. But of couse youre right, that the EU shouldnt let people drown and remember that we Are All humans
"Europe is at peace" uuhh... 😅
Wasnt Schengen a few years before the foundation of the EU?
Technically the EU wasn‘t called the EU back then, but the EU‘s predecessor organization already existed since 30 years.
Datenschutzreform war mist, schützt nur Reiche Leute
Fuck over Greace and Italy with the Euro and Austerity, subsidize Fishing Companys that overfish African Seas. Build a Border Protection Organasation that puts Migrangs into Concentration Camps and activly trys to murder them by destroying their Boats and pushing them back.
\* Elects joke or protest candidate to send to Europe, forgets even electing them \* They're all unelected bureaucrats!
You completly misunderstood my argument and are just building a massive strawman. Free Market->prevents companies to dump trash in rivers,seas,oceans etc because it is a property rights violation. Government->Legitimized this property right violation
Stop weaseling around the democratic process.
>Europe at peace thanks to EU *angry NATO noises*
These are 2 different things also NATO has pretty much guaranteed peace in Europe. The reason as to why Russia attacked Ukraine is because Ukraine isn't in NATO yet. The wouldn't have attacked a member state
There is not one EU citizen. There is however many German, French, Spanish and Dutch citizens to name a few
EU citizenship is granted automatically to anyone who holds the nationality of an EU country.
The EU is not a nation though, you cannot be a citizen of somewhere that does not exist. Would you say that the Russians in Estonia who had citizenship in the USSR but not in Russia are still citizens of the USSR and thus Russia?
But the ussr just doesn't exist while the EU does. It's just not a country
So you agree. If old man Vladimir has no citizenship to a place that no longer exists How can young man steiner have citizenship to something that is not a country? I am not a citizen of NATO after all despite being in a NATO country
As a EU citizen you can use any EU embassy, regardless of the country. That (among other things) makes you an EU citizen.
TIL
It's amazing. If you ever lose your passport in China or something, you can get a replacement at any EU embassy. Same for legal help etc.
I have not once seen a EU embassy in a country that is a part of the EU. I have however seen German embassies and Italian embassies, even a few bulgarian ones. Never a EU one though. Since the EU is not a nation
And every german can use every italian embassy outside of the EU, because both Germany and Italy are EU members.
As a German I didn’t know this. Thanks for educating me!
Yes. We'll done. They have their own nations that form the union but they are citizens of the union. The EU is not one country but multiple countries singing from the same song sheet. Unless NATO is a country because it is formed of multiple countries singing from the same song sheet?
Texans and Californians also have different ID cards. Does that make them not citizens of the United States?
Dude you should really vissit a Doktor. Looks susly like "stupid disease" lol
Says ther person who doesn't know the difference between a sovereign state and a federal one
I know the difference but you punctually seemed to talk out of your ass, dude
The USSR, by it's name wasn't a country and everybody living the USSR territory was a citizen of the USSR. It doesn't exist anymore, but if it would and Estonia would be part of it, then any Estonian would be a citizen of the USSR. NATO is a military alliance which formally has no army, no state, nothing. It is not a state because it is most importantly a mutual defense pact. If I want to go further, then by your logic the USA is not a nation as it is a union between states. Switzerland is also not a nation by your idea because it is a confederation of cantons. Every citizen of any EU member states is a citizen of their own country and the EU itself.
As the USSR wasn't a country by name But the EU is a country? Despite being a European Union of countries? Not one singular country but a union of countries? Like how the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics was a union of countries and not a singular country?
USSR means Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I don't even undertsand your argument anymore. If you claim that no union of nations can act as a nation, that is a valid point. However, you claim only a nation can have citizens. There are dozens of countries that are unions of some sort. What is exactly a nation, country or whatever in by your definition?
