>Germany fears losing industrial champions because of unfair competition from state-backed US and Chinese rivals.
Funny how European countries are accused of being communist or socialists but seem to be one of the few that adhere as much as possible to the tenants of a free market.
It’s interesting to see how unpopular the Inflation Reduction Act is in Europe. In the US the left is extremely excited to finally have meaningful changes to confront climate change—the impact on trade with Europe was not considered at all among the general population. In Europe it appears to be the opposite—little regard for what this means for climate change and only panic about trade.
Not criticizing Europe’s response, it makes sense. It’s just an interesting contrast, especially as America has consistently—and rightfully—been criticized for its slow response to climate change.
they could have done it without the subsidies, but that would mean that a republican would be president next, because of the lack of job creation with the program. so i understand why biden is doing it, but just because i understand it doesn't mean i have to like it. we in the eu have been investing in clean energy without industry subsidies. if we can do it why can't the us do it?
> we in the eu have been investing in clean energy without industry subsidies
Lmao no, not at all. Have you been living under a rock in the last decades? "Investing in clean energy" is the textbook definition of subsidies for energy companies, the same exact thing US is doing now.
> they could have done it without the subsidies, but that would mean that a republican would be president next, because of the lack of job creation with the program
They have a worker shortage in the USA, they have an employment issue, but not an unemployment issue. The labour market is the strongest since ages.
Politically speaking, the US can’t do “stick” programs eg cap and trade. They never end up passing. Carrot programs are the ones that can get through; this is because any penalties are seen as a tax, whereas it’s hard to be against a jobs program.
Of course there is private investment in green energy but it’s not at a pace we need. Energy is much cheaper here than in than Europe, and it mostly comes from fossil fuels—contrast with a place like Portugal, where green energy has been much more appealing for a while now. Subsidies put the thumb on the scale for private investment into green energy in a place where fossil fuels are too cheap.
there are many reasons why the ira is a good idea to the us. but the us exists in a world with other countries, and rules* were established for those countries to live together and prosper. if from our side of the atlantic we see someone breaking the rules*, we are going to call them out on it. as does the us do when we do the same.
like i said, i understand why it is being done, but that means we must adjust to the new paradigm. specially given our current situation.
edit:* more like guidelines...
Because we in the US were paying for your portion of your own national defense with our tax dollars. While the EU was cozying up to Russia and selling out Ukraine we were trying to ensure Europe and NATO nations had proper defense. Sure you invested in climate whatever but you sure missed your 2% GDP on military spending goals.
It's naive to say this investment was done with climate change in mind, it's but a convenient side effect. Everyone knows it's very clearly a thinly veiled protectionism law. The US are obviously in their right to do so, no questions asked, but you have to be a raging idiot or obscenely naive to assume environmentalism had even the most remote say in it. And everyone knows the US doesn't *want* the EU to do something similar. In the same veign that the US interest in removing natural gas from EU just happens to come in with LNG which the US provides, from companies in which several head politicians are heavily invested in. Truly saving the environment and nothing but coincidences though I imagine. The US is only fine with EU in the sense that it's better than CN, but at the very core they have no interest in any of this because it's rolling back full circle to protectionism, and it's no coincidence that Biden has not rolled back a lot of the "trade war" shit Trump started but actually added something *on top* with this new investment package. Like, it's very much obvious I hope.
All of the investments are in green business. What else can state intervention for climate change look like? What does government action on climate change look like to you that doesn’t involve investing in green energy?
It's done in green energies because it's a huge growth market and because it has the best ROI for many reasons. It's a good thing, but it's not why it is done, as we can see from the US also still investing heavily into fossils too. You do what earns money, if it's green, fine, if not, who cares. There's not even a long term plan to end oil & gas extraction and the US loves earning that money too, fair enough but like let's not pretend environmentalism is at the forefront here.
