What now for the EU ?

This is going to be a massive kick in the swingers for the Germans






Anyone have any figures of how much Germany & German companies have pumped into this 90% complete project ?
It won't be as wild as you might think. The German state was not financially involved in the project. Nord Stream 2 AG is wholly owned by a Gazprom subsidiary from the Netherlands.
There is a clause in the contract that the partners of the former joint venture, which had to be dissolved after the Poles filed antitrust infringement proceedings, Uniper, OMV, Wintershall, Engie, Royal Dutch Shell, must each pay 10% of the costs for the pipeline, i.e. between 950 million and 1 billion euros per partner.
Gazprom will have to pay or better write off the other 5 Billions and the significantly more cost-intensive measures in Russia, for the Nord Stream 2 feed-in, etc.

The only thing that can still happen is that the former partners try to reclaim the money, but that would probably be GroßEUropa, wouldn't it?

Edited because of incoherent babble in places.
I can still make it to the EU Commission President.
 
Last edited:
Do you really think Germany will just roll over and do what Brussels tells them? Just not going to happen.
That depends on which "faction" in Germany prevails.
Contrary to Merkel's claims, Nord Stream 2 has always been a political project.

Now there is a whole series of expert opinions that say, to put it briefly: "Nord Stream 2 is as useless as tits on a boar. It is even better to diversify and not to become dependent on the Russians". An assessment with which I wholeheartedly agree, by the way.

The Greens, like every self-respecting tree-hugger, are clearly against Nord Stream 2. There is also some resistance in Merkel's CDU.
We have federal elections this year, which means a new government with a new chancellor because Merkel will not continue with 95% certainty.

If there is enough pressure from the EU (finally something the shithole is good for) and the Yankees, there are good chances that Nord Stream 2 will die a quiet and silent death.
 
I'd be more interested in how this affects their Energiewende programme which aims to phase out all nuclear powered generation by 2023 and coal fired (currently 40%) by 2038. Aiming for 60% of power generation by renewables, with gas filling in when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing.
Oh they will simply buy the not so dangerous electricity from French Nuclear Reactors. After all some hypocrisy does no harm.
Then they will increase the EEG levy to generate even more of that great and wonderful renewable electricity that can't be stored anywhere - after all, it's only the citizens who pay for it, not the energy-intensive industries - and everything will be fine.
The brainwashed Germans will cheer this Solomonic decision.
 
Oh they will simply buy the not so dangerous electricity from French Nuclear Reactors. After all some hypocrisy does no harm.
Then they will increase the EEG levy to generate even more of that great and wonderful renewable electricity that can't be stored anywhere - after all, it's only the citizens who pay for it, not the energy-intensive industries - and everything will be fine.
The brainwashed Germans will cheer this Solomonic decision.

Didn't Macron announce in the last year or two that France would be following the German lead and to abandon nuclear energy ?
 
Didn't Macron announce in the last year or two that France would be following the German lead and to abandon nuclear energy ?
  • France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035.
  • France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.
In 2017 France postponed its 2025 target for reducing the share of nuclear to 50%. In December 2017 the French President stated that nuclear is "the most carbon-free way to produce electricity with renewables." In November 2018, a draft of the country's new energy plan confirmed that 2035 was the new target date for the reduction of nuclear's share to 50%. The plan states that 14 of the country's nuclear reactors will shut down by 2035, 4-6 of those by 2030. However the plan also states that the option to build new nuclear reactors remains.

 
And neither is it "unprecedented:

Far from it, it is exactly the precedent that got us to this point in the first place, as you rightly say.

Plus the USA

EtA

Ah yes. Here we go....

Related:

 
I don't know, but if that happens, it will be a great time for candlemakers and woodcutters in Central Europe.
You can't burn wood in your Kamin any more, unless you have had a particle filter fitted. In our case it would cost about EUR 5,000 to retro-fit, so we are just not going to bother. A replacement Kamin would cost about EUR 5,000 plus labour costs.

So just candlemakers then.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer

The EU diplomat row shows Brexiteers were right - Brussels does aim to become a super state

The EU has once again overstepped in demanding that its ambassadors merit the same privileges as any country's ambassador
Self-ID is all the rage these days. Even President Joe Biden has said that biological males who identify as females should be treated as such by the US prison system.
If you ask me, it all goes back to Alan Sillitoe’s Saturday Night And Sunday Morning, in which the truculent central character asserts: “Whatever people say I am, that’s what I’m not.”
Anyhow, the fashion for identity crises has spread from individuals to an entire organisation, namely the European Union, which wishes to be recognised as being equivalent to a country.
The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, James Landale, has disclosed that the EU is in a stand-off with Britain about the status of its ambassador, Joao Vale de Almeida.
The Foreign Office is denying him full ambassadorial status, insisting that he and his team do not qualify for the privileges and immunities conferred under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations because the EU is not a sovereign nation.
Foreign Office mandarins are said to be anxious not to set a precedent that other international organisations might seek to exploit.

