This is just a pilot, and the rules will be refined as the article also says. It will mean a tougher stance towards China forcing them to play by the same rules. It is simply what China is doing.

The requirements, while at much smaller scale, echo China’s own regime, which pressures foreign companies into sharing their intellectual property in exchange for access to the Chinese market. The criteria could be subject to change ahead of the tender, officials said.

I am wondering whether Mr. Starmer will raise the Jimmy Lai case and other British citizens who are unlawfully imprisoned in Hong Kong.

Domestic demand for vehicles has cooled in China, and China now has a strong car industry of its own, with an aggressive export policy.

Yes, China has a structured overcapacity fueled by state subsidies. That has led to a fierce price competition in the Chinese market with many Chinese carmakers going bankrupt, while the remaining car manufacturers seek their cure in exports that are only possible by just these huge state subsidies and forced labor.

At the same time, China’s markets remain closed. For example, foreign car companies can’t establish a subsidiary in China, they need a Chinese partner who then holds the majority of the joint venture. Just to name an example.

There is no reciprocity, which is a crucial thing in international trade. Of course, this wouldn’t solve Germany’s or Europe’s issues, but it is part of the problem. And it is right that Europe and other countries and blocs -including China’s Asian neighbours to whom these issues apply as well- protect their markets accordingly.

I am afraid they already did:

Commission concludes that online social networking service of X should not be designated under the Digital Markets Act – (October 2024) Please see the comment by @HK65@sopuli.xyz, I am mistaken here.

I would have loved to see the initiators to go the official way for the petition as I agree that change.org won’t change much. Here we go: https://commission.europa.eu/get-involved/engage-eu-policymaking/petition-eu_en

https://commission.europa.eu/get-involved/engage-eu-policymaking/petition-eu_en

Addition: There is also https://www.openpetition.eu/ - not an official channel, but maybe an alternative.

@zante@slrpnk.net

Do yourself a favor and stay away from wherever you get this stuff.

These US military bases are Nato bases, and no country has ever been ‘forced’ to join the alliance. Its latest members, Sweden and Finland, have been committed to neutrality for decades, and only joined after Russia invaded Ukraine. Neutrality may work well if your neighbors commit to international law and human rights, which is unfortunately not a given as we learnt once again in February 2022.

Having read the thread and all the numbers which are very interesting, I can’t help thinking that whatever the economic output is in whatever country or bloc, China must face higher cost for backing Russia in Ukraine.

LOL.

And?

In related news, search engine Google just announced to roll out a test that gets rid of results from news publishers based in the EU.

This test will affect 1% of users in Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. We will continue to show results from other websites, including news publishers based outside the EU. We intend to use this test to assess how results from EU news publishers impact the search experience for our users and traffic to publishers.

G does not say when the test will end.

As we know, Google has threatened to pull news links in Canada in response to the Online News Act of 2023 which forced all tech companies to come out with compensation related to linked content with any online news publisher. After months of negotiations, Google agreed to pay $100M each year to Canadian news organizations afaik.

A similar incident happened in California in the U.S. where Google briefly removed links to California news outlets in response to the proposed California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA). The new law would force Google to pay publishers in return for using links to their pages. For now, the bill is yet to be confirmed but Google managed to strike a deal with lawmakers this summer.

Maybe that provided some additional context.

I am wondering whether the recent incident has also something to do with ii:

‘Go to hell’: how Project 2025 chief kicked the Guardian out of book event

Heritage Foundation staff member, introducing Kevin Roberts to the reporter, says: ‘You’ve got two minutes with our best friend Adam from the Guardian’

There are multiple examples of Chinese subsidiaries and/or takeovers of European companies in Europe, but there are no examples of European companies doing the same in China. In no sector. The rules are nowhere the same, not even remotely.

The only Chinese province where completely foreign-owned companies were possible was Xiamen, but that lasted until the 2000s or so (I don’t remember the exact date). Your statements are outright false.

In all what constitutes fair competition, China lacks behind. China is a totally closed shop by any comparable standards with -in addition to that- grave human rights issues in the country, and the situation has been worsening in recent years.

I would be curious to learn more about their revenue model, the article doesn’t say about it. The good thing is that there are no financial investors involved as far as we can learn from the read, it will be interesting to see how this develops imho.

We want the Chinese to open up their markets …

They simply don’t. One necessity of international trade and competition is reciprocity, but in China, foreign companies can’t even establish a subsidiary. They need a Chinese partner who would then own the majority of the joint venture, while the foreigner own a minority stake in the company. And that’s just one issue among many.

In addition, Europe should not replace its dependence on Russian fossil fuels with dependence on Chinese renewable energy technology. That doesn’t make sense.

I assume the way how the numbers are presented in the article is a bit misleading. A World Bank statement from March 2024 (pdf) says:

Disruptions to economic flows and production, as well as additional costs associated with war (such as debris management), are collectively measured as loss amounting to over US$499 billion. Reconstruction and recovery needs, as of December 31, 2023, are estimated to be over US$486 billion over the span of ten years.

So I would say the number 486bn is the sum needed for reconstruction over the next 10 years as per the assessment made at end of 2023, while in 2024 Ukraine needs additional money to keep the economy running, manage transport, debris, etc. You’ll see a diagram on the linked pdf.

But this is what I interpret from this World Bank paper, I am not sure.

Your option 1 would mean that Russia is going to attack the next country.

Addition: Russia must be defeated and pay for Ukraine’s reconstruction, Putin and possibly other war criminals face prosecution, Ukraine’s future is in Nato and EU.

An Orban-linked group acquired Euronews back in the spring, reportedly by using public funds provided by the Hungarian state. I was surprised that until now, there appeared to be no visible changes in the editorial policy (the outlet has been very critical of Russia, China, Hungary, etc.). But now things appear to change.

No one talks about Ukraine losing. Any peace deal can only be reached according to Ukraine’s terms, this includes that Russia will have to leave the whole of Ukraine.

Here is the same link without amp: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/07/europe/israel-soccer-fans-attacked-amsterdam-intl-hnk/index.html

https://feddit.org/u/benjhm@sopuli.xyz

But the article says, the core factors are economic.

The article says the factor are economic and cultural. For example, it reads that “online, young people openly discuss their frustrations with societal expectations […] Hashtags related to singlehood, career focus, and discussions around marriage trends regularly go viral, amplifying the voices of those who feel pressured to conform to traditional life paths.”

Even so, as they have built so many surplus apartments, the [real] prices must drop

The ‘surplus apartments’ are the result of a real estate crisis that, among others, has cost a lot of money. Many Chinese has lost their live savings. In the meantime, many experts (inside and outside China) are afraid that the problems in the property sector could severely hurt the financial and banking system and the whole economy in the long run.

I wonder how many years before they are trying to sell the Chinese dream to migrants from Africa or elsewhere.

Regarding migrant, especially from Africa, I suggest your read a release by a rights group (2023), or a very informative expert video (19 min, here is the archived link for this video). The video is from 2022.