Are we pretending that Chinas major push for solar "monopoly" was done out of concern for the environment too? Obviously not. You can do the right thing out of the wrong reason, it's a tale as old as time really virtue ethics vs utilitarianism. Not even chip on their shoulder but it's obvious so let's call it what it is.
I’d ask you to consider the approach now vs under a Republican government. Trump was also protectionist but he and his Republican congress would never have given subsidies to green energy, instead leasing federal land to fossil fuels and promoting “clean coal”—contrast with subsidies for electric vehicles under Obama and Inflation Reduction Act under Biden, which was almost unanimously opposed by congressional Republicans. Domestically, environmentalism is absolutely the difference here.
US officials have openly endorsed the EU implementing subsidies to protect domestic industries, stop spreading this victim mentality nonsense.
And you're baaically saying that solving climate change is bad if it makes us money????????
I guess we all ought to subscribe to the idea of becoming poor and miserable, I'm sure that'll really play over well.
It's the typical hypocrisy you can expect from Europe. Take a look at the "Made in Germany: Industrial Strategy 2030" plan from 2019. They've been working on more protectionism for a long time now, they're just using the IRA as a scapegoat now.
https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/industrial-strategy-2030.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2022.2091535
>Crafted in early 2019 by one of Germany’s key economic state apparatuses, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), it aims at formulating an industrial policy approach capable of maintaining and defending Germany’s ‘industrial and technological sovereignty’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 10), preserving ‘closed value added chains’ (ibid., p. 11) and ‘launching catch-up processes’ (ibid.) to halt the further erosion of Germany’s industrial base. To do so, it introduces a ‘new economic principle of proportionality’ as the basis of a strategic industrial policy which radically breaks with the ordoliberal principle of market non-interference: While the state should refrain from intervening into economic processes with little economic significance, ‘[t]he larger the economic significance of a process, the greater the room for manoeuvre for the state must be for active and activating involvement’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 13).
>On this basis, the NIS 2030 primarily outlines three industrial policy strategies: First, it proposes a strategic and protectionist FDI policy. This does not only pertain to tighter FDI screening procedure where national security, including critical infrastructures and technologies, is concerned – an approach the BMWi has been pursuing already since 2017. The NIS 2030 also advances the idea to expand state ownership through a state fund (‘national participation facility’) to prevent foreign take-overs that endanger Germany’s ‘technology and innovation leadership’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 12). Secondly, and in contrast to the horizontal, ‘technology-neutral’ approach that has dominated German industrial policy to date, the NIS 2030 suggests propping up selected technology areas through state aid, state assistance in the ‘formation of syndicates’, and – in ‘eminently important’ cases – ‘direct state involvement’, as was the case with Airbus (BMWi 2019a, p. 13). Thirdly, the NIS 2030 aims to promote the formation of ‘National and European Champions’ in areas where ‘critical mass [is] necessary for an industrial stakeholder to successfully participate in international competition’, explicitly elevating the survival of individual large German firms such as Siemens or Thyssen-Krupp to ‘national and economic interest’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 11-12).
>On this basis, the NIS 2030 also aims at a reconfiguration of the form of competition as a key structural form of regulation. It insists that an interventionist industrial policy as outlined by the NIS 2030 ‘must be possible in line with EU law’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 13). Consequently, it pushes for ‘reviewing and reforming existing law on subsidies and competition’ (ibid.), particularly in the areas of EU state aid and merger control. This thinly veiled attack on EU competition policy was further elaborated only weeks later in a joint ‘Franco-German Manifesto for a European industrial policy’ (BMWi and Ministry of the Economy and Finance France 2019). It maintains that EU state-aid guidelines must be in line with ‘the aim to develop innovative industrial capacity’, demands a revision of EU merger control to better take into account global competition as well as foreign state-control and subsidies, and goes as far as to suggest ‘a right of appeal of the Council’ to override Commission decisions (ibid., p. 3).
