Slashdot Mirror

If one knows their native language plus English, they'll have the vast majority of the world's knowledge at their fingertips.

And tools. For every mainstream app there's ten obscure apps that haven't been translated to your language. And other people interested in the same things you are. The Internet has made a vast difference here, dubs / subtitles / translations worked pretty well for broadcast and print media and international calls was rare. And I don't mean just chit-chats, go on eBay and the whole world is your marketplace as long as you pay shipping. There are so many other benefits to language convergence that you won't get through more translations.

There's really no credible competitor to English because there's no other big pairings. If you know two major languages it's likely Chinese/English, Spanish/English, French/English, Portuguese/English, Japanese/English, Arabic/English, Russian/English, German/English, Hindi/English etc. you just don't find many Chinese/Spanish or Hindi/Portuguese speakers. If you look at the EU it's quite clear that 94% now learn English and fewer people learn French and German, I don't have the numbers for Spanish or Portuguese but I'm guessing the trend is the same.

Sure it's always possible that English is locally going a little backwards like that Spanish is creeping up into the US but for the world as a whole there's no debate. Particularly since China as the only potential challenger has put huge effort into English proficiency, giving everybody else much less reason to learn Chinese instead. I know linguists hate it but I think that's misunderstood, if all you needed to know was your native language and English most can be bi-lingual. If you should learn your Amazon tribe's language, Portuguese, Spanish and English then it's for the few.

From where are you getting your figures?

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

That claims they're down 22% from 1990 levels.

Those exclude LULUCF (land use changes) - perhaps you have inclusive figures? (Although I'd be surprised if LULUCF could be bigger than the significant reductions in everything else.)

Bullshit.
It's the kind of obvious, blatant, easily disprovable but nonetheless convenient lie that leads to electing bullshit presidents.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/w...

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

Bullshit.
It's the kind of obvious, blatant, easily disprovable but nonetheless convenient lie that leads to electing bullshit presidents.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/w...

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_fi...

In 2007, the estimated production cost of electricity ranged from 110 €2005/MWh for wind on-shore farm, 145 €2005/MWh for large hydro, to 195 €2005/MWh for solid biomass and 880 €2005/MWh for photovoltaic. In comparison, fossil fuel based technologies such as coal, and natural gas were cheaper (from 50 €2005/MWh for coal to 75 €2005/MWh for gas) (11). Obviously, most of the renewable technologies were not competitive enough to be deployed through market forces alone.

These calculations do not take account of the additional costs for the overall energy systems to integrate the massive deployment of renewables. These costs involve, first of all, investment in the electricity grid to transport and balance electricity generated from renewable sources. The variability of electricity generated from renewables also requires investment in back-up power plants (gas turbines), costly hydro storage facilities or interconnectors.

Spain and Portugal have the highest tariff deficits, with their cumulative value of 2.2% to 3% of GDP. While the scope of these deficits differs between these two countries, in both of them the authorities have formally recognized the right of the affected utilities to recover the corresponding amount. They have also set up securitisation schemes that turn these credit rights of the utilities into fixed-income securities. Both countries aim at eliminating new tariff deficits as soon as possible, but have so far failed to do so.

General government deficit was extremely high in Greece and Spain in 2009-2012 and in Portugal in 2009-2010, i.e. close to or even exceeding 10% of GDP.

The tariff debt in Portugal is also substantial. The total accumulated tariff debt was estimated by the regulator at EUR 3.7 billion (2.2% of GDP) at the end of 2013; according to other government estimates, it could be even higher at 2.6% of GDP (EUR 4.4 billion) (35).

That's the tariff debt on generated power alone. It's a way to hide the electricity costs of renewables from the electric bill of the final consumer even when these countries have some of the highest rates in Europe. It's not counting the other costs to the electric grid, or even counting the long term bank loans that were used to build these facilities and which are part of the outstanding bank debt. Also don't think that the extra cost of the generated energy doesn't have an economic impact either.

