I don't understand the revisionist conflation of the EU and Germany. Germany are not the main power in Europe, although they are a significant part of it.
Revisionist conflation is silly, but Germany definitely is the main power within EU.
EU decision making for big issues:
1. Leaders of France and Germany meet to draw out a plan.
2. They negotiate with few other big countries to form a block. Valuable horse-trading happens here.
3. The European Council meets and small countries realize that the table is already made for them. They are never part of the process from the start. They are allowed to do some tweaks but that's it.
Except that that's also a caricature that hasn't been true in a while.
Germany is one of several large powers in the EU, but small countries have considerable influence, and can and do block decisions/legislation all the time. That's why there is a push to end the national vetos on various issues.
Seriously, the idea that the EU, where the smallest country has a veto over virtually everything, and where Germany is the largest of several large democratic powers, and where everything that happens is a compromise negotiated carefully while balancing dozens of competing interests, is in _any_ way related to "what Germany wanted in WWII" is deeply offensive.
And yet I've encountered it again and again, online and in person. This type of idiotic idea, unbound by the reality of what the EU is and does, and enabled and encouraged by opportunistic press and politicians, is exactly what brought us Brexit.
> in _any_ way related to "what Germany wanted in WWII" i
I was not arguing that and I specially said so in the beginning. Brits are just sore because they won the war but lost the peace (relative to Germany).
Small countries have veto power, but using veto always creates a crisis. That's not proper way to do decisions, but Germany forces it to others.
The inability to be part of the decision process from the beginning is real problem. You either vote to spoil everything or get small confessions, but you are never part of the inner circle.
A threat of veto makes sure proposals don't get to the table. If Germany had had its way, many countries would have taken on refugees in recent years.
I also don't accept the idea that others don't have a place at the table for discussions during the drafting phases. These are often run by the EC where smaller countries are represented.
However, the asymmetry of EU members is also really extreme. Germany has 160 times as many inhabitants as Malta. Germany, the UK, France and Italy already make up 54% of EU population.[1]
With the UK out, the four biggest, Germany, France, Italy and Spain will be at more than 57%. So obviously there is a really difficult balancing act here.
But really, please point to any development in the last 5 years or so that functioned according to the "Germany and France decide and the EU goes in that direction". Germany and France wanted a Tobin Tax and couldn't get it, Germany wanted refugees to be distributed and couldn't get it, Germany and France wanted stricter Tax rules in the EU and didn't get it. They wanted to end unanimty on Tax rules and it looks like they are not getting that either.
[1] If you think back to the start of the EU, among the 6 founding members Germany and France represented more than 2/3rds of the population. So the top four countries together don't have nearly as much weight as France/Germany had in the beginning. I guess this is the main reason that the France-Germany axis is not as prominent as it once was.
Yes, in fairness. The UK have always been a heavy hitter in Europe, the fact that they failed to redistribute the spoils is a domestic matter. France are a large military industrial power too. There are other strong voices such as the Dutch, the Polish and the Spanish.
This whole thing about fitting up Germany to be the puppet master is just ignorance borne of envy for their social model, industrial output and success on the international export market.
> I don't understand the revisionist conflation of the EU and Germany. Germany are not the main power in Europe, although they are a significant part of it.
The point is that they are a union. For instance, France, the Netherlands and Belgium together are more "powerful" than Germany. It's not like the Germans simply determines whatever they want.
There is no main power in Europe. Each country, down to Lichtenstein, has struggled for centuries to gain and maintain its independence.
What you do have are blocs and factions.
But if you think Germany can actually tell any country on how to vote you need a European history lesson.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, Russia is an important diplomatic and military power but economically its GDP is barely above Spain and quite far below Germany, the UK, France and Italy. If you take the EU as a whole its GDP is more than 13 times greater than that of Russia (22 trillion vs. 1.6 trillion USD).
It's definitely a significant power but I don't see how you could argue that it's "clearly" the main continental power.
However it's probably the regional power with the highest nuisance potential for the EU (alongside Turkey).
You're projecting your own perception onto others.
Let me raise a counterpoint, the cost of living in Cardiff is vastly less than the, frankly, over inflated prices in London.
I'm going to reuse your tone here - who would give up Cardiff to go to London to get the same Salary but pay twice as much for rent?
I'd raise another point as well - you're assuming people prefer the art and culture scene in London in comparison to a more local scene in a smaller city where gentrification isn't as ubiquitious. I'd rather live in Glasgow, where anyone can afford to go to a club or gig than London, where such activities are generally reserved for rich kids.
