agitation perpétuelle
Hrm…
I may have miscalculated this. Technically we’re still only at step 2 as I proposed it but with the North American and Asian equivalents of UEFA also against it, UEFA on a strike of sorts and people seemingly real mad at Infantino that might be the last step after all.
It’d be real funny if this caused the ouster of Infantino and he won’t even get a third term.
Still, I am not yet 100% convinced it won’t happen, or in some watered down version perhaps.
Well, that’s why I added links…
Sure. It’s genuinely a problematic situation. I’ll include the Washington Post too.
More of a general point: there’s little pan-European media and it isn’t well known. What’s mostly consumed is Anglo-Saxon, either from the US or the UK - neither of which are part of the EU and even the UK media sphere is barely European. They have different agendas, lack the cultural and institutional knowledge and measure the EU and Europe alongside their own standards. It frames the conversation in Europe, directly and indirectly, in a way not beneficial to Europe.
Most Europeans don’t even recognise this is happening, and has for decades, and indiscriminately share things from the US or UK, including the worst of media outlets. It has consequences and plays a key factor in Europeans failing to recognise the US as anything other than an equal and an ally which they most certainly are not (and never truly have been).
The NYT and the WaPo are two of the most established newspapers in the US and considered papers of record, both are probably also the most read US newspapers outside of the US (alongside the WSJ - which is less problematic but leans right and is not as neutral as many Europeans consider it to be). All have a history going back well over a century, and a reputation that goes along with that.
Both have issues with framing. Even if the facts are technically right, the way they are presented can make things seem different than they are. There’s a massive difference in how republicans are represented vs democrats, and more globally the right vs the left. Their difference in coverage of Biden and Trump is an extreme example of this.
WaPo was acquired by Jeff Bezos (Amazon) a few years back and he has editorial influence. One of the most notable things is that he told the opinion writers can only write about personal liberties and free markets. Anything to challenge this is no longer allowed.
Bezos also blocked WaPo from endorsing Kamala Harris in the last US election (whether or not you supported her isn’t the point - the point is that a supposedly editorially independent paper did not get to make its own decisions).
As for the NYT, there are many issues and controversies. To focus on the two big, current, ones: their coverage of the war in Gaza (I’ll let wiki do the explaining) and the incredibly biased writing on transgender people which has caused genuine harm. Alejandra Carabello (clinical instructor at Harvard) has done a tremendous deep dive going back several years.
As a side note: the parody NYT Pitchbot is a nice one to understand their pattern.
There’s so much more but this was already three times longer than I intended to write.
I’ll get off my high horse now.
Do we really need the US perspective on Europe, which by its very definition isn’t neutral and often hostile? Especially the NYT which… well, there’s been a bit of a downfall in quality and neutrality to put it mildly.
Honestly, football isn’t my thing but from the little reporting I saw UEFA (and others) came out swinging against this but the next day the tone was already considerably different.
The single fact that Infantino seems to have widespread support, also in Europe, for a third term to me basically tells the whole story. From the countries that were awarded the tournament in recent history, to the ‘Today I am’ speech, the FIFA Peace Prize, the influence from Trump… somehow that’s acceptable.
FIFA was incredibly corrupt, people got charged and somehow the next guy is even more corrupt.
So yeah, I have little hope.
My guess:
I struggle to understand why they would create such a gigantic caveat that undermines the entire law unless the goal is to undermine it.
unfuckingbelievable
Any connection is tangential at best and the forces against either are wholly different, and so is the nature of the allegations and everything else that surrounds them.
Either way this is not a thread about Platner, I won’t entertain this further.
I’m not claiming it didn’t happen but an investigation was not conclusive enough to establish this beyond any reasonable doubt. Not quite that overwhelming.
What does seem clear, however, is that these allegations regardless of their veracity seem to have been (ab)used by Israel and the US to get rid of the one person trying to hold Israel accountable for its actions.
What is certainly clear is that no European or EU leader could be bothered to stand up for the ICC and demand indisputable clarity of Khan’s conduct.
The whole thing is muddy and disturbing. I am not saying Khan’s removal wasn’t the right decision, but the way that decision was ultimately made is incredibly problematic and likely will have wider consequences.