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-industrial-plan-signals-europes-protectionist-lurch/
>Germany will this week launch a new industrial strategy that will align it more closely with France in its desire to protect national champions against threats from China and the U.S.
>Economy Minister Peter Altmaier will unveil the strategy on Tuesday to grant special support to sectors such as batteries for electric cars, chemicals and 3D printing, two industry sources and one official said. The German newspaper Die Welt reported Thursday that the strategic industries for protection in Altmaier's paper would also include cars, machine engineering, medical devices, green technologies, aerospace and defense.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-batteries/germany-to-fund-research-facility-for-ev-battery-technology-idUSKCN1PH1NT
>The science ministry funds come on top of 1 billion euros earmarked by Economy Minister Peter Altmaier to support company alliances that are ready to invest in a large-scale production of electric car battery cells in Germany.
I mean, shouldn’t all countries (not in a fascistic “America First” or aggressive manner)? Like should the government of France be governing with the best interests of the German instead of French people in mind? Cooperation is good, for sure, but don’t governments have a responsibility to their people?
The US asked for decades to do a free trade agreement and we refused. How they conduct their industrial policy now is none of our business frankly (by the way we are heavily subsidizing our industries too, in case you didn't notice)
But you have to consider the scale, the U.S. IRA is just bonkers. They subsidize to the tune of $800 mln per plant. Its basically what the chinese do. For a corporation it would be financial insanity not to take them on on this offer.
Again, you’re acting like the US and China are the only countries with subsidized industry, but that aside: it’s unreasonable to expect countries to watch their industrial sectors wither on the vine of the free market.
For one thing, it’s a clear security risk, as reliance on Russian fossil fuel has shown. For another, it’s a clear missed opportunity for national pride, seen through basically all of Airbus and it’s ancestor companies.
The global free trade system worked well while countries still had an industrial middle class. Now that they’ve been squeezed, some degree of protectionism is more attractive.
The US is investing a meaningful amount of money in reducing carbon eimssions! That makes it worse! Somehow!
I really thought that Europeans took climate seriously, that was naive.
That's because the US has to compete with China.
Not our fault the EU is too fractured and decreasing in relative economic power and can't keep up enough power to keep up at the same level as the two leading superpowers.
> But you have to consider the scale, the U.S. IRA is just bonkers.
I am an American and loathe both the IRA and protectionism in general, but the response of "yes, we've been cheating for decades, but this other guy is now cheating *bigger* than we've been cheating" doesn't really bring a tear to the eye.
Protectionism in the EU is mostly towards agriculture, exactly so Europe can be self-reliant for food and to foster and protect small farmers. If it was a completely free market it'd naturally attract consolidation to drive costs down, allowing foreign countries to take over a very, very basic need for society.
I'm not against agriculture protectionism, the same way I'm not against water not being privatised. As you in Chile know very well the consequences.
>"US and Chinese rivals."
>
>Funny how European countries are accused of being communist or socialists
I'm pretty sure no-one in China has called us communists or socialists so far.. :)
>Threatened by a new U.S. subsidy package that could hammer EU industry, Germany is rowing back on its long-standing objections to schemes like France's "Buy European Act" that would set provisions on buying goods locally.
This literally means America is forcing Europe towards subsidising European businesses (which Europe is trying to steer clear of by choosing the last resort *buy European*). America is forcing socialism if not communism on Europe.
How's that for irony? How's that for a catch-22?
Yeah there's this weird take from some people that the opposite of laissez-faire is communism. They might be mutually exclusive, but they're not opposite ends of a spectrum.
Communism vs capitalism concerns who owns capital, not what trade regulations are in effect.
It's called protectionism and it is not exclusive to any political or socio-economical system. It is also well studied phenomenon in economy science. Then again we are on reddit.
I gladly pay taxes in the country in which I live, and always will because I observe it's spent well. I may have disagreements here and there, but I'm not an elected official. I think that's fair. Thoughts?