The two countries with the most expensive electricity in Europe are Denmark and Germany. Spain is also in the top 5. All big proponents of renewables:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

Italy doesn't use nuclear they burn natural gas and are also investing in renewables. I quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Rapid growth in the deployment of solar, wind and bio energy in recent years lead to Italy producing over 40% of its electricity from renewable sources in 2014. ...
The share of renewable energy in gross final energy consumption (all energy uses) had risen to 17.1% in 2014. ...
Italy has implemented generous incentive schemes to encourage the development of renewable energy production. Its largest scheme incentivised solar PV production and lead Italy from a low base of installed PV in 2010 to become the world's fourth largest country by installations by the end of 2014, ahead of the USA at that time."

Coincidence? I think not. Especially solar which has been a pure economical disaster everywhere its been implemented so far. As for natural gas it has large price fluctuations depending on where you are located and when it was purchased.

We had the Paris Climate Conference; http://ec.europa.eu/clima/poli...

Oil, Gas and Coal have substantial infrastructure to support them, and the subsidies for alternative are hit and miss. Regardless, alternative energy is growing.

However, California or the United States being the premiere provider of alternative energy is going to depend a lot on Washington for trade policies and/or subsidies. We lost a great chance to be number one on climate and alternative energies during the Bush administration -- at least Obama didn't get in the way.

Bankrupting Texas' dirty energy and not whining sounds like a good plan.

Germany also has "absurd high" feed in tariffs for wind and solar, but the end user prices don't sky rock through the roof.

You mean like 0.30kWh isn't expensive and sky high? That's not counting regional fluctuations but an averaged price. Where prices can hit over 0.44kWh.

I assume because they're calling down the lawyers on any other company using Iceland + some sort of food
TM: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearc...
company: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearc...

Can't say I've heard of can computers going after other retailers that sell computer parts and use the name Canada?

"Iceland Foods has aggressively pursued and won multiple cases against Icelandic companies which use 'ICELAND' in their representation or as part of their trademark, even in cases when the products and services do not compete," the government said in a statement.

I assume because they're calling down the lawyers on any other company using Iceland + some sort of food
TM: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearc...
company: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearc...

Can't say I've heard of can computers going after other retailers that sell computer parts and use the name Canada?

"Iceland Foods has aggressively pursued and won multiple cases against Icelandic companies which use 'ICELAND' in their representation or as part of their trademark, even in cases when the products and services do not compete," the government said in a statement.

Paying to fix a defect?? and $150 USD to boot? That's more than many android phones...

It will be interesting to see what happens if Apple try to charge to fix in the EU. Here there is a 2 year guarantee on faulty goods under EU law. Thus Apple have to repair at their own cost. I suspect that they will wiggle hard to try to avoid their responsibility; maybe time to lay in some popcorn.

Obvious troll is obvious?

The fines are quite large, up to 500 000 UKP at the moment but there aren't many of them issued in a given year.

On the horizon, however, is this:

http://data.consilium.europa.e...

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force in 2018 with maximum fines of the larger of 20 million euros or 4% of global turnover.

No one knows how this will affect a post-Brexit UK, but if you do business in the EU it's not too soon to get your house in order.

The directive mandates Mennekes Type 2 with or without AC/DC combined charger and also says users should be able to charge on an ad hoc basis. More or less what I was saying about about non discretionary points that accept common forms of payment. That means in a few years that every charge point should be compatible with every electric vehicle in Europe. It should also mean the end of CHAdeMO and other charge types.

Even Tesla chose a type 2 charger (albeit one with additional DC charging capabilities) in Europe because the directive was coming. So even they saw the way the wind was blowing. Although they really should be using the combined charger or offering to incorporate their super-charging-DC-in-the-absence-of-a-DC-combined-charger capability into the standard.

This deal removes barriers to trade and will boost both economies significantly; with at least 22.9% increase worth €25.7 billion. See here.

Demonstrably bullshit, and exactly the kind of falsehood that the Leave campaign was spouting during the UK's referendum - at least in the way that you are positing. Check out the latest news on the ongoing negotiations over the EU-Canada trade deal that is currently on the rocks because *three* regions of one EU member state (Belgium) are objecting to the deal. Everyone else - all the other 27 members of the EU and Canada want to go ahead, but can't because of those three provinces, and the terms of the deal (5MB PDF) are entirely public knowledge - unlike things like TPP and TTIP where the US is involved and insists on secrecy.

The real irony of the situation (and the reason for my caveat); the three regions that are blocking the deal are Wallonia, the French speaking region of Flanders... and Brussels itself (albeit as a province of Belgium rather than as the EU).

