Ireland felt the external pressure to stop being a US big tech tax haven. But how can we keep those dollars while unloading the negative externalities onto the rest of the EU? I have a great idea - let's pivot to being a US big tech data compliance haven! They'll keep their legal HQ here for sure if we just let them wink wink nudge nudge get away with everything.
Despicable behavior, Ireland should be considered similar to Hungary in their obstruction of EU laws at the cost of everyone else.
I keep hearing how everyone keeps saying "Hungry evil" but can anyone explain me what exactly has Hungary done to harm mutually beneficial EU efforts? Other than Orban being corrupt and unpopular because the same applies to most politicians at EU level especially Ursula vs Leyen.
Now on this topic here, this story is as old as time, with big-corpo and government regulators being just different elements of the same revolving door, yet somehow it's not considered corruption because you can't prove it in court. So what's the solution here?
I don't want Ireland kicked out of the EU, and that isn't even legally possible to begin with, but I also don't want a member state enjoying EU benefits while sabotaging the other members States for personal gain, even if that wouldn't be the first and last time an EU country engages in self centered activities at the expense of everyone else.
> Other than Orban being corrupt and unpopular because the same applies to most politicians at EU level especially Ursula vs Leyen.
I am so tired of these "they are all bad anyway" stances. AFAIK, Ursula van der Leyen is not actively supporting a country who invaded a EU neighbour some years ago or routinely performs assassinations on EU territory. Also, I do not think she is actively criticizing the EU whenever she has the opportunity while pocketing as much money from it as she can. Maybe we could talk about Orban stance wrt democracy and people rights.
I don't especially like Ursula van der Leyen, I think she is the usual misdirected pro-market believer the kind we had too much in EU so far. But she is not that bad.
I guess they are the same anyway.
All that said, Ireland action is bad but not that bad.
I agree van der Leyen is a corrupt, lobby friendly politician with some strange ideas (in my opinion).
But she isn't "evil" or someone who would commit treason or anything like that.
She also isn't incompetent in the way a lot of media in German loves to paint here. Actually she even seem quite competent wrt. some of the core skills of politicians. This doesn't mean I don't think a lot of here decisions are supper misguided, but that is a clash of beliefs and ideals which is not the same as incompetence.
> "evil" or someone who would commit treason or anything like that
is a really low bar
and do you really think you become President of the European Commission by being severely incompetent? If she where as severely incompetent as some media likes to picture she would at best have been complimented away to some mostly irrelevant position, not one of the highest position in the EU organs.
I asked you to point out her achievements and you just glazed her further on the basis that "you can't possibly fail upwards to a high level leadership position" when a lot of people in recently history have, and in her position it's not even that hard to do when business interests use their money and influence to guarantee that their preferred puppet sorry I meant candidate gets there, especially that the process for the position she's in is appointed by committee selection and not by direct election by the people.
And maybe some of the media portray her as incompetent because it's their job to investigate politics and they notice more of her fuckups than you do, especially given your lack of positive examples for her.
>I am so tired of these "they are all bad anyway" stances.
What evidence do you have they are not all bad? I can't think of too many major high level EU leaders that people would consider to be a net positive.
>Hungary suspected of spying for Russia
Are you aware that former German and Austrian politicians are on the payroll of Russian oil and gas companies and Putin even came to the wedding s of some of them? Are you aware Austrian banks still operate in Russia profiting?
Yet I never hear anyone blaming Austrian every 5 minutes the same way they do Hungary.
Why the double standards where all the blame in on Hungary yet other EU members fly under the radar for much more pro-Russia cooperation and profiteering?
>Also, I do not think she is actively criticizing the EU whenever she has the opportunity while pocketing as much money from it as she can.
Then why did she delete her messages with Pfizer? You're right, she's not profiteering, she's just helping her puppet masters profiteer. Big difference.
> What evidence do you have they are not all bad? I can't think of too many major high level EU leaders that people would consider to be a net positive.
A net positive compared to what? To have nobody at the head of the state and have anarchy? Or compared to the next one who wants the job?
Let's be concrete. I live in France, which currently is not going to give anyone lessons about governance. Current president is Macron. Is he evil bad, super corrupt? I do not think so. He is a bad mix of arrogance, naivety and brilliance in some domains. In the end, his run will end with average results as best, but not for lack of trying. It does not make him evil bad.