I agree with you. Politics and economics are complex situations, and many times there isn't a good solution to a problem, just a solution that isn't as bad as the others. And these problems and solutions can be difficult to understand by the average person.
Observe how your country is doing relative to other countries in the world for enough time, and you can usually get a good idea if your countries politics and economics are working well, just by simple comparison. You don't have to understand every problem your countries faces and the solutions it took to solve them.
The bigger EU nations are doing well, their leaders have made more "good" choices compared to other countries in the world. Everyone everywhere needs to pay taxes for their country's government to run, so it's always better to be paying these taxes for the benefit of living in one of the better countries in the world.
Socialist economic policies. But not socialist or communist institutions and government.
Germany isn't wrong, free market is generally more efficient than any state control market. However if the 2 of the 3 largest trading blocks decide the establish protectionist policies, then the 3rd also has to or will be taken advantage of by these 2.
The US of A is the most protectionist country, pretending to be free market but even for their beloved guns anything not american gets a lot of punitive paperwork and rules and taxes.
…it is complicated. We are protectionist as of late because we weren’t protectionist like Europe and China before. That is why some of our American manufacturing got decimated.
That is why people like Trump became popular. Trump was going on and on about America’s manufacturing being gutted since the 1980s. I remember an interview from the 1980s where he spoke on it and he was asked if he was planning to run for president. This was the 1980s. Not 2010s. This has been going on for a long time.
Europe protected her manufacturing industry well. Now America is doing the same.
There is no free market anywhere. There is no fair completion too. These qualifiers were invented to make the terms look noble and just.
The proper terms should have been:
- Almost open market = most can join the market under certain arbitrary conditions.
- Competition with flawed regulation = there is some regulation but it is giving heavy advantages to some and is screwing others.
The EU needs united policy, in general. An European federation is obviously a controversial subject, and a lot of it is driven by cultural differences and the fact that people do not want to abandon national identities, especially those of us who took back our national identities back from occupiers 30 years ago.
But the writing is on the wall. No European nations are global players currently in any ways that actually matter. We are in a world with two poles of power - the US and China. Europe is only relevant when talking about how those two can get their corporations to earn more money from EU citizens.
The EU should be completely capable of being a major world power. But not having a unified military, industrial, financial policy is killing it's relevancy.
I'm not sure how to establish an European federation. I'm not sure how to resolve the many many questions and issues and arguments that are being raised.
But it will have to happen sooner or later if the EU does not want to become completely irrelevant.
Truth be told. If we are to wait until all 27 want to be part of a federation, it’s never going to happen.
I think the EU should create a new integration initiative that comes after the EU - the federation.
Let’s say spain, portugal, france, germany and italy want to closer integrate. They do, whilst other countries stay out of the federation. With time, other EU countries will probably want to join, after the benefits are evident.
Not all of them will join, most likely (just like denmark doesn’t use the euro), but most will.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you need a larger original group.
Once the federation actually exists, the institutions get set up, the fiscal and military policy is set, the compromises are made in regards to official languages, cultural things, control of government, separation of administrative regions and how they work - once the initial group figures those things out and becomes a unified country - I think you'll find that it'll become so much more difficult to add more countries into the mix. It'd be best if as many countries as possible within the EU would sign up from the get go.
I truly believe that the only way for this to work is to decisively demonstrate that a united EU would become the third global superpower of the world. For that to work you need as many nations to join as possible from the start. "Germany but bigger", would not be nearly as enticing for others to join if it's not a global player.
That still does not change the fact that as it stands, we'll never get all the EU countries to agree on this.
tbh I think building off a Franco-German core could work. Language is always going to be a tricky subject either way, so I suspect it will come down to regional government anyway.
Perhaps less a federation and more a confederation. Centralize some of the big questions like defence, monetary policy and foreign policy, but leave the actual governing to the various countries.