Sorry, I just assumed that any Europeans here were already aware of the fact that genetic nondiscrimination is listed as a fundamental human right in the EU charter. Was I giving you too much credit?

Oh wait, maybe you're an Aussie Anonymous Coward. No worries, your government has you covered too. Canada? New Zealand? Brazil? India? Yeah...the list goes on and on..., but nice try, troll.

Where do you see that clause? In the Dutch law? In your own head? I sure see the exact opposite in the EU guidelines.

http://berec.europa.eu/eng/doc...

The EU rules say that ISPs may *not* consider the content (Viagra spam is equal to a legit invoice) and it must all be non-discriminatory based on source or other factors, all parameters must be *objective* rules. Treating a Viagra spammer differently from a doctor's office would of course be discriminatory. It would certainly be *reasonable* to allow for blocking spam, making Skype and Vonage work better by slowing down any packets that are ahead of schedule, etc, but I've never seen a NN proposal that does so, while still providing meaningful protection against the things NN proponents wish to outlaw. The EU document is 45 pages and in order to be specific enough to be effective without being damaging it would need to be a hundred times as long. Of course, just about the time a government finally finishes a 4,500-page document, a different protocol will become popular which needs to be handled in a different way.

I love the idea of net neutrality, I really do, so I hope that some effective and efficient means can be found to encourage those goals. The best I can think of is that some geographic locations have five or six ISPs to choose from, so if one ISP doesn't provide quality service for the application and content you care about, you can choose a different provider who will. I wish all locations had that type of competition, but most places in the US still have near monopolies left over from when most places had absolutely laws absolutely enforcing monopolies.

That shift is already happening, on both ends. Look at the per capita emissions of each country. In the US, Europe (including Eastern Europe), emissions have been dropping steadily since the 90s and are still dropping. Those in India and China are seeing a sharp increase, though they are still well below US levels. In the 90s, a US citizen produced almost 25x the amount of CO2 of someone from India. Today, it's "only" 9x. China emits more CO2 per capita than the EU average (Source, see page 31).

The lesson here is that it appears that we can actually reduce our emissions significantly without radical changes to our lifestyle, and that developing nations can have a level of prosperity similar to ours without necessarily breaking the planet. Not that we should sit back and relax, quite the contrary, but we shouldn't let ourselves be scared into "radical" solutions either.

In fact only 8% of the EU's exports (by value) go to the UK.

This is probably more correct than 1/6 (16.7%) mentioned before. In 2013, UK imports represented 9.7% of the exports of all other EU countries.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/s...

In terms of figuring it out, how simple do you think this agreement is on paper? Six lines in the middle of an A10 sheet with room for big signatures?

In this case, not really that far off: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal...

Article 107

(ex Article 87 TEC)

1. Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.

[Various exceptions].

How can an agreement with a country be illegal? Answer, it can't be. The EU just decided after the fact, that they thought it wasn't right and are making it illegal...

The main point of the EU is to have a single unified market. This implies having a level playing field so there is a law that forbids governments from subsidizing specific companies (typically former state monopolies but not only). That means they are not allowed to give millions to specific companies whether by writing them checks or by not taxing them. So no, the EU didn't change the rules after the fact. This rule has been that way forever and a lot of companies and governments or regions have had to comply with it. It's just that Ireland and Apple thought they could ignore it and not get caught.

Also when the IRS verifies your tax statements they can got back a number of years and that's not retroactively changing any rule either. In some countries the tax man can go back 3 years and fine you for any irregularities they find. If you cheated 4 years ago then you're safe. But if tax havens are involved the tax man can go further back, etc. In this case it seems the duration is 10 years.

remember Apple has been doing this for a long time, out in the open. If it were not legal why did it take so long for the EU to figure this out?

As far as I know the tax agreement that allowed Apple to pay 0.005% of taxes was not public (just like all those LuxLeak agreements).

My statement didn't concern sales tax, but thank you for the reply. I was not aware that there is a band for sales tax in the EU. After a little search, I found that there is only a lower rate of 15% and a special lowest rate of at least 5%. See http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_c...

