• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Europe


I was wondering what the connection of this Greek MEP's speech was to Carney's appearance at the EU Parliament and his speech. How did the PM's appearance "go south"?

Ms. Latinopoulou certainly does not hold back on her personal attack against Ms. von der Leyen or her opinion of EU policies, but what does that have to do with Mr. Carney? It does show, however, the unusual nature of debate/participation in the EU Parliament and does help me understand commentary (in UK media from several years ago) about Nigel Farage and his antics as an MEP. When I posted the clip yesterday from the casually dressed German MEP it was to demonstrate not just some of the welcoming Carney received but also to poke fun at what I would have considered a stereotypical German Green (or a party of similar stripe) right down to birkenstocks with socks. Mr. Boeselager (actually Freiherr von Boeselager, from the family after whom Boeselager Kaserne in Munster is named - they were involved in Hitler assassination plot) made his comments yesterday (3:02:11) as part of a long line responding to von der Leyen's address to the Parliament. Ms. Latinopoulou made her remarks about twenty minutes later (3:23:11) (there were a number of MEPs at the podium in between). Not many mentioned Carney or Canada in their one to two minute time limit. Carney didn't address the gathering until the following day (today?).

 

Some books on the subject of the Allied Occupation of Italy in 1944 for readers who may be interested ,

Naples '44

The Skin

The Gallery" is about the same time and place . ( The Gallery is the partly damaged Galleria Umberto in the centre of Naples in 1944. )
 
What is it we need that existing trade agreements (and our exporters' voluntary compliance with EU trade regulations) don't already provide? Anything substantial? Anything at all?

It would be funny to have spent months loudly reasserting our sovereignty in response to Trump's idiocies, only to turn the situation into an excuse to cede some sovereignty to the EU (eg. how we manage our lands, waters, immigration, politics, finances, etc).

Maybe this was always the play. Trump's divisive foreign and economic policies created an obvious opportunity for people who have been wanting to throw in a few new extra international entanglements of their own. Some of them are bound to act.
 
What is it we need that existing trade agreements (and our exporters' voluntary compliance with EU trade regulations) don't already provide? Anything substantial? Anything at all?

It would be funny to have spent months loudly reasserting our sovereignty in response to Trump's idiocies, only to turn the situation into an excuse to cede some sovereignty to the EU (eg. how we manage our lands, waters, immigration, politics, finances, etc).

Maybe this was always the play. Trump's divisive foreign and economic policies created an obvious opportunity for people who have been wanting to throw in a few new extra international entanglements of their own. Some of them are bound to act.
The reality is 2 things - 1) We don't know at this time re the EU and; 2) If Trump hadn't gone after us, leaving us and the Mexicans alone, PP would have won the election and the whole EU question wouldn't even be on the agenda.
 
The reality is 2 things - 1) We don't know at this time re the EU and; 2) If Trump hadn't gone after us, leaving us and the Mexicans alone, PP would have won the election and the whole EU question wouldn't even be on the agenda.
Kind of odd to proclaim "the reality is" and then cite a hypothetical.

The "reality" is the situation we are in, and the proposals the GoC and EU have advanced.

"We wouldn't be here if..." is a deflection, and not useful.
 
Back
Top