First of all, there were multiple issues with Platner beyond the allegations. He also kept changing his story which made him unreliable.
He also was not removed, people called on him to step down but he made the call. He could have refused - it would not have made him friends but it was within his right to remain the candidate.
More importantly, he did not have arrest warrants out for some of the worst people in global politics that are somehow revered by much of the rest of the world. He also did not work for an institution grounded in international law others are seeking to dismantle.
Not quite at the same scale as someone running for US senate, let alone the numbers of the people of Maine vs the people of 125 independent countries.
Let’s not pull Platner into this. Quite a different situation.
True, but with 82 out of 125 voting for his removal it feels fair to say that at least some European countries voted in favour. This being closed-door is problematic in its own right but that’s another story.
My more general point is the utter failure of our leaders to defend the ICC as an institution and stand up for its people (even those without misconduct allegations). Let alone they won’t insist proper procedure is followed. On paper that may have been the case but in reality it appears to have been quite something else.
I think for me as well, if you check the flip side of the G notes I also love that the people show a fair bit of diversity. There’s a figure in a wheelchair (50), some people of colour and two sets of people who could well be same-sex couples (or siblings, or friends - imagine your own adventure, 100/200). None of the other designs have this.
Fun* fact: Politico is the main news source for EU politicians, leaders and eurocrats. While you can make a tepid argument that their news coverage is ok their opinion pieces are biased, not exactly pro-EU and clearly informed by the Anglospheric view of things.
*not really
Nihilism and misanthropy are weird terms to use here.
Good they took the network down but these are telling misnomers.
Yes, but only if you hold firm.
VDL et al have a history of doing the exact opposite, no matter how many times this has proven a failed strategy. Somehow they even seem surprised he responds this way, again and again.
Let’s hope they’ve learned but so far there’s been little reason to think they have (frankly the fine was already reduced by billions under what the DMA allows, most likely out of fear).
It’s fine to disagree but don’t make it like I said something I didn’t.
When it comes to defence we are still spending the vast majority of our money on US weaponry rather than investing it into our own economies and helping our companies scale up. There’s a balance but the tilt is quite wrong at the moment and has been for decades. There’s no genuine effort into any kind of shared defence continent-wide (just ask Commissioner Kubilius).
The US is ordering ASML to stop exports to China and we are willing to even engage with the US over this instead of just giving them the finger. ASML has an extremely powerful position.
Everything we do is done with such fear of the US and to the degradation of Europe, even the steps towards our own independence are constantly cast in this light.
I am not further engaging in this conversation given that you twice chose to read words I never wrote.
I never said anything about cold turkeys.
But given that it indeed takes several years to transition an existing system urgency is needed. Every day we wait or half-heartedly do something it only takes longer and only creates more risk and long-term harm.
As for hardship - we’re not exactly a poor continent. There’s a whole lot we can do to support people and even (small) companies were it needed.
A year ago or so I would have tepidly accepted this as an argument but there’s nothing that shows any sense of urgency. It’s not that there’s nothing happening but it’s nowhere near the level it should and there’s still a sense of just waiting until he’s gone. Except he was already gone and came back, which was completely predictable and he didn’t fall from the sky to begin with.
The US had to be in a place where this was possible to begin with. The Democratic party offers zero genuine opposition safe for a few individuals but the establishment does everything it can to keep them out of power. No matter who takes office next, it’s unlikely things will change for the better and even if so every four years the situation can go 180 again. The US is not just not a reliable partner, they’ve become an adversary and to some extent they always have been. We were just refusing to see it.
When it comes to defence and technology there’s no coordinated effort to change things around. Trade is moving but slowly. The EU has the ability to crash the US economy tomorrow but we won’t even use that fact as leverage.
Sycophancy, real or pretend, does not work. In the history of humanity sycophancy has never improved the situation and often made things worse. Appeasing a bully is the absolute worst strategy. And there’s no need - we hold a tremendous amount of power but we refuse to believe in our own strength.
When it comes to defence a) much of Europe is already working together while b) the EU also can’t get its act together on a shared defence.
I am pro Iceland and Norway joining the EU but when it comes to defence I am not sure it particularly matters (for many other things it absolutely does however).