[go: up one dir, main page]

  • 1 Post
  • 185 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2024

help-circle

  • thanks 🙂 its great to have a civil discussion on the internet. What i mean about the first part is, that as your first point stated and my first answer to the discussion at hand stated, agreement proposals have to be done by countries with some kind of factor (yours was population size, mine were economical) in order to claim legitimacy. As you rightfully called into question the need for that in your follow-up comment, i wanted to join you and say that the factors should not play a role at all, neither populace or economical, wheb proposing improvements at the global stage.

    BRICS, ADB etc. same with NATO, EU etc. were created when multiple interests among a number of states aligned with each other. I would not consider them necessary blocs for multinational agreements on topics differing from their original interest. Since we are talking on one specific topic here, they are of no use.

    Any kind of agreement is legitimate as long as all sides of the agreement consider them as such. i dont think, we are talking about coercion here, as the agreement proposed is just that - a proposal. Wpuld you call it coercion if you are approached by a group of people on a topic you have a neutral opinion about? I don’t think so. Whether one joins an agreement or not is up to them.

    what in the article states, that they are not being inclusive? from my PoV of the article its a joint effort of EU and the CPTPP which totals 40nations



  • but then we are talking about a completely different thing as your first post suggested. Why is it, that one even has to have some factor in an element on the global stage to shape future agreements? Because i believe that for all countries could give any idea to how agreements should be created (yes, even the smallest unimportant countries). and apparently your top 1 and top 3 did not make any move on that, so why should other countries wait for those to take action? also note you are talking about laws, i am talking about agreements. there is no such thing as law on the international stage, only trust and credibility amid agreed upon agreed rules on that stage. Since the preivous shaper of those agreements - the US - is no longer to be trusted or have any credibility left, other countries will step up out of their volition. why restrict that?














  • yeah, i still remember the remarks “5G bis zur Milchkanne” several years ago by CDU. like who needs this? and who has to pay for it. obviously, with CDU its the citizens that have to pay for it, even though they reap the least benefits. And all that just because the actors pushing for stuff (agrar and tech lobby) don’t want to pay and always go around the “gespenst” of Europe falling behind in tech. As if our agrar producers suddenly could not produce food without it.



  • “if they go low, we go high” only helps so much as if the public and the other side is concerned about their reputation. so democrat leadership telling fellow democrats to maintan the high ground is so much of an outdated concept in today’s landscape that you could even call that unrealistic and spineless. One has to fight for their voices to be heard. It was the same in the weimar republic before nazi germany. Where the communist party KPD helped Adolf get elected as chancellor. Not so much surprising, shortly thereafter they were all imprisoned. Let the american democrats hear that lesson from history.