61 ms·

It's because the EU is almost entirely controlled by France and Germany. If this were up to the people of the EU (or their representatives in the EU parliament

It's because the EU is almost entirely controlled by France and Germany. If this were up to the people of the EU (or their representatives in the EU parliament), it wouldn't stand a chance. They'd never declare gas green. But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. And who leads the commission: von der Leyen, a German. It's like when they forced truckers to continuously return to their home countries. [1] Romania has basically no competitive advantage in the EU, except a cheaper workforce. When eastern European truckers started dominating transport in western Europe, Macron forced the EU to change regulations and mandate that drivers must go home every 4 weeks, wasting fuel, and thus being less competitive. [1]: https://www.transportnews.co.uk/2020/08/14/new-international-haulage-rules-force-drivers-to-return-home-every-four-weeks/ https://www.transportnews.co.uk/2020/08/14/new-international...

relix 5y ago
Explain how a commission of 27 commissioners, one from each member state (so 1 person from Germany and 1 person from France and 25 from the other 25 member states), with at the head a person who was elected to that position by the European Parliament, which is the group of 705 MEPs who each are in turn elected proportionally by the population of the EU, amounts to "France and Germany basically control the EU". The laws proposed by the European Commission still need to be accepted by the European Parliament as well, indeed the commission is basically fully subordinate to the parliament, so even if the European Commission was somehow "unfairly controlled by France and Germany", which I find highly suspect considering the specifications of it, the parliament is responsible in the end, and that consists entirely of elected representatives. This sounds more like typical Brexit-style anti-EU propaganda than a valid summarisation of the politics of the EU.
timeon 5y ago
However Germani is producing < 6% of power from gas even if the capacity is already much bigger. (heating is other story) > But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. The members of European Commission are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. Do you elect directly minister or most of the posts in government? Commission and Council are appointed by national governments while only European Parliament is directly elected by citizens. Reason for this is that no national government want to lose the power. [1]: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE
PoignardAzur 5y ago
> Romania has basically no competitive advantage in the EU, except a cheaper workforce. Part of that advantage is that Romanian labor laws are less restrictive (the minimum wage is a third of the french one, for instance). So France had a choice between repelling labor laws to keep worker competitive, tell all french truckers they could kiss their job goodbye, or introducing some protectionism. I'm usually in favor of free trade, even when it costs jobs, but in that case I think free trade would be a direct race to the bottom. Jobs performed in a country should respect that country's labor laws, otherwise companies will just shop around for the country with the least restrictive labor laws without even having to move their operation. Unrestricted european trucking went against that.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  I find it's insightful that this the measure basically just about the wage, not about safety or any other standards, which they might actually apply to the whole EU. > tell all french truckers they could kiss their job goodbye This was likely the correct option. It is okay in these cases to give these people substantial funds to ease this transition: the cost of saving-jobs in the broader economy is usually many times worse than paying off the replaced workers directly. For instance, the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the annual cost to the US economy of a job-saved by either Trump or Biden "Buy American" policies averages about $250,000/job/yr. This is several times what the job pays. In the case of steel tariffs, the cost of a saved job is $900,000/yr. Better to allow the foreigners to work, tax the economy, and pay the French truckers the amount of their old salary to do literally anything else of value. Of course, this will never happen. It makes too much sense.

relix 5y ago

Explain how a commission of 27 commissioners, one from each member state (so 1 person from Germany and 1 person from France and 25 from the other 25 member states), with at the head a person who was elected to that position by the European Parliament, which is the group of 705 MEPs who each are in turn elected proportionally by the population of the EU, amounts to "France and Germany basically control the EU". The laws proposed by the European Commission still need to be accepted by the European Parliament as well, indeed the commission is basically fully subordinate to the parliament, so even if the European Commission was somehow "unfairly controlled by France and Germany", which I find highly suspect considering the specifications of it, the parliament is responsible in the end, and that consists entirely of elected representatives. This sounds more like typical Brexit-style anti-EU propaganda than a valid summarisation of the politics of the EU.

timeon 5y ago

However Germani is producing < 6% of power from gas even if the capacity is already much bigger. (heating is other story) > But this decision was taken by the European Commission, a group that's not elected. The members of European Commission are proposed by their member state governments, one from each. Do you elect directly minister or most of the posts in government? Commission and Council are appointed by national governments while only European Parliament is directly elected by citizens. Reason for this is that no national government want to lose the power. [1]: https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE

PoignardAzur 5y ago

> Romania has basically no competitive advantage in the EU, except a cheaper workforce. Part of that advantage is that Romanian labor laws are less restrictive (the minimum wage is a third of the french one, for instance). So France had a choice between repelling labor laws to keep worker competitive, tell all french truckers they could kiss their job goodbye, or introducing some protectionism. I'm usually in favor of free trade, even when it costs jobs, but in that case I think free trade would be a direct race to the bottom. Jobs performed in a country should respect that country's labor laws, otherwise companies will just shop around for the country with the least restrictive labor laws without even having to move their operation. Unrestricted european trucking went against that.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
I find it's insightful that this the measure basically just about the wage, not about safety or any other standards, which they might actually apply to the whole EU. > tell all french truckers they could kiss their job goodbye This was likely the correct option. It is okay in these cases to give these people substantial funds to ease this transition: the cost of saving-jobs in the broader economy is usually many times worse than paying off the replaced workers directly. For instance, the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the annual cost to the US economy of a job-saved by either Trump or Biden "Buy American" policies averages about $250,000/job/yr. This is several times what the job pays. In the case of steel tariffs, the cost of a saved job is $900,000/yr. Better to allow the foreigners to work, tax the economy, and pay the French truckers the amount of their old salary to do literally anything else of value. Of course, this will never happen. It makes too much sense.