Previous one, Hollande was nice guy out of his league. Mediocre at best. But not evil or corrupt.
Previous one, Sarkozy, was brilliant and corrupt. He is going to jail next month. Still nowhere as bad as Orban on the civil rights front.
Regardless, all of them are better than having Le Pen (far right) as president. Who is already known to be corrupt populist and a Russian puppet.
I am afraid this is another of these "perfect is the enemy of the good" conversation.
Same with Van der Leyen. Fair enough she may have taken money from Pfizer and whatnot. But you are comparing that to someone who literally suggests violent action against people of his own country. I am sorry but things are not white and black.
I find it funny that most people on HN despise politicians but on the other hand are very happy to keep their cosy job for ad-tech/vc-fueled/well-paid companies instead of doing their part.
Try running for mayor of a small/medium city and see how well you respond for corruption after a few years of constant harassment.
Orban gerrymandered his way to infinite rule, begs EU for money then gives the same money to his cronies or to himself, builds palatial estates for himself and his family, and has basically positioned Hungary as a one-party country masquerading as a European democracy.
Agree on Von der Leyen also masquerading as a democratically elected politician, when in reality she was just slotted into place by German politicians who wanted her so far away from the Bundestag because she was just that much incompetent.
Lobbyists work for money, not the love of the game or ideological conviction. There's really no inherent reason why a former lobbyist will retain a loyalty to a former employer now that they've moved on.
the problem is if the money they get isn't as simple as "the current salary"
also the chance that they a) don't have a sentiment about meta, b) ex-colleges they have good relations too and c) now about some internal workings is close to nothing
a) a is bad no matter if it's a positive or negative
b) is very bad, it pretty much guarantees some degree of non objective actions. Like in positions like lobbyist it's never "just bussiness" it's always about positive connections reinforced by positive interactions not "big" enough to be bribes but also not nothing. Which might be related to how they got this job.
c) is a potential even bigger problem, if the sentiment is negative this insider knowledge could be used to harm meta, which in turn gives meta munition to sue and hinder regulatory actions and for a positive sentiment they might subtle change decisions because they know how they "happen to unluckily collide with how meta does things" and similar. But they really shouldn't do that.
Worse even if the person acts perfectly neutral meta can try to fight/delay legislation just by "claiming" this person did abuse insider knowledge.
Lastly how do you know that there isn't an unofficial deal that meta will pick them up again with a superb salary after they happened to do subtly meta friendly politics.
Like don't get me wrong, the person might be cable to act neutral and there might not be any under the table agreements. It's even quite likely. But it's a pretty bad idea anyway because it stinks of corruption no matter if it actually involves corruption.
And it's not like Irland has a problem with decisions biased in benefit for big US tech they have even been sued over by the EU....
I mean positive sentiment between people they worked with might literally have gotten them the job (as they most likely worked with people which have influence on this hiring decision during their time as lobbyist. And a huge part of lobby work is to create positive personal connections with people from the other side through whatever mean is possible which doesn't count as bribe. You could say positive personal sentiment is the WD40(lubricant) of smooth manipulation of political outcomes)
I remember reading (here's the trigger for some people to stop reading) Paul Krugman's writing about Greek politicians and the Brussels set: if the Greek leaders just follow what Brussels want, they can guarantee their spot in some cushy position afterwards, and what Brussels set (lobbied by German banks) wanted was austerity for Greeks in order to repay the loans the German banks gave out freely, knowing that because the country was in the Eurozone, the ECB will bail them out.
Meanwhile the socialist Syriza party were obviously former activists who were going to fight for the Greek people, and Brussels knew they won't be persuaded to follow the script...
The delicious irony that my entire screen on mobile is filled with two popups (a smaller one for notifications, a much larger one for cookies)
Ireland felt the external pressure to stop being a US big tech tax haven. But how can we keep those dollars while unloading the negative externalities onto the rest of the EU? I have a great idea - let's pivot to being a US big tech data compliance haven! They'll keep their legal HQ here for sure if we just let them wink wink nudge nudge get away with everything.
