Changaco

joined 4 months ago
[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 1 points 2 hours ago

You can find the answer to that question and many others in the Wikipedia article on European integration.

[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The letter and spirit of the paragraph both seem quite clear to me. The united Germany was to become party to the same treaties as West and East Germany with regard to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The NPT is the legal text of the “renunciation” of nuclear weapons, even though that specific word doesn't actually appear in the NPT. Germany's rights and obligations under the NPT are the same as those of all other signatories.

[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I'm saying your interpretation of the treaty is incorrect. Immediately after the two sentences you quoted is a third one clarifying that the “rights and obligations arising from the [NPT] will continue to apply to the united Germany”, meaning that Germany retains the right to withdraw from the NPT under Article X like any other signatory.

[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 1 points 6 days ago (4 children)

The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany restored the country's full sovereignty. The positions it reaffirms don't limit what Germany is allowed to do under other treaties. It doesn't prevent Germany withdrawing from the NPT. It doesn't prevent Germany from doing anything that other sovereign states can do.

[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 1 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Germany bought a small number (35) US fighter jets as replacement for the aging Panavia Tornado used as bombers carrying US nuclear weapons as they are not allowed by their allies to have their own.

This is a very weird claim. If Germany wanted to build its own nuclear bombs, it could withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Germany could also have asked to host French nuclear missiles instead of US nuclear bombs, possibly as part of an EU-wide agreement rather than a bilateral deal.

[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's a subsidy when the state ends up paying the difference between the guaranteed price and the average market price.

[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I guess another way would be fixed prices for all nuclear and renewables since they have fixed costs anyway. The thing is, the system already works that way to an extent, as there are a lot of guaranteed prices in renewables and some in nuclear. As far as I can tell, these subsidies are why the market price sometimes goes negative when solar or wind produce a lot: the subsidized sellers don't care, they still receive their guaranteed income based on the quantity of energy they inject into the grid. It seems to me that without these subsidies the market prices would always be high, thus better reflecting the true cost of electricity.

 

Take a look at this old gem. A web page from a different era, still fine after 23 years, although if you open it on a smartphone you have to zoom in or use the browser's reading mode or rotate the screen because the page predates the iPhone.

I'm sharing this now due to recent discussions of the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU, which have been triggered by Prime Minister Andy Burnham breaking the Brexit taboo a few weeks ago. Euro adoption usually pops up in those debates and tends to be presented as unthinkable. It's true that there never was broad public support to adopt the euro in the UK, but Labour governments used to support monetary union in principle and had come up with the five economic tests to assess the country's structural readiness to join.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that the UK would have to agree to adopt the Euro in order to join the EU again. It would certainly be easier if a strong majority of the UK population was committed to all aspects of the ever closer union, but the reality is that some EU member states also lack those strong majorities. Indeed six members still haven't adopted the euro: Czechia, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden.

Which of the opinions from 2003 do you find most interesting (or funny or …)? What would your response be if the BBC asked again for people's opinions on Euro adoption in the UK (or in your own country)?

[–] Changaco@jlai.lu 8 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Setting the electricity market price based on the most expensive source at any given time is pretty much universal in Europe. It's an EU thing, not a specificity of the UK.

Changing this rule would reduce the income and profits of climate friendly electricity providers, thus penalizing the investors who tried to do the right thing.