But the EU is arguing it should have full diplomatic status because it does have many essential characteristics in common with nation states, including its own currency, judicial system, law-making powers and competence over the foreign policy of its members.
A European Commission spokesman adds: “The UK, as a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, is well aware of the EU’s status in external relations.”
For a pro-Brexit former MEP like me, the situation is replete with irony. I spent many years arguing just this case – that the EU was an embryonic superstate that was accruing essential sovereignty from countries that it had downgraded to “member states”.
To the EU’s aforementioned inventory of nation state characteristics could be added its own flag, anthem and parliament.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, has written to Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab setting out his “serious concerns” about our unwillingness to confer nation state diplomatic rights.
“The arrangements offered do not reflect the specific character of the EU, nor do they respond to the future relationship between the EU and the UK as an important third country. It would not grant the customary privileges and immunities for the delegation and its staff,” he writes.
It does seem strange that, even post-Brexit, the Foreign Office should be seeking to maintain its long-running fiction that the EU is just another multinational grouping like the Commonwealth or Nato.
If it ever was just that then surely it transitioned long ago via a series of treaties, including Maastricht and Lisbon, which gave it its own legal “personality”. The really thorny question, of course, is that if the EU is now openly identifying and behaving as a country, what does that say about the 27 member states within its jurisdiction?
Can they really be considered full independent nations too? Can sovereignty over the same matters be said to reside in EU institutions and national ones simultaneously?
True intellectual consistency would demand that were the EU’s demands to be acceded to, Mr Raab would need to call in 27 European ambassadors and tell them they were being downgraded to provincial emissaries no longer entitled to ignore parking fines or tax demands.
As it is, a fudge will no doubt be settled on that will allow the EU to be a country or not a country, depending on the mood it wakes up in each morning.
We should rejoice that our status as an independent country is no longer dependent on such matters. We wear our own trousers now.






 

PhotEx

On ROPS
On ROPs
So the EUrines want a trade war.....

“The EU has demanded Boris Johnson drop plans to turn the City into a 'Singapore on Thames' global economic powerhouse before it will consider helping unclog the huge backlog of goods at UK ports.”



 
That’s much better put than I did yes

because the U.K. has left the EU, they can diverge from EU standards at the sign of a pen. There is a risk of those being introduced to the Single Market unless proper controls are in place to prevent that. That means U.K. companies could gain competitive advantage over other producers.

yes it’s protectionism, because the Single Market is a bedrock of the EU common market.

the U.K. choice democratically to leave but it effect is the U.K. will be treated like any other 3rd country as a result. That isn’t the EU’s fault.
Do we charge you for using our roads and polluting our air? I really do not know
 

The EU diplomat row shows Brexiteers were right - Brussels does aim to become a super state

The EU has once again overstepped in demanding that its ambassadors merit the same privileges as any country's ambassador
Self-ID is all the rage these days. Even President Joe Biden has said that biological males who identify as females should be treated as such by the US prison system.
If you ask me, it all goes back to Alan Sillitoe’s Saturday Night And Sunday Morning, in which the truculent central character asserts: “Whatever people say I am, that’s what I’m not.”
Anyhow, the fashion for identity crises has spread from individuals to an entire organisation, namely the European Union, which wishes to be recognised as being equivalent to a country.
The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, James Landale, has disclosed that the EU is in a stand-off with Britain about the status of its ambassador, Joao Vale de Almeida.
The Foreign Office is denying him full ambassadorial status, insisting that he and his team do not qualify for the privileges and immunities conferred under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations because the EU is not a sovereign nation.
Foreign Office mandarins are said to be anxious not to set a precedent that other international organisations might seek to exploit.

But the EU is arguing it should have full diplomatic status because it does have many essential characteristics in common with nation states, including its own currency, judicial system, law-making powers and competence over the foreign policy of its members.
A European Commission spokesman adds: “The UK, as a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, is well aware of the EU’s status in external relations.”
For a pro-Brexit former MEP like me, the situation is replete with irony. I spent many years arguing just this case – that the EU was an embryonic superstate that was accruing essential sovereignty from countries that it had downgraded to “member states”.
To the EU’s aforementioned inventory of nation state characteristics could be added its own flag, anthem and parliament.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, has written to Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab setting out his “serious concerns” about our unwillingness to confer nation state diplomatic rights.
“The arrangements offered do not reflect the specific character of the EU, nor do they respond to the future relationship between the EU and the UK as an important third country. It would not grant the customary privileges and immunities for the delegation and its staff,” he writes.
It does seem strange that, even post-Brexit, the Foreign Office should be seeking to maintain its long-running fiction that the EU is just another multinational grouping like the Commonwealth or Nato.
If it ever was just that then surely it transitioned long ago via a series of treaties, including Maastricht and Lisbon, which gave it its own legal “personality”. The really thorny question, of course, is that if the EU is now openly identifying and behaving as a country, what does that say about the 27 member states within its jurisdiction?
Can they really be considered full independent nations too? Can sovereignty over the same matters be said to reside in EU institutions and national ones simultaneously?
True intellectual consistency would demand that were the EU’s demands to be acceded to, Mr Raab would need to call in 27 European ambassadors and tell them they were being downgraded to provincial emissaries no longer entitled to ignore parking fines or tax demands.
As it is, a fudge will no doubt be settled on that will allow the EU to be a country or not a country, depending on the mood it wakes up in each morning.
We should rejoice that our status as an independent country is no longer dependent on such matters. We wear our own trousers now.






