Apparently a moderator invited someone from an organization he profoundly dislikes to interview him. He regarded the person as discredited when the person stated he's a carpenter - and thus works with dead wood. His mind turned off. /2
When the carpenter pointed out that we can grow wood, the moderator curiously stated that we can also grow concrete - and now seems on a mission to confirm this wrong statement. Why is this tragic? /3
Because in this latest video the moderator explicitly states that cement is a disaster for the environment because of CO2. The carpenter, it is safe to say, would agree. And again - why is this tragic? /4
Because there's an intelligent debate to be had about sustainability. Is wood generally sustainable? What wood? Can concrete be made more sustainable? And how? But instead we pigeonhole people and on the basis of this close our brain. We don't listen. /5
The original show could have become a good, interesting and informative one we need. Instead, we get attempts at discrediting people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
France was contemplating measures. Apparently in a press meeting these were discussed under the heading of "seafood ban" (h/t @jonhenley ). This lead to the times report. thetimes.co.uk/article/france…
Now a seafood ban in my off-the-top-of-my-hat analysis seems to breach the TCA. (Is it a countermeasure? Cannot do those under the TCA if you don't find wording to support it). BUT...
So here we go: Why Weiss and K 3/21 (the decision of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal) are - in law - fundamentally different. A thread. Even I hope it won't be a long one. (Thread)
Let's start with the caveats. First of all there's a ton of writing on composition of Polish courts and all that. This is not a thread about those issues. Others have written competently about that.
Second caveat: I do not read Polish, I have to rely on the translation provided by the Polish Court itself. I do not like the translation the BVerfG provides. I assume there will be problems with the Polish Court's translation, too. But let's assume the basics are ok.
What I learned from twitter today about the driver shortage: the statistics of which country lacks how many drivers are all problematic. Why?
Because the implication of that number is unclear. Poland, for example, lacks far more drivers than the UK. But the reason is that Poland is a market for drivers servicing logistics all over the EU.
Cross-border delivery of services and cabotage have a significant impact on the reality of EU trucking that is poorly represented by "X drivers are missing".
The capacity to correct mistakes. A Brexit tragedy in 3 acts. (Thread)
Act 1: The realization that the EU is slow in correcting mistakes. Motivating some people to say we need to leave the EU.
To build a majority, those who simply don't want to be in the EU and those who have such abstract considerations are insufficient. Promises are made. Consequences talked down.
I fear I profoundly disagree with Andrew in this regard. Leaving for the sake of leaving as @iainmartin1 expresses here is entirely legitimate - and we would be better of if people had been frank and open about this. Let me explain this point of view (thread)
@iainmartin1 But I do not want to explain this in terms of Brexit, but in terms of Switzerland (yes, I did that once years ago, but it‘s worthwhile to recall that). So here we go: Switzerland is a great country. Richer than we are. And many would say more democratic than many /2
However, I do not want to be part of Switzerland. Personally I do not get the Swiss type of democracy, I cannot emotionally relate to the magic formula at all and would not call Switzerland more democratic. But it‘s the Swiss way and that‘s fine with me from the outside. /3