variaatio

The important part of these are the "do, don't" orders of business conduct. Then on top small fine. Hence it isn't merely cost of doing business. The real stinger is "you can't offer choice of tracking or pay up. You must offer free choice to decline for consent based operations".

If they ignore the "do's and dont's" compliance order, then the big fines come out.

And this is how it is supposed to happen. By vote of democratic representative body. Not by President of the United States or President of the Commission of European Union body their sole decision being able to decide such stuff.

By the way there is chance this whole thing in USA is unconstitutional. Since the taxing power is Congresses. POTUS can only use it where Congress has delegate power to POTUS via law.

Well the law Trump is citing talks of POTUS having right to issue economic sanctions in case foreign power threatens USA in major way. POTUS declares emergency. However the law doesn't mention tariffs. Rather whole thing is based on Whitehouse creatively interpreting, that well tariffing is maybe kinda sanction.

Which is crazy to me is not the main talking point. It is "how much the rates are and how badly calculated those are". When it should be " International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't give you power to do that. It allows you to sanction and ban exports and so on. It does not give power to tariff. For that there is different international trade regulatory law. However that law sets strict procedure and due diligence limits. Hey Whitehouse why are you doing unconstitutional thing".

That should be every journalists question on interview. Not will he, won't he. It should be "This is illegal, right? The act gives no taxing powers. You are taxing Americans without power to do so. IEEPA doesn't authorize this."

Is it April fools? please still be April's fools, checks calendar, dammit, not April's fools still. It's actually news.

Yeah pretty sure "thou shall know there is only, one one God and you shall believe in him" and

Article 10
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are in pretty strict violation. Not very "you get to change your religion, if you wish, that book" Didn't get past like first 5 commandments of Torah/Talmud and already disproven, that EU values are talmud derived. If they were, Article 10 wouldn't exist.

Atleast for android and Bluetooth. Not an absolute matter protocol thing, but probably "normal android allows that only woth google signed app". Some OS access thing and so on. "You don't get to access that Bluetooth matter discovery call mode etc. without official sign off, security hurdur".

Since matter has ways to connected fully without Bluetooth depending on device. Bluetooth is just the easy simple way, instead of having to hunt for pairing QR symbols or number codes. Go to the other device makers app to activate pairing mode or generate one off pairing codes and so on.

That is what juries are for. Judges are supposed to be the specialist technocrats of legal system. Juries are then for "feelings of the society" matters. Most importantly nobody has to campaign or owe anyone large sums of money to get into jury.

Electing judges in the first place undermines trust in neutrality of the courts. Since it undermines neutrality of the courts. It makes judges make campaign promises they have to keep to not anger people and makes them indebted to their campaign financiers.

Like how is this supposed shocking new news just because someone spent finally even more money on a judicial election race. Word combination which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Well to EU, the federal government is responsible. If they don't have authority to intervene on behalf of EU-citizens rights being violated, it in itself would be treaty violation. Member states have duty to police and administer the rights. EU doesn't care is state federal or not, the singular member state entity is responsible to EU and it is up to member state to domestically organize so that treaties are followed.

They should take this to ECJ. If I understand what I read correctly, this is clear treaty violation by Germany. Freedom of movement isn't some "oh we observe it, when we like it" thing. It is treaty bound obligation by member states who have ratified treaties. Take this all the way to ECJ and have it bonk bundestag and chancellery over the head with clown hammer of "it is pretty stupid you think treaty obligations arent legally binding mwmber state".

I've seen this claimed and if true I hope that a lot of people were convicted, not just her. Because I know for a fact that this exact setup has been used by other MEPs.

And you have done your civic duty and reported these cases of crime you know of happening to prosecutors/law enforcement?

Yes, if anyone else was doing it, they should be charged. Even in this case, it wasn't merely Le Pen. The case involved over 10 people being charged for various roles in misappropriation funds.

The size of the stick is purely about comfort level. You seriously suggest 140 million Russians will beat 480 million European union population. With better industrial capacity, more planes and so on.

They bogged down with 40 million Ukrainians.

What having USA buys "it isn't even a fight". Which seems to be many peoples comfort level. My comfort level is "99% it isn't a fight, 1% it is a fight, it won't be a walk over picnic to Moscow".

I also could get driven over by a drunk driver tomorrow and that is more likely, than Russia attacking us in next decade even without USA on our side.

"Owwww please daddy USA, save us from having to have any level of risk to concern with at all, 1% of risk is too much risk".

Good of him to notice, the campaign seems to be working then. Thus carry on and continue demonstrating and boycotting people.