While China holds a legally indefensible position that the straight is it’s territorial waters, so is Taiwan’s ADIZ or any claim that Chinese (or Taiwanese if they wished) planes cannot cross the midway point.
The straight is 97 nmi wide, territorial waters cannot extend beyond 12, so there’s plenty of international waters (and thus airspace) for anybody to fly on.
It’s not corporate based social with a mostly US based audience.
It was literally started because of political censorship of leftists on reddit.
It’s in his apartment. Unmanaged switches and/or WiFi.
They were in Italy at the time so I suppose they could have caused issues if they went full full fascist.
Look, if France can cockblock many other countries because they’ll lose a little bit of money in the process while lying about it saying it’s because of “environmental issues” when really it’s just protectionism on their part, hurting relations between Europe and South America and preventing other countries in Europe from benefiting from that… that is a centralised form of power. The decision becomes theirs because it has to be unanimous. It’s also anti-democratic
Sounds convincing if you ignore veto not being a France power. It can be literally be used by any country in the EU. Unanimity is the opposite of centralization. Plain majority democracy is more centralized than unanimity.
I’m from the Schengen area… and I’ll still be against joining the EU, because EU regulations shows its more than just an economic union. Laws have to be changed and liberalism has to be turned up to 11, borders have to be opened completely and laws have to be changed, costing lots and lots of money and time, as well as taking away sovereignty by taking away autonomy.
Did you have to do much research? The treaties say that members states surrender competencies to the EU. The 00s treaties say it out loud that the EU is not just an economic organization. You didn’t discover any secret nor are you blowing anyone’s mind with your revelations.
I also do not like how liberal the EU is but you probably think liberal means left wing.
“But you can leave”… worked really well for the Brits, didn’t it? Again: no thanks.
I didn’t say that to convince you to join. I said that because that’s not possible in federal states such as the US or Russia.
I wish the EU would stop sharing Schengen with non members as well as stop having EEA members. These kind of agreements require alignment with EU law without EU representation thus eventually leading to bad relations.
The EU is not a federal state like the US or China or Russia. It’s a federation of sovereign states. Truly sovereign and de independent states not de jure like US states or Wales etc.
They can even leave if they want.
I also don’t understand how you can be against centralization of power and yet be against the veto, the best tool against centralization.
You don’t have to join. Where are you from anyways?
There should at least be a path to a more democratic vote, where each country gets a certain amount of votes to equalise each other out.
Like the European parliament? The reason for the veto is because the EU is not a country nor are it’s people a single nation.
Smaller nations would not joined if it meant everything would get decided by a few large countries.
So that France can stop our trade deals? No thanks. We’d rather pay for priveliges than do that.
France usually doesn’t need the veto. They are big population wise and have a lot of influence being rich.
So we won’t join, and the UK won’t come back.
I don’t know who are you speaking for but it’s ok, if you don’t like the terms you don’t have to join. Just like it’s not fair to change the terms on those that have already joined.
Same for the UK. They caused enough drama all these years.
Every member has a veto right and it is more important for small members than big countries like France and Germany.
Non EU Schengen states should not have a say in the EU signing treaties. If they want to, they should join the EU and thus be bound by any treaties the EU signs.
Well, there are some arguments pro buying cheaper phones.
You have the option to upgrade, you are not obliged. Even if you finance the more expensive phone you are still committed for more. You have more options.
Batteries do naturally degrade over time. No matter how expensive or good your phone is.
Accidents happen some will not be covered by warranty but I also do not see more expensive phones having more than 2 years warranty which is the minimum.
If you do chose to upgrade you have more phones, that means a backup or a free phone for a member of your family.
I believe that’s actually a legal requirement in some jurisdictions.
If 43 dead are the proper response for a police officer how many more should be killed for a normal civilian?