Arte gets a bit of funding from the EU as well, to ad subtitles for some programming to Spanish, Italian, English and Polish. However outside the EU you sometimes need VPN to access to content.
euractiv.com is pretty good, but also privatly owned.
arte.tv news format journal is great, but only video and German and French public broadcasting. However they are very willing to have shows not talking about either country. However it is French and German and not English
theguardian.com is independent, but mixed in its reporting standards. Sometimes amazing sometimes just okay.
Maccabi Tel Aviv ist von der Fanscene auch sehr rechts.
Davon gehe ich nicht aus. Es gibt einen CO2 Preis für fossile Heizungen auf EU Ebene, der bereits beschlossen ist. Durch lokale Verbote, wird die Nachfrage absinken und lokale Handwerker werden weniger Gasthermen anbieten. Weniger Nachfrage wird sich auch auf die Preise und Ersatzteile auswirken. Außerdem werden die Netzkosten steigen, da weniger verbraucht wird. Gleichzeitig werden die Preise für Wärmepumpen sinken. Kommunla Wärmeplanung ist in BW und Hessen schon Pflicht. In der Gegend um Mannheim wird das also recht schnell fallen und nur Rheinland-Pfalz wird noch Gas benutzen.
Mannheim hat einen kommunalen Wärmeplan, damit ist ein Einbau einer reinen Gasheizung schon heute verboten. Außerdem gibt es bereits ein großes Fernwärmenetz.
Qualified majority on foreign policy matters by the Council and a simple majority from the parliament. Also the option to defend the EU called out by the Commission to be able to act quickly.
Germany and France combined have about a third of the EUs population. Also the EU parliament is made up of different parties from the individual countries. Those parties disagree on a lot of things.
Sounds like a good idea, but it would probably be better to have a military and multiple civilian agencies specialized in different fields. Like medical, physics, chemistry and so forth research agencies. Also in edge cases both agencies should be allowed to do research or cooperate on it.
Der Unterschied zwischen Paris und Berlin, ist das in Paris die Stadtgrenzen nie angepasst wurden. Paris selber ist ungefähr so groß wie die Fläche innerhalb des Berliner S-Bahnrings. Wenn aber nur der Wählen dürfte, wäre das Abgeordnetenhaus in Berlin auch ziemlich Grün.
No, it is not. 5% hurdle means Linke, FDP and the other small parties will not get seats. In some polls they have combined 16% of the vote. So the coalition does not need 50% of the vote, but a bit less then 45%.
Were do you get your polls. Current average would be easily enough for CDU and SPD or Greens. So a two party coalition, which would probably work rather well. https://dawum.de/Bundestag/
Currently polling would basicaly mean the center right CDU/CSU would be chancellor, with a coalition with either the social democrats or Greens. Both would be enough for some comfortable leads. The AFD could also be an option, but I highly doubt it.
The article does not talk about the Budapest Memorandum at all. So have you read the article?
I see the argument with the Budapest Memorandum everywhere and it is just not true. If it were true, all parties would have broken it, when Russia took Crimea. That would make all the actual security guarantees, which have been given to Ukraine for the time after the war worthless, while questioning NATO and the EU as alliances, with two of the most powerful members not actually delivering the protection they promised. So I find it very relevant to point this out.
The company is called For of Europe and they have pretty much everything in Europe these days. For example the Ford Focus was developed in Europe. So it really is just the brand. Everything else is pretty much European.
Also nobody agreed to protect Ukraine for giving up nukes. This is the text:
- Respect the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders (in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act).
- Refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatories to the memorandum, and undertake that none of their weapons will ever be used against these countries, except in cases of self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
- Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
- Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they “should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used”.
- Not to use nuclear weapons against any non - nuclear-weapon state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.
- Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.
I believe the war Russia is fighting against NATO has so far not killed a single NATO soldier, but thousands of Russians. If this is the war Russia wants to fight with NATO, NATO would be stupid not to keep it going. At this point the Soviet era weapon stockpiles are nearly empty, they need to buy shells from North Korea, the Russian economy is pretty much a full on war economy, which means collapse as soon as the war ends, while Russia debt auction run into serious problems and the sovereign wealth fund is running empty.
The only thing the West needs to do is to keep sending aid to Ukraine for another two years or so. That will kill Putin’s Russia. It might even happen earlier.
No! Ukraine had nukes until 1994 and when Ukraine gave them up in the Budapest Memorandum not a single one of the countries agreed to protect Ukraine. Unless by protection you mean calling the UN security council, which both the US and UK did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum#The_Budapest_Memoranda
EDIT: Also the EU is not the US, UK or Russia.
Russia has very few regional bases of power. Most of Russia is controlled by the Kremlin pretty directly and the parts of Russia lacking direct control also lack nukes. So the most likely option is a bit of maybe even violent infighting in the Kremlin and then the victor rules Russia. The Kremlin would also control nukes, so China is unlikely to invade.
Speaking of nukes, there are 8 launch sites for ICBMs, 3 nuclear submarine naval bases with nukes and two air bases with long range bombers aremed with nukes. So 13 locations need to be controlled. That seems rather possible to me. So honestly I doubt it will be too bad.
Ukraine has seen what the Russians are willing to do to Ukraine, so they themself will try to become part of NATO or the EU as much and as soon as possible. So it is pretty much NATO/EU or Ukraine building nukes, probably even both.
Russia would be weakend and needs some time to rebuilt. A defeat would mean that reconstruction period would take a long time. Looking at demographics and Russias economy maybe never.