That there is no sales tax on goods moving between European countries is not completely correct. A private person buying goods in another European country is required to pay sales tax in the country where they buy the good. Regarding online purchases the following is stated: The seller will calculate VAT based on either VAT rate of the Member State from which the goods are shipped to the buyer (which is usually the Member State from which the goods are bought) or VAT rate of the Member State into which the goods are shipped.

Private persons do not need to pay additional tax/import fees when bringing goods over the border.

That companies do not need to pay sales tax on goods moving within the EU is a pure administrative optimization. Previously they could request their VAT to be returned but this was (especially for smaller companies) quite a burden. Note that in many EU countries, companies still need to declare VAT that they would have paid on EU internal trade. This is again pure an administrative issue in order to calculate the trade between countries and EU subsidies for that.

What's so bad about that?

Ever use a search engine (in particular image searching)?

A string like "https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JmVq0i-tBJiPxGt5XOrDYDO6lyA=/0x16:1300x883/1280x854/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48728355/playboy_march_16_cover_wide.0.0.jpg" is just a *fact* and should not be copyrightable. It simply *is not* the information that has been copyrighted.

To make this point even more clear- A URL is just an address. I can't copyright, for example, the address of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It just happens to be:

Palais de la Cour de Justice
Boulevard Konrad Adenauer
Kirchberg
L-2925 Luxembourg
Luxembourg

That's just a shorthand way of saying N 49.621036, E 6.143116 (which is actually posted on the Court's own website It's where you locate the copyrightable thing, and if an address is copyrightable, then giving directions is a crime. If you want to protect your copyright from public public view, you need to build a wall so people can't swing by the address and just look at it. People living in glass houses need to either put up curtains, or accept that people are going to look at them.

I have linked these addresses (both to their website and physical addresses) without permission. Calling that a crime is unworkable in both the physical and internet world.

I don't follow European news, but I doubt that very much. The UK is ~14% of the total GDP of the EU (second largest in the EU): it dropping out without replacing the existing trade deals would be a massive economic blow to the EU. The EU may want to punish the UK for leaving, but I doubt they'd do it at the risk of collapsing the EU economy.

Ah, yes, but anywhere from 40% to 50% of all UK exports (I believe the exact figure is around 43%) are sent to the EU.

A 14% drop in GDP is painful.

A 40+% drop? Ouch. Kiss bye bye to your economy, baby, it's going down the drain.

Oh, and most of the EU is getting pissed, and itching for a fight. Even The Guardian pointed that out. The negociations are not going to be pretty, that's for sure.

Some officials in the European Union (EU) want the United Kingdom (UK) to invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty before beginning any negotiations. The Lisbon treaty amended the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The TEU and TFEU form the constitutional basis of the EU. The UK agreed to the Lisbon treaty when their house of commons debated and passed it on Jan. 21st, 2008.

Invoking article 50 of the Lisbon treaty simply means that the UK would be officially notifying the EU of their intention to leave the EU. The UK and EU would then have up to 2 years to negotiate the UK leaving the EU. The EU council could extend this 2 year deadline if an extension was agreed to by the UK. Once invoked they would be automatically not in the EU, which just means not subject to the TEU and TFEU treaties, after 2 years if no agreement could be met. If the UK changed their mind and wanted to cancel the leaving process then they would have to invoke article 49 during that 2 year period.

References:
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/w...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal... (consolidated copy of TEU and TFEU which includes the Article 50 mentioned above)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

America outsources most of its manufacturing to China and China's per person CO2 is still lower (like about HALF).

China largest emitter, but United States tops per capita emissions The new data show China’s CO2 emissions currently to be twice as high of those in the United States, exactly 10 years after its emissions equalled those of the United States. China’s high ranking is mainly caused by the sheer size of its population and economy and the fact that its energy mix is strongly reliant on coal. China’s per capita emissions are similar to those of the European Union, while per capita emissions in the United States are twice as high as those of both China and the European Union. However, there are many indications that the growth in China’s emissions is also stalling: the share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of its growing service sector has surpassed that of the much more energy-intense industrial sector’s share and preliminary 2015 statistics of key indicators (such as the production of electricity, steel and cement) show all zero or negative growth rates.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/...

