This will make us all poorer and make everything more expensive. I'm down with making countries comply with free trade laws, China subsidizing cars is no different than America subsidizing chips or Europe subsidizing factories and agriculture. Let countries subsidize since we can't seem to stop them, let the best country & industry combo win.
Not a tankfie fam, check my post history if you doubt. Might have been nice to do before making an accusation that somebody is a bot or a tankie. I am pro free trade, mostly post about Bitcoin and privacy apps, half the things I post about would get me black-bagged in CCP-land.
We, the people, like to think football is about uniting to enjoy something special. We like the game, so we will watch it and put up with a lot to do so. World Cup Qatar was a prime example, people spoke of boycotting but didn't.
These huge sporting events are about one thing, and one thing only: money.
It is because of this that our daily lives are packed full of ads. And because of this oversaturated advertising market, advertisers have to advertise more and grander to stand out.
The result is that advertising space goes to the highest bidder and China just blatantly bids more. Hisense made no secret of their reason to advertise: they want to be number 1 globally.
The DFB and the UEFA would've done good to select advertisers based on merit. They wanted it to be a 'green' tournament, but trains didn't go so the teams had to take airplanes, the buses were diesel powered and the biggest sponsors are giant pollutors or exploiters. BYD is nice window dressing with their electric cars, just as VAG usually sponsors these things with EV focus.
If advertising works so well, why can we not replace all these for-provit ad campaigns with campaigns to save our planet, be kinder to each other, reinforce our norms and values?
I am thinking of grounded planes. Surely you want a wide area of impact to increase your chances of success, not a 100m deep crater where one plane was.
Signalling the move, but declining to get into "operational arrangements", John Healey, the new defence secretary, told Sky News that Britain "will do all we can to help Ukraine in their fight to repel Putin's invasion".
Speaking in Washington, Mr Healey said: "We provide weapons equipment where we can for them to defend themselves, and as we do for ourselves and any other nation in conflict, we require, because it's international law, that war is conducted within those rules of the Geneva Convention."
In a post on X after the meeting with Sir Keir, President Zelenskyy said: "This morning, I learned about the permission to use Storm Shadow missiles against military targets in Russian territory.
In a lengthy declaration, the alliance's members announced that Ukraine was on an "irreversible" path to NATO membership, with wording important to the Ukrainian government, but likely to agitate Moscow.
Privately, Washington-based European diplomats are more candid, saying that the existing but gradual rebalancing of NATO's power could morph into a brutal shift away from US dominance of the alliance in a Trump second term.
Today, Senate Democrats will have lunch with top Biden advisers Mike Donilon and Steve Ricchetti, as well as the Biden-Harris campaign chair Jen O'Malley Dillon.
The original article contains 848 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Ah, that's what I feared. And I can't really blame them for it, too high litigation risk and they might end up having to pay those shitty companies compensation for lost profits or some non-sense like that.
I really hope that Trump does not make it to be president again, but at least it would yet again be a chance for the European union to become more emancipated from the US and maybe find its own spot in international relations.
The execs of those companies should be forced to clean up every oil spill personally (with the company paying all fees including supporting volunteers). As well as setup local wildlife rehabilitation centres at the scene of the spill. With annual reports about the damage numbers in all public filings.
This [the EU losing a historically ardent supporter of European integration] would significantly impact the EU, especially with the rise of far-right movements within Europe, if China opts to work with individual member states rather than EU institutions [...]
Working with individual countries rather than blocs is something China has been doing for a long time, in Europe and the EU as well as elsewhere. There are no signs that Beijing is willing to change that. For example, China's 'Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI) is entirely based on agreements with single countries, there is not one BRI contract with any kind of bloc (let me know if I'm mistaken). The BRI is explicitly a series of single-country agreements.
In Europe you can actually see this in Hungary and Serbia where China invests heavily and has apparently strong ties with the autocratic leadership there, while at the same time there appears to be no Chinese interest of even negotiating at the EU bloc's level. And it has never been. Last year, for example, the Chinese ambassador to France even said independent states that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union lacked ‘actual status in international law’ - this includes the Baltic states, all EU members.
Also, from a Chinese perspective, the rise of the far-right in Europe is probably something Beijing welcomed and allegedly promoted, as, for example, we may see in Germany with the recent arrests and prosecutions of right-wing AfD politicians over their alleged ties with China and Russia.
So I agree that a China-EU trade war is unlikely in 2024 (and, unlike what the article says, also in 2025 imo), but for very different reasons. I don't consider China as a supporter of European integration considering what the government has been doing for a very long time.
True but how does that even relate to a Terrorist State's right to influence another state's election to push a sympathetic nutjob into power?
What's next? Speaking against Russia's leading role in America's ongoing "culture war"? Or against using spies to bribe politicians or judges into undermining democratic institutions?
Europe
Neu