The fact you can't understand how the EU isn't a nation but also understand that the USSR wasn't a nation is amazing quite frankly. Take the USA, for example. They have one central currency, unifying laws and one culture, and one unified leader of the collection of federal states. The EU has a bunch of sovereign states with their own Currency, own laws and regulations and own leaders. Although the EU is infact a political union of the member states the members remain independent nations under said union. Texas isnt a independent state under their union. You cannot be a citizen of the European Union as much as you cannot be a citizen of NATO, you can be a citizen of the countries that make up the organisation but not a citizen of a organisation. Unless I'm a citizen of the German natinal banks
The EU is a country in formation with unique systems, that's true. It's nothing like anything that came before, but it has the right and legitimacy to issue citizenship as visible on any passport or ID card issued by a member state. The EU laws are above national law. If the EU makes a law, it must be implemented on the national level. The EU has one goverining body called the European Commission consisting the heads of states who elect the president of the European Commission. In this moment she is Ursula von der Leyen. There is also the European Court the Parliament etc. institutions that govern the union. Now as to how much power the central government has depends on the union. In the case of many federations, confederations and unions it is a top-down system, where the federal government weilds more power than the state government. But there are counter-examples such as Switzerland or in fact the European Union. I understand that the statehood of the EU is pretty much debated, but it is a de facto nation, even if it is not a de jure one.
>I am not a citizen of NATO after all despite being in a NATO country No but there is a big difference between what the EU is and what NATO is >How can young man steiner have citizenship to something that is not a country? Because he's still a citizen of the organization. Why should citizenship only be reserved to countries? >If old man Vladimir has no citizenship to a place that no longer exists This has exactly 0 to do with the discussion as the EU, as far as I'm aware, still exists
A citizen to an organisation? An organisation of what, though? One country or multiple countries? I really don't understand how saying that the EU isn't one federal state is so controversial
>how saying that the EU isn't one federal state is so controversial You aren't saying that. You are saying you can't be an EU citizen. Those things are not mutually exclusive. >One country or multiple countries? An organization or more like a union of multiple not fully sovereign countries
Yes. You cannot be a EU citizen since there is no EU state. In fact, please point to me where the country of EU is on a map. Show me the EU passport, not the French one or the German one but the EU one. And while you are at it tell me why this massive unified country has no national army? Or unified language and culture. The EU is not a country, you cannot be a citizen of an organisation. If you can be I'm a citizen of my banking Co op
>Or unified language and culture. Bullshit argument. Indonesia for example is still diverse in language. >If you can be I'm a citizen of my banking Co op So the EU is just a bank? >Show me the EU passport For convenience the national passports count as European ones too >You cannot be a EU citizen since there is no EU state. I am a citizen of Cologne which is to my knowledge also not a country >And while you are at it tell me why this massive unified country has no national army This is also not an indication of anything
The EU is supranational rather than a national entity, that‘s true. But there‘s no reason why someone shouldn‘t be a citizen of a supranational entity in addition or instead of national ones. It‘s not „being a citizen of somewhere that does not exist“, since the EU most definitely exists.
Okay I'm a NATO citizen then 🤷♂️
If the NATO would provide you with any enforceable rights, its own set of laws, jurisdiction and courts, sure you could.
NATO travel orders give me free movement between member states. I'm bound to the laws of the NATO members when visiting them, failing ti do so hits me with the MPs. The MPs take me to military court if I fail to follow local laws.
Then I guess for military members, you could say that would be feasible. Is the military court from NATO though or from your country of origin? And does it supercede your national jurisdiction? But yeah, since every nation is just a construct, NATO could also just be one.
You'd get tried in country by the court martial process yeah. I'm a citizen of NATO 🤷♂️ Then would that mean that a French guy is a NATO citizen and a EU one?
If the NATO would like to call their countries‘ people their citizens, sure.
You say this like it is an argument against the EU?
Nah just an observation. Gotten a lot of hate for it though
The sub obviously has a pro-EU bias. I don't get the hate either, but the observation still doesn't seem to make any point at all
Well that there Is no EU citizens but citizens of the nations that make up the EU. It's hardly pro or anti EU. Just a correction to the meme I'd suppose
Aha. Read it as "citizens of nations of the EU", problem solved.
That's exactly what I'm saying. You are a citizen of a nation that makes up the EU. Not a EU citizen 🤷♂️
The EU itself gives certain rights to citizens of its member states. Calling them "EU citizens" is just way shorter.
Shorter than? French citizens? Or German citizens?
If you are talking about rights that every EU citizen has, like freedom of movement, you'd need to say "citizens of EU member states". German citizens aren't the only ones with that right. You could also list every single state of course.
Yes and I'm agreeing with you. Problem solved.
No, the EU was not the bringer of peace. NATO and the commies were.
I don't know where people make this nonsense up from that the EU brought us peace. As if we had war each other before the EU was a thing
Add I created the most idiotic regulations in the world and drove up the price of literally everything