Despicable behavior, Ireland should be considered similar to Hungary in their obstruction of EU laws at the cost of everyone else.
I keep hearing how everyone keeps saying "Hungry evil" but can anyone explain me what exactly has Hungary done to harm mutually beneficial EU efforts? Other than Orban being corrupt and unpopular because the same applies to most politicians at EU level especially Ursula vs Leyen.
Now on this topic here, this story is as old as time, with big-corpo and government regulators being just different elements of the same revolving door, yet somehow it's not considered corruption because you can't prove it in court. So what's the solution here?
I don't want Ireland kicked out of the EU, and that isn't even legally possible to begin with, but I also don't want a member state enjoying EU benefits while sabotaging the other members States for personal gain, even if that wouldn't be the first and last time an EU country engages in self centered activities at the expense of everyone else.
Hungary suspected of spying for Russia, in der Spiegel (also in Le Monde but no translated link):
> Other than Orban being corrupt and unpopular because the same applies to most politicians at EU level especially Ursula vs Leyen.I am so tired of these "they are all bad anyway" stances. AFAIK, Ursula van der Leyen is not actively supporting a country who invaded a EU neighbour some years ago or routinely performs assassinations on EU territory. Also, I do not think she is actively criticizing the EU whenever she has the opportunity while pocketing as much money from it as she can. Maybe we could talk about Orban stance wrt democracy and people rights.
I don't especially like Ursula van der Leyen, I think she is the usual misdirected pro-market believer the kind we had too much in EU so far. But she is not that bad.
I guess they are the same anyway.
All that said, Ireland action is bad but not that bad.
> "they are all bad anyway" stances
I agree van der Leyen is a corrupt, lobby friendly politician with some strange ideas (in my opinion).
But she isn't "evil" or someone who would commit treason or anything like that.
She also isn't incompetent in the way a lot of media in German loves to paint here. Actually she even seem quite competent wrt. some of the core skills of politicians. This doesn't mean I don't think a lot of here decisions are supper misguided, but that is a clash of beliefs and ideals which is not the same as incompetence.
>But she isn't "evil" or someone who would commit treason or anything like that. [...] She also isn't incompetent
Can you share any examples where she shined to back up all that glazing? Because I can back up the contrary.
what glazing?
> "evil" or someone who would commit treason or anything like that
is a really low bar
and do you really think you become President of the European Commission by being severely incompetent? If she where as severely incompetent as some media likes to picture she would at best have been complimented away to some mostly irrelevant position, not one of the highest position in the EU organs.
I asked you to point out her achievements and you just glazed her further on the basis that "you can't possibly fail upwards to a high level leadership position" when a lot of people in recently history have, and in her position it's not even that hard to do when business interests use their money and influence to guarantee that their preferred puppet sorry I meant candidate gets there, especially that the process for the position she's in is appointed by committee selection and not by direct election by the people.
And maybe some of the media portray her as incompetent because it's their job to investigate politics and they notice more of her fuckups than you do, especially given your lack of positive examples for her.
>I am so tired of these "they are all bad anyway" stances.
What evidence do you have they are not all bad? I can't think of too many major high level EU leaders that people would consider to be a net positive.
>Hungary suspected of spying for Russia
Are you aware that former German and Austrian politicians are on the payroll of Russian oil and gas companies and Putin even came to the wedding s of some of them? Are you aware Austrian banks still operate in Russia profiting?
Yet I never hear anyone blaming Austrian every 5 minutes the same way they do Hungary.
Why the double standards where all the blame in on Hungary yet other EU members fly under the radar for much more pro-Russia cooperation and profiteering?
>Also, I do not think she is actively criticizing the EU whenever she has the opportunity while pocketing as much money from it as she can.
Then why did she delete her messages with Pfizer? You're right, she's not profiteering, she's just helping her puppet masters profiteer. Big difference.
> What evidence do you have they are not all bad? I can't think of too many major high level EU leaders that people would consider to be a net positive.
A net positive compared to what? To have nobody at the head of the state and have anarchy? Or compared to the next one who wants the job?
Let's be concrete. I live in France, which currently is not going to give anyone lessons about governance. Current president is Macron. Is he evil bad, super corrupt? I do not think so. He is a bad mix of arrogance, naivety and brilliance in some domains. In the end, his run will end with average results as best, but not for lack of trying. It does not make him evil bad.