Raab should inform the EU that as and when it is admitted to the UN as a single sovereign nation - and no longer just a legal personality - with all that implies, then the position will change to follow the Treaty of Vienna protocols.
Until then, wind your neck in.
Edit: I was going to add that one has to assume EU bosses are aware that, should it apply for membership of the UN, the UK has the power to veto the application.
On checking, though, I’m not sure of this.
From Wiki:
“A recommendation for admission from the Security Council requires affirmative votes from at least nine of the council's fifteen members, with none of the five permanent members using their veto power. The Security Council's recommendation must then be approved in the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority vote.”
It depends on how this bit is read “...with none of the five permanent members using their veto power. “
Does that mean the veto is not applicable in such cases, or that the veto can be applied thus nullifying the 9/15 votes.
In the latter case, the message from the UK should add ‘Just don’t piss us off!’
Anybody know?

Edit to further add:
Looks like it is the latter.
“Because a state can only be admitted to membership in the UN by the approval of the Security Council and the General Assembly, a number of states that are considered sovereign according to the Montevideo Convention are not members of the UN. This is because the UN does not consider them to possess sovereignty, mainly due to the lack of international recognition or due to opposition from one of the permanent members.
 
Last edited:

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer

The EU diplomat row shows Brexiteers were right - Brussels does aim to become a super state

The EU has once again overstepped in demanding that its ambassadors merit the same privileges as any country's ambassador
Self-ID is all the rage these days. Even President Joe Biden has said that biological males who identify as females should be treated as such by the US prison system.
If you ask me, it all goes back to Alan Sillitoe’s Saturday Night And Sunday Morning, in which the truculent central character asserts: “Whatever people say I am, that’s what I’m not.”
Anyhow, the fashion for identity crises has spread from individuals to an entire organisation, namely the European Union, which wishes to be recognised as being equivalent to a country.
The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent, James Landale, has disclosed that the EU is in a stand-off with Britain about the status of its ambassador, Joao Vale de Almeida.
The Foreign Office is denying him full ambassadorial status, insisting that he and his team do not qualify for the privileges and immunities conferred under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations because the EU is not a sovereign nation.
Foreign Office mandarins are said to be anxious not to set a precedent that other international organisations might seek to exploit.

But the EU is arguing it should have full diplomatic status because it does have many essential characteristics in common with nation states, including its own currency, judicial system, law-making powers and competence over the foreign policy of its members.
A European Commission spokesman adds: “The UK, as a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty, is well aware of the EU’s status in external relations.”
For a pro-Brexit former MEP like me, the situation is replete with irony. I spent many years arguing just this case – that the EU was an embryonic superstate that was accruing essential sovereignty from countries that it had downgraded to “member states”.
To the EU’s aforementioned inventory of nation state characteristics could be added its own flag, anthem and parliament.
Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, has written to Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab setting out his “serious concerns” about our unwillingness to confer nation state diplomatic rights.
“The arrangements offered do not reflect the specific character of the EU, nor do they respond to the future relationship between the EU and the UK as an important third country. It would not grant the customary privileges and immunities for the delegation and its staff,” he writes.
It does seem strange that, even post-Brexit, the Foreign Office should be seeking to maintain its long-running fiction that the EU is just another multinational grouping like the Commonwealth or Nato.
If it ever was just that then surely it transitioned long ago via a series of treaties, including Maastricht and Lisbon, which gave it its own legal “personality”. The really thorny question, of course, is that if the EU is now openly identifying and behaving as a country, what does that say about the 27 member states within its jurisdiction?
Can they really be considered full independent nations too? Can sovereignty over the same matters be said to reside in EU institutions and national ones simultaneously?
True intellectual consistency would demand that were the EU’s demands to be acceded to, Mr Raab would need to call in 27 European ambassadors and tell them they were being downgraded to provincial emissaries no longer entitled to ignore parking fines or tax demands.
As it is, a fudge will no doubt be settled on that will allow the EU to be a country or not a country, depending on the mood it wakes up in each morning.
We should rejoice that our status as an independent country is no longer dependent on such matters. We wear our own trousers now.






Just a quick question, are the Lisbon and Maastricht Treaties any concern of our's now that we aren't part of the EU?
 

Latest Threads

Top