Federico Pisani

Another aspect possibly under-priced is the systemic normalization of assassinations of US officials (or any public figure really) by third countries in retaliation to US policy.

As the IRA famously said, they only need to be lucky once, while the targets need to be lucky every time.

Orban is a traitor, what is the Council going to do about it?

Here more details: www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/2816...

Perhaps more will come up over time as increasingly more people get involved and information is either accessed or gathered, with it the likelihood of information being made public grows.

Still, your point on the failure and selective (based on power/money) ineffectiveness of the system stand.

Absolutely right, and a valid concern that I feel many more in the USA should hear and decide how to address. The failures of the system is clear.

Yes, I do. And I see the failures in the US system (at all levels).
I just don't think that other systems, especially the UK and its accountability of royalty, come out of this much better.

Is it though. I don't understand this narrative/framing putting the UK justice system in a better light than the US; if it weren't for the US and the scandal that was uncovered there (and only there), the UK would have never acted on it - and certainly not for "lack of evidence or witnesses".

What needs to happen is Treaty reform.
Patchworks of emergency measures won't be enough.

For context, the Union has reformed Treaties once every decade in average, now it's been 17 years (Treaty of Lisbon of 2009) since we reformed.

The issue also pushes to confusion between EU and Council.

Indeed that is the end result. But to get there, you need unanimous consent to reform the Treaties and usually also national votes (+referendum) in member states.

Treaty reform.

Elected governments in member states that are willing to move forward with a better structured Union, increased role for the Parliament and accountability of the Commission to EU citizens directly.

The first step is a clear recognition of the issue and the culprits.

I understand but that would just be the normal accession process. Just picking up from where it was instead of starting anew.

I think the risk of using “fast track” here is that it implies something else, ie the “acceleration” of the process and “changes” compared to the normal process. Not AFAIK.

No, it’s not.
This behavior is generalized and your criticism seems very one-sided. Hence, in light of your own personal beliefs, you’ll use the same standards when facing similar behaviors from Brits.

But anyway, Phil, be happy and don’t let social media drag you in rabbit holes and loops.

I think the “fast track” is on the vote in Iceland, the accession process and negotiations are another matter.

“Many people” can be wrong, as Brexit showed.

To each their personal opinions.

I’m not the judge of pro-EU sentiment in third countries. It’s a job that doesn’t interest me.
But if you’re making the positive case for the ever closer union, it’s acquis and future integration, great!

I see some replies to messages I am blocked from in this very thread.
I trust you will make the same battle against this practice when it affects others as well.
On the matter I told you I agree with you and dislike the method, but I understand why sometimes it’s used.

Must read.

It’s not about the EU. The issue lies with the European Council, always has and still does.
Until the Council is reformed into a normal upper chamber, it will carry the blame for this type of situations.

Remain/leave is a domestic matter for UK, a third country to the EU.

From a European perspective it doesn’t matter. Only if/when UK gov 🇬🇧 applies to join the Union, will the domestic fracture lines be carefully studied in Europe, in light of the application process.

I don’t share this sentiment and don’t think Niall does either but the debate is crowded out by people in bad faith or simply not knowledgeable that set the bar so low it’s difficult for the rest of us to get anything interesting out of it.

Although “brutal” Niall’s cleaning is sometime necessary.

Pro-Remain and pro-EU are not necessarily the same. And Wikipedia is not always the most accurate source Phil.

Anyway, social media should not make our lives more miserable, follow those that make you happy.

I will keep following Niall for his good work.

Mhm then we’ll have to disagree Simon.

I understand. I’m not a fan of it either.

Unfortunately, on one hand it’s a very widespread method, everywhere and by every group.
On the other hand, the sheer amount of abuse Niall receives and the overwhelming imbalance in online presence makes for difficult to manage conversations.

The issue is that they are not really pro-EU. And this is why the discussion break down in uncivilized manners.
I saw how these “exchanges” go, and it’s far from constructive.

To be pro-EU, you need to share an “acquis”/set of principles and values.
It’s enough to just claiming to be one.

I understand and agree, but do you also acknowledge the wild amount of abuse he is getting and received over the years (and many other Europeans as well)?
I’m not justifying the method, but contextualizing it. And we have all suffered from it.

I’m not sure who you are talking about here.

I truly think that there’s agreement on most principles and values, but those few principles where it’s lacking create issues.

From my perspective of Niall’s general points, there is consistency and robust logic.
What point do you disagree with exactly?

He pretends to be knowledgeable and he has always had a hidden agenda. It’s just more apparent now.
What he is not, is pro-EU. He is a hardcore English nationalist.

I really recommend reviewing his past words and behaviors.

He is not pro-EU.
He is a grifter and a liar.

And I would highly recommend you reconsider your stance on this guy because he is lying to you and using you.

…don’t underestimate his points and how widespread his views are among Europeans.

Happy to see your counterpoints on the merit of his arguments.

The starting premises need to be clear to have a constructive discussion.

Are your premises clear?
Are his premises clear?

I have been blocked myself by several Brits for pointing out factual information, and while I agree with you that this kills the conversation, then either we all agree on civilized approaches or we don’t selectively criticize only those we disagree with.

I’m not his spokesperson, but… (1/2)

*as

And why shouldn’t they.