Previous one, Hollande was nice guy out of his league. Mediocre at best. But not evil or corrupt.
Previous one, Sarkozy, was brilliant and corrupt. He is going to jail next month. Still nowhere as bad as Orban on the civil rights front.
Regardless, all of them are better than having Le Pen (far right) as president. Who is already known to be corrupt populist and a Russian puppet.
I am afraid this is another of these "perfect is the enemy of the good" conversation.
Same with Van der Leyen. Fair enough she may have taken money from Pfizer and whatnot. But you are comparing that to someone who literally suggests violent action against people of his own country. I am sorry but things are not white and black.
I find it funny that most people on HN despise politicians but on the other hand are very happy to keep their cosy job for ad-tech/vc-fueled/well-paid companies instead of doing their part.
Try running for mayor of a small/medium city and see how well you respond for corruption after a few years of constant harassment.
Orban gerrymandered his way to infinite rule, begs EU for money then gives the same money to his cronies or to himself, builds palatial estates for himself and his family, and has basically positioned Hungary as a one-party country masquerading as a European democracy.
Agree on Von der Leyen also masquerading as a democratically elected politician, when in reality she was just slotted into place by German politicians who wanted her so far away from the Bundestag because she was just that much incompetent.
>Orban gerrymandered his way to infinite rule
Pretty sure he's not immortal.
> gives the same money to his cronies or to himself
So like every politician ever? I don't think the ones in my country are any better than Orban, they just have better PR.
Lobbyists work for money, not the love of the game or ideological conviction. There's really no inherent reason why a former lobbyist will retain a loyalty to a former employer now that they've moved on.
They will if they want to work in the industry again.
the problem is if the money they get isn't as simple as "the current salary"
also the chance that they a) don't have a sentiment about meta, b) ex-colleges they have good relations too and c) now about some internal workings is close to nothing
a) a is bad no matter if it's a positive or negative
b) is very bad, it pretty much guarantees some degree of non objective actions. Like in positions like lobbyist it's never "just bussiness" it's always about positive connections reinforced by positive interactions not "big" enough to be bribes but also not nothing. Which might be related to how they got this job.
c) is a potential even bigger problem, if the sentiment is negative this insider knowledge could be used to harm meta, which in turn gives meta munition to sue and hinder regulatory actions and for a positive sentiment they might subtle change decisions because they know how they "happen to unluckily collide with how meta does things" and similar. But they really shouldn't do that.
Worse even if the person acts perfectly neutral meta can try to fight/delay legislation just by "claiming" this person did abuse insider knowledge.
Lastly how do you know that there isn't an unofficial deal that meta will pick them up again with a superb salary after they happened to do subtly meta friendly politics.
Like don't get me wrong, the person might be cable to act neutral and there might not be any under the table agreements. It's even quite likely. But it's a pretty bad idea anyway because it stinks of corruption no matter if it actually involves corruption.
And it's not like Irland has a problem with decisions biased in benefit for big US tech they have even been sued over by the EU....
There's no inherent reason they wouldn't retain favor for their former colleagues and friends from my viewpoint
I mean positive sentiment between people they worked with might literally have gotten them the job (as they most likely worked with people which have influence on this hiring decision during their time as lobbyist. And a huge part of lobby work is to create positive personal connections with people from the other side through whatever mean is possible which doesn't count as bribe. You could say positive personal sentiment is the WD40(lubricant) of smooth manipulation of political outcomes)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) => huge potential for conflicts of interest. That's why you should avoid this sort of thing in most cases.
I remember reading (here's the trigger for some people to stop reading) Paul Krugman's writing about Greek politicians and the Brussels set: if the Greek leaders just follow what Brussels want, they can guarantee their spot in some cushy position afterwards, and what Brussels set (lobbied by German banks) wanted was austerity for Greeks in order to repay the loans the German banks gave out freely, knowing that because the country was in the Eurozone, the ECB will bail them out.
Meanwhile the socialist Syriza party were obviously former activists who were going to fight for the Greek people, and Brussels knew they won't be persuaded to follow the script...