Zum Rindfleisch-"Abkommen" mit Trump

FOCUS-Wortlaut: "Die Europäer dürften bald mehr amerikanisches Rindfleisch essen."

Aha, wir "dürfen" statt wir "sollen" und "müssen" freilich nicht, denn ohnehin ratsam, dass wir weniger Fleisch futtern.

"Im Gegenzug" soll es um Autozölle gehen, aber steht davon etwas im Vertrag?

Scheint nicht der Fall, denn sonst hätte Trump nach Unterzeichnung des Abkommens nicht "scherzen" können, dass die EU demnächst 25-prozentigen Einfuhrzöllen auf BMW und Mercedes zustimmen werde.

Was also ist "Gegenleistung" dieses Abkommens? Das EU-Parlament muss noch zustimmen. Dann wird diese Frage eine Hauptrolle spielen, die bislang so unkommunziert ist.

BREXIT, ein Schwarzer Tag nicht nur für Europa

Denn nichts wird besser durch Nationalismus. - Ein Schwarzer Tag auch für meinen Ausweis, wenngleich ich keine Veranlassung hatte, anderswo in der EU zu leben, aber genau auch das ist Freiheit, dass ich etwas dürfte, ob ich es brauche oder nicht. Viele Leut' merken es erst und zu spät, wenn sie es brauchen:-)
Doch so erbärmlich das Ergebnis auch ist, so ist es dennoch zu respektieren, denn wenn für derart weitreichende Entscheidungen einfache Mehrheiten für Beitritt genügten, dann auch für den Austritt, 51,9 % (72% Beteiligung). - Die niedrigen Hürden waren schon falsch. Und ohne Referendum, wie in unserem Land, schon erst recht nicht besser.
Aber bitte nicht missverstehen, denn ich befürworte ein starkes Repräsentativsystem, weil ich keine Lust hätte, mich jeden Sonntag zu "Volksabstimmungen" zwingen zu lassen, die sich Opponierende zum Hobby machen und dann "Mehrheiten" bekommen, die nicht den wirklichen Mehrheiten entsprechen.
Demokratie ist eine große und ewige Baustelle, auch weil sich Bauteile verschleißen. Wer zu faul zum Mitdenken, Mitbauen ist, soll sich über die eigene Faulheit beim lieben Gott beschweren.

THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR 2012

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 is to be awarded to the European Union (EU).
The union and its forerunners have for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe. In the inter-war years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee made several awards to persons who were seeking reconciliation between Germany and France. Since 1945, that reconciliation has become a reality. The dreadful suffering in World War II demonstrated the need for a new Europe. Over a seventy-year period, Germany and France had fought three wars. Today war between Germany and France is unthinkable. This shows how, through well-aimed efforts and by building up mutual confidence, historical enemies can become close partners.
In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined the EU. The introduction of democracy was a condition for their membership. The fall of the Berlin Wall made EU membership possible for several Central and Eastern European countries, thereby opening a new era in European history. The division between East and West has to a large extent been brought to an end; democracy has been strengthened; many ethnically-based national conflicts have been settled.
The admission of Croatia as a member next year, the opening of membership negotiations with Montenegro, and the granting of candidate status to Serbia all strengthen the process of reconciliation in the Balkans. In the past decade, the possibility of EU membership for Turkey has also advanced democracy and human rights in that country.
The EU is currently undergoing grave economic difficulties and considerable social unrest. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to focus on what it sees as the EU’s most important result: the successful struggle for peace and reconciliation and for democracy and human rights. The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.
The work of the EU represents "fraternity between nations", and amounts to a form of the "peace congresses" to which Alfred Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will.
Oslo, 12 October 2012 http://nobelpeaceprize.org/

10 arguments against the US radar

Infos from www.nezakladnam.cz

1. There is no substantial difference between a radar base and a missile base. They are two integral parts of the same system and they can’t be separated either technically or politically. The whole system can be used both in defense and in offense.
2. If our country plays host to this extraordinarily powerful and technically advanced U.S. radar base, we will become a tool of the unilateral U.S. foreign policy, which is aimed at military hegemony and the so-called war against terrorism. This war has thusfar succeeded only in increasing terrorism, destroying Iraq, destabilizing the region and giving rise to the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
3. Our membership in NATO places no obligation on us to accept the radar base. The construction of the radar base is a unilateral action of the United States.
4. The base will not make us more secure. On the contrary, it will place us in greater danger. At the present time, the Czech Republic has no enemies among states. And missiles and radars are not effective in combatting terrorism.
5. Just as in the case of a missile base, the Czech Republic would have no say in what happens at a U.S. radar base on our soil or what would truly be installed there. The base would be completely under the control of U.S. Air Command in Europe.
6. Such a base whether with radar or missiles will increase international tension, particularly in relation to Russia, and intensify an international arms race, which could spark a serious conflict.
7. Such a base is a potential target for attack. In the event of a conflict between states which own medium-range ballistic missiles, a radar base would be a first priority target.
8. The construction of more bases threatens to spark new cycles of armament around the world. In developing countries, this results in the deepening of poverty for already desperate populations. In Europe, it could mean the end of state ensurance of social security.
9. The effects of such a high-power radar system on nearby residents are not known. The only similar systems are located in remote and unpopulated areas.
10. Effective defense against the threats of terrorism and war requires a decrease in international tension. New bases, which increase tension, will certainly not help in this regard.