But Ireland is a net recipient of EU spending. Per this website: http://europa.eu/european-unio... it shows that Ireland receives more in money from EU spending (presumably through grants and so on) than the EU receives from Irish national contributions. The implication, really, is that if Apple and others were paying taxes commensurate with the Irish corporate income tax rate, currently 6.5%, perhaps the EU would be spending less in Ireland, and thus spending less of the efforts taxed from the Germans, French, British, and other net contributors to the EU. So indirectly even if the money goes to the Revenue Commissioners in Ireland and not to the EU, indirectly it would save other members states of the European Union, including states like Britain who are not in the Euro but are net contributors, money.

The Apple outfit that collects all the sales from the entirety of Europe is an empty shell company with no employee whatsoever. This is pure tax fraud. Read it here. There is no economic deal "jobs vs. taxes". Ireland did not treat Apple like a normal company, they had a tax rate in 2015 of 0.005%. There is little chance that this was agreed to without some widespread corruption there.

This is not what happened. Read here a description of Apple's scheme.

The problem was not that Ireland had a tax rate of 12.5% whereas France had 30%. The EC said explicitly that they did not investigate this. The problem was that Apple was not paying Ireland even this 12.5%, it was paying less than 1%. And this is illegal, Ireland must charge all companies the same tax.

You are talking as if Apple was simply paying their taxes innocently as instructed by the Irish government. Maybe you just don't know how the scheme worked; read here a description, it is concise and straightforward. It is tax fraud pure and simple. And it was obviously designed by Apple together with the Irish government. There is just no way that this scam would just be generally allowed by the Irish government and Apple just took advantage of it. If this were the case no corporation in Ireland would ever pay tax. This was a scam designed by Apple, for Apple. And you should also take into account that Apple's revenue is larger than Ireland's GDP. The corrupting influence of such a huge amount of money is hard to overstate.

Now, about the EC's powers: it is a simple matter of fact that they can make the states recover illegal state aid, as it had done several times in the past (which you would know if you had read the link I sent you), and it is a simple matter of fact that the EC can punish Ireland if it defies its ruling. It is just inconceivable that Ireland will tell the EC to go pound sand. What Ireland will do is appeal to the ECJ, which will deny its appeal, and then Ireland will comply with the ruling. Otherwise it risks economic sanctions.

It is true that the EU has no taxation power, but this doesn't mean that the member states are allowed to use their sovereign taxation powers to fuck each other over. Otherwise your nightmare scenario of the EU falling apart from "beggar thy neighbour" policies would be true.

Define 'assistance for corporations'.

Having Apple pay a tax rate of 0.005%, and others pay a tax rate of 12.5%; check out the document from the EC.

As long as Ireland applies their rules and rates uniformly

They don't, that's the point.

Is a country that charges less than Belgium's 34% corporate tax rate 'assisting' corporations? Because that would be a race to the bottom: Allowing the sloppiest and most inefficient governments to dictate tax and fiscal policy to the rest of the EU.

That would be very wrong, and unsurprisingly it's not the case.

Ireland doesn't want the money.

Then they may accept a 0.005% tax rate from all the other companies. And probably go bankrupt. Until they do, the difference between what they effectively ask from Apple and what they need to ask from everyone else in order to provide for the needs of their citizens is a measure of the unjust sacrifice that they impose on the rest of the EU members.

Perhaps they want to live within their means and not hve piles of cash sitting around as a magnet for the continent's deadbeats. Its their choice and I believe they have a right to make it.

Ireland is receiving more money from the EU than they give, each year. Portraying them as the source and the rest of the EU as the sink is a complete overturn of reality.

EU does indeed have laws. This order is based on a violation of anti-competitive law because a specific company was favored, as the Dublin webshop down the street had to pay the full 12.5% corporate tax.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., specifically Article 107 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal....

There is no order to pay anything. It is just a directive from EC to Ireland that their deal with Apple is illegal and Ireland should collect "back taxes" from Apple at a rate the EC has determined. It is up to the Irish government to decide how to proceed. This will most likely end up as an appeal and get dismissed silently (like Amazon and Starbucks) or may be with a very small penalty. The statutes that provide tax benefits might change but other incentives would be used to provide the same benefits (as done by Luxembourg and the Netherlands). Or in the worst case, Ireland, Netherlands and Luxembourg could threaten to exit the union. ;-)

For the general folks that are holding euros, watch the forex rates carefully for the next few months. Italy is calling !