You're totally correct - its not for everyone (just like Cardiff is not for everyone). London is a big city and comes with big city problems.
However, I'd still argue that their offer is clearly not competitive by matching London salaries since they are not getting applicants.
For what it is worth, in my personal opinion if you are renting on 100K a year, you're Doing It Wrong. I appreciate some people value the flexibility of renting though. Saving up for a mortgage deposit with £100K a year salary and equity grants etc should be no problems, and mortgage repayments are usually either equal or substantially lower than rental rates for equivalent properties. Even in London, a commute of just 25 minutes from central London [2] you can buy a one bed flat for 250-300K which is very affordable on a 100K a year salary. [1]
For loads of clubs - you'll pay the same. There are hundreds of tiny clubs in London - many offering free or very cheap entry every night of the week. Yes London has a few expensive clubs (that are generally rubbish once you are in if you aren't paying for champagne) - it has loads of great places to see live music, comedy, djs and acts for pocket money. Just pick up a copy and Time Out and you'll def find soemthing you are interested in... 'If one is bored of London...'
How do you prevent people proxying your API via a node service?
This is something I could never get my head around with CORS - what's the point of whitelisting origins if getting around the whitelist is nothing more than an inconvenience?
Can't remember the last time I saw a cyclist with lights. They seem to think that they don't need them if in a cycle lane, even when there is nothing separating it from the rest of the road.
Yes they are wrong, they are required by law to have lights. The cycle lane isn't continuous, there are breaks in it at every junction.
A car travelling in the opposite direction has to cross the path of the cycle lane to turn into a cross street. Not being able to see that a cycle is coming towards you isn't going to end well for the cyclist.
Where I live, there are laws mandating the minimum distance a vehicle has to be from a cyclist when passing (1.5m) - this distance is not covered by the available clearance in the cycling lane.
If you can't see a cyclist is in the lane, it's difficult to give them safe clearance, and driving as though you are always giving clearance to cyclists means driving closer to the other traffic lane, increasing risk of vehicular collision.
They are wrong. The law in some (all?) EU countries fortunately mandates lighting.
I have seen bike lanes where it's expected that cars will at least partially drive onto the lane because the road is too narrow.
And it's kinda ironic: pedestrians will likely blunder into the bike lane without looking, just like bikers sometimes suddenly pop before cars without the slightest care in the world.
IDK, I kind of felt that way too when I heard it after it came out and I started off as a Nirvana skeptic.. but nowadays when I listen to it again there was really some interesting and unique stuff on it.
Bit of a non story - they offer the same services to any well funded ad agency regardless of political leaning. What would have been more concerning is if they rejected the agency - as this would show that google exercise political bias in who it chooses to collaborate with and target ads for.
It’s a non story legally but I’m sure a lot of people will rethink whether they want to continue to contribute to facebook’s bottom line by remaining on the service.
I stopped going on fb last week. Sure, they still have a page on me, but I'm not watching their ads anymore. They're getting less ad revenue through me. If enough people were to leave, they wouldn't afford to run. Three letter agencies only run on govt revenue.
As yes, don't leave Facebook because of the addictive mind-prison it builds around you or the creepy stasi-esque dossier it keeps on you. Instead quit Facebook as a way of social-signalling your authoritarian left-wing values.
That isn't to say I'm not glad of the result either way.
Maybe you missed the stories from David Frum, former GW Bush GOP speechwriter and neocon, in the Atlantic? These are major major articles, critical to American public debate.
This year there has been a lot of bad press for cyclists in the UK as one 20 year old biker hit and killed a lady.
Lots of negative emotions and bad blood exposed, the court case got nationwide attention for weeks.
However nobody seemed to realise the dissonance that whilst 1 cyclist caused death is the ultimate heresy, drivers kill people daily without us batting an eye.
It's all a bit frustrating, I don't understand where this bias comes from - is it latent auto industry propaganda?
The press haven't been completely honest in their description of his bike. He had a fixie. Which is illegal, and is dangerous, but you can slow / stop the bike by simply not pedaling. People are acting as if he was cycling a runaway train.
They're quite common in the US and not illegal there.
This discussion is outdated but just wanted you're right, I think I was misled here: it's standard pedal-back-and-skid brakes. The newspapers here really did make it sound like he had no capacity to brake at all.