EC press release : - http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

You are apparently completely ignorant of what Apple's tax arrangement was. Please read the statement of the European Comission.

To spell it out: Ireland was charging Apple the 12.5% tax on sales made in Ireland. The sales made in the rest of Europe were not taxed. At all. So Ireland was simply robbing the other EU countries of their tax money. Stopping this scam is precisely what we need the EU comission to do.

And you think exiting the EU would be the proper answer to this? Go ahead, please. Let's see how Apple likes to stay in Ireland without access to the European market.

...the countries stepped forward with tax breaks that were against the intent but not the legal structure of the EU.

This is not true. What Ireland did was patently against EU law, violating the no state aid rule. And this is what the Comission decided today, that this sweetheart deal configured state aid because it was not available to all companies, it was only for some select few.

And you are being disingenuous by suggesting that Apple did nothing wrong. The deal was obviously negotiated directly between Ireland and Apple. And to suggest that Apple didn't know this was illegal, come on. They can afford some pretty good lawyers, you know.

This all, of course, without mentioning the massive scam that is establishing itself in Ireland in the first place. Apple pretends to make no profit in any EU country, all of it goes to Ireland. But this is apparently legal.

What? The EU, formally known as the EEC, has existed since 1958, if you discount the ECSC. The provisions against state aid within the single market were established in the Treaty of Rome (1958). Ireland joined in 1973.

The EU's revenue model built around shaking down successful US companies.

Then why isn't the EU doing that? Are you perhaps confusing the EU with the US, which regularly fines foreign companies billions in show trials or forced settlements for phony or grossly exaggerated charges, usually paired with a smear campaign to aid American competitors?

No European company stepped up to compete with MS, Apple, or Google so instead they use their excessive regulations and tax laws to pad their coffer.

Plenty of European companies did, but market forces and abuse of the market position made the companies you mentioned rather dominant and hard to compete with, even though their products and services are not that great.

so instead they use their excessive regulations and tax laws to pad their coffer

That never actually happened. The companies you mentioned broke the law a few times and had to pay fines for those breaches. Fines levied by the European Commission get subtracted from member state contributions.

And has anyone ever asked what the EU actually does with the billions of dollars they collect?

You don't need to, it's all on the web.

Keeping on mind that all the EU member states have their own regulations and tax laws that can super cede any EU mandates.

Member state laws cannot violate EU law.

The EU better hope the US government doesn't step in and start throwing up trade road blocks if US companies start getting screwed.

They do that all the time. The US is one of the most protectionist among developed nations. Only China comes close.

The EU was supposed to help create a financial and military alliance amongst the member states and they have really did neither.

The EU was never supposed to create a military alliance, although it is involved indirectly in some of the projects to integrate militaries of EU nations. As for the 'financial alliance' - there are few regions in the world as tightly integrated economically as the EU. There is, effectively, a single common market, with most of the member states even using the same currency.

The especially failed in creating a united military alliance and just continued to make the US pay for their collective security

They did not fail - it was simply not a purpose the founders of the EU envisioned. The US does indeed provide a great deal of the collective security of the countries in Europe. However, the price is paid by Europeans, not by the US. As a result of the dependance on the US, the EU and especially its member states, have to align to US interests in international politics (e.g. follow US embargoes) and have far less leverage in trade negotiations with the US, resulting in unfavourable trade deals. Ultimately, Europeans are paying far more for their dependence on the US than having an appropriately sized military would. However, military expenditures are not popular with voters in Europe. It's very similar to why the US has infrastructure similar to a third-world country and an abysmal education system: money is spent on what gets votes, not on what is important in the long run.

Instead all they have done is created a myriad of foolish regulations on every product and service traded in the EU bloc.

There is nothing EU-specific about having many regulations and most regulations are actually remarkably common sense, although I would agree that having somewhat fewer regulations would certainly be better. Compared to the crazy laws and jurisprudence in the US, the favouritism in China and the corruption in Russia, I would say that the Europeans have done this a lot better than their major trade partners.

"Not even possible if they're not in the same state."

From the summary - "...living in Europe...". As imperialistic as the US is, and as parochial as many of it's citizens are, I'm pretty sure there aren't any "states" involved in this situation. And if you're using "state" to refer to a European nation's political subdivisions, it appears you're wrong.

Like in most parliamentary democracies, head of government is formally nominated by president or monarch (or European Council in case of EU), but it is the majority of the parliament who vote for him.

What? In the UK a party elects a leader, we vote for our local representative and the leader of the party with the most votes selects a government. It's simple and constituents have access to government at every level.

In the EU, an unelected council put it place by national governments nominates unelected individuals and the parliament rubber stamp one for the president of the commission. As previously stated, many (including myself) do not consider this 'accessible' democracy under the terms of the Copenhagen Criteria. It's a shitehaus!

Well, definitely not worse than last five prime ministers in country me being citizen of.

Sorry to hear that. If it's any consolation, I disliked Blair, Brown and Cameron. At least there's a chance of Blair being held accountable for his actions in office. I don't know if or how the case against Juncker and his tax avoidance administration will ever be made. What I do know is that EU executive immunity from prosecution is unacceptable. Why would that exist unless they knew they were doing something wrong?

The Commission gives its opinion once more. Where the Commission has rejected amendments in its opinion, the Council must act unanimously rather than by majority.

Yes, as I expanded - the commission can overrule the parliament and the council can overrule the commission. The problem is that this is a mess. In a democratic European federation, parliament should propose legislation. In a federation of nation states, national parliaments should propose legislation through the council. I support the latter but believe the commission should do no more than liaise with industry in either situation.

Two-thirds is ~67 %, the usual margin for important decisions. Well, after experience with unstable governments based on narrow majority of few MEPs, such hysteresis seems like a good idea even for national governments.

Go easy - I drank more than Juncker last night when I wrote the comment.

Perhaps of interest if you have not seen it already... EB85 was published the other day. Of course immigration and terrorism were presented as separate and distinct options to participants. The EU and our media are still in complete denial mode with regard to the sectarianism they are importing.

which states (3.2 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/si...) : "a simple indication of the mode (e.g. a LED) is not considered as being a function. Therefore in "off-mode" as defined in the Regulation, a LED could be on."
So as it is not functional, clearly there can be no LED. The TV is therefore OFF :)

The pound fluctuates against the euro, it always has done and it always will. It went from 1.3 to 1.2, but it's been 1.04 before.

That is a bit of an understatement, Gomuchul. The pound has hit 1.04€, it is true, but in the height of the 2008 crysis. If you look at the whole history of the GBP vs. EUR exchange rate, you see that the pound starts off rather valuable, decreases to about 1.5€ and stays there for some yeara, then crashes to 1.05€ in the 2008 crysis, slowly recovers to 1.5€, and then rapidly gets down to 1.2€ as the referendum gets near.

It's true that the effect is not linear, as lots od the pounds are spent in Britain itself, but still the economy is deeply integrated with the EU. I'm sure the amount of wealth lost is much larger than 8 billion pounds, even if it doean't reach 180 billion pounds.

It is possible to take part in EU science programs and funding like Horizon 2020 without strictly being an EU member.

Yes, but you need to be a third-world county or an associated country; source here. Essentially, you can get funding if you are outside the EU if you are:

• a EU country, e.g. France;
• a colony of a EU country, e.g. Greenland;
• an Associated Country, which means countries in the wider sphere of influence of the EU, e.g. Norway;
• a third-world country like Afghanistan.

Developed countries like US, Canada, Russia and China are excluded, and that's the set in which the UK will land after Brexit. Their only option is to join as an Associated Country, but that is more expensive than staying in as an EU member. Otherwise, they can wait until their economy tanks bad enough to join the other list.

I am coordinator for two EU projects, each with 6 partners over 5 countries, and I know the system fairly well. And I have a proposal with one UK partner in processing, damnit.

It is possible to take part in EU science programs and funding like Horizon 2020 without strictly being an EU member.

Yes, but you need to be a third-world county or an associated country; source here. Essentially, you can get funding if you are outside the EU if you are:

• a EU country, e.g. France;
• a colony of a EU country, e.g. Greenland;
• an Associated Country, which means countries in the wider sphere of influence of the EU, e.g. Norway;
• a third-world country like Afghanistan.

Developed countries like US, Canada, Russia and China are excluded, and that's the set in which the UK will land after Brexit. Their only option is to join as an Associated Country, but that is more expensive than staying in as an EU member. Otherwise, they can wait until their economy tanks bad enough to join the other list.

I am coordinator for two EU projects, each with 6 partners over 5 countries, and I know the system fairly well. And I have a proposal with one UK partner in processing, damnit.

Fuck the British press. Outfits like theregister -- positively for Brexit, previously (still?) -- have lost nearly any and all integrity.

This is NOT a ruling, it is merely an opinion by an advisor to the court. Here's the document, which ofcourse El Reg couldn't even be bothered to link to. I'll be gracious to them, and assume they couldn't even be bothered to read it, either.

First, this non-binding opinion isn't about the UK situation only -- it's a opinion on 2 merged cases, the most important one brought forward by a Swedish telecom provider Tele2/Sverige, which found itself in conflict with either Swedish law [enforcing data retention] or European law, after the European Court of Justice invalidated the Data Retention Directive in a 2014 ruling on a Digital Rights Ireland case.

Second, the data to be retained are strictly defined in Saugmandsgaard opinion: data making it possible to identify and locate the source and the destination of the information, data relating to the date, time and duration of communication and data identifying the type of each communication and the type of equipment used.

The content of the data is specifically excluded of the retention obligation.

Note, finally, that retention of these data is not an EU obligation: the opinion only establishes that national governments may implement such a data retention, that this is not incompatible with other EU rulings. Solely the fight against serious crime is reason to implement such an obligation.

Let me part with the final paragraph of that opinion:

Finally, the general obligation to retain data must be proportionate, within a democratic society, to the objective of the fight against serious crime, which means that the serious risks engendered by that obligation within a democratic society must not be disproportionate to the advantages it offers in the fight against serious crime.

Other countries are doing just fine with their transitions, particularly Germany and Denmark. Energy there isn't insanely expensive, in fact it's actually a lot cheaper than other dirtier EU countries. Sure, they throw some tax on top to speed the process along, but in the longer term things are really looking good for them.

What you have in South Australia is commercial companies manipulating the market to make massive profits and try to resist the transition. What they need to do is fix the market and reign these companies in.

Nuclear is a totally unrealistic option. Australia currently has zero (none, nada, not a single one) nuclear plants. To build some now would take decades. They would need to create regulatory bodies, approve designs, convince someone to actually gamble on building one and then maybe 15-20 years and tens of billions of dollars later end up with something that's basically obsolete and probably unnecessary.

You know, it really isn't hard to find the information about what is happening.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-s...

You could have found that in about 10 seconds on Google, but instead you spent that amount of time railing at dave420 for not feeding you like an infant.

London's role as the financial hub is now threatened thanks to the Brexit

UK's financial industry has nothing to fear from brexit, since Article 63 of the Treaty on Functioning of UE forbids "all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between (...) third countries".

Bullshit? http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUr...

It's certainly truer than this: https://slashdot.org/comments....

Smaller. Beureaucracy.....

There are 55,000 eurocrats working for the commission (source). There are 60,000 in Birmingham alone (according to the same link) and for the UK as a whole there were 405,573 in 2015 according to the UK's own statistics.

The UK joined the EU as an economic basket case in 1973, and its trajectory since has been largely upward. This simple fact was lost in the debate. In every way, the UK is more prosperous now than it was then. Obviously, this is an aggregate and some areas have faced particular hardships, the older mining areas in particular but that was nothing to do with Brussels and everything to do with internal politics. The NHS funding issues are nothing to do with migrants and everything to do with the current government attempting to cut back. The migrant integration issues have almost nothing to do with EU migrants, and nearly all the problems occur because of immigration from former imperial holdings like Pakistan and (to a lesser extent) India. The European Court of Human Rights (a particular bugbear of the Daily Mail) is not related to the EU, it predated the EU and the UK is still subject to it.

The leave arguments were trivially debunkable but very emotive, and the remain arguments were basically putting a sheet over their head and saying "woooooo, scary". It really doesn't help that the UK government (and they're not alone in this) spent the last 40 years justifying every single unpopular decision by claiming that the EU made them do it. They are reaping what they sowed, and we can only hope that 1973 isn't their destination.