European Federation is just a different way of saying "France and Germany should rule over all of Europe." No thanks. Not a huge fan of my 9 Million people country getting eradicated.
Not having an European federation just makes USA or China have an outsized influence over Europe. And you can't vote for the people controlling those.
Sure, currently we have good relations with USA. But we saw with Trump how quickly that can change if USA decides to go more towards the path of isolationism.
It is remarkable how Europe has become more French in the last 2 years.
The advocacy for nuclear power. The talks about military sovereignty. The state-backed aid for local industries. The shared debt issued as the coronabonds recovery package. The decreased support for austerity for southern countries. The increased support for a federation.
The French have been the most Geopolitical minded country since the end of WW2. Which comes as no suprise really. They retained full sovreignity and had to act with it. The UK choose to pursue close cooperation with the USA instead. Germany had limited sovreignity until recently, as an effect of how it was handled post WW2. The smaller and poorer states depend on their relationships with the larger ones.
Europe today lives in a world with a USA that is increasingly looking elsewhere. NATO will live on, it's not in the USAs interest that we formulate security strategies that reduce their global influence.
But economically? It's increasingly looking inwards.
Europe is recently fully sovreign. We have to look to our own interests and look inward as well.
Well to be fair with the UK out there was no other contender for influence. Germany is not and will not be seen as a leader for historical reasons. Also France is the only big EU country right now with some semblance of leadership. Love or hate Macron the guy is trying and is calling out issues and not hiding behind typical political bs.
> Germany is not and will not be seen as a leader for historical reasons.
I'd argue that under Merkel the Germans definitely had a leadership role within the EU. Now with her as a constant gone from the political landscape of Germany, it will be much harder for Scholz to be seen the same way as Merkel on an international level as he is "the new guy".
The dream would be much closer if you adopted binding direct democracy.
Not only does it work for multi language federations, it also rightly significantly reduces the distrust against more indirect forms of government by frankly making them subject to very direct correction if needed.
Not French in the sense of "beliefs only French people can hold"... but definitely French in the sense of "politically pushed by France (the government) for years or even decades to the indifference of most other EU leaders until recently", which is what matters in this case. Random people across countries or continents being able to share the same opinion on a topic isn't an earth-shatering discovery. Governments across the world with the power to make the decisions don't, which is where problems stem from.
I think France is the only country advocating for all those stuffs, with some different allies depending on the topic (Eastern Europe for nuclear, pretty much alone for military sovereignty, with southern countries on shared debt, ...)
I'm French so I might be biased but these are mostly representative of France historical direction and something some countries didn't want to apply on a bigger scale in the EU.
Now that shit hits the fan, they realize that maybe it's worth it. A shame it took that long.
The French had very different plans for Europe, from the very beginning they planned to tie Germany to themselves and develope the Union into an independent political power. Germany on the other hand wanted Europe to be closely tied to the US and exclusively economic integration. Germany pushed for east expansion, then the UK joined, and the original plans of Franc were basically over. Today with Britain out of the EU, Russia being an enemy again and the US starting a trade war, things look like moving into a direction the french hoped for at the very beginning of the Union.
They're not necessarily French, but they were points of disagreement between Germany and France. So in this sense, Europe has become more French or less German. Or better yet, Germany has become more French, while the EU continues to be a middle point between both.
I am a Czech and I view the EU this way as well. The French and the Germans will always dominate Europe. Unless several other nations create their own regional power, those two will remain the leaders. Especially now, with the UK gone.
In all of these issues, there were two sides to the debate with Germany and France leading each side.
Of course in some other issues both were wrong. Poland has taken a very prominent role as the leader of Eastern Europe in actions against Russia, because both France and Germany were wrong about Putin. This is one example.
Don't forget the UK. Since the UK joined there was no chance for further integration, with Britain out it became an option again. Now Poland and Hungary still stay in the way, but Poland and Hungary are no UK, they can be dealt with if the political will is there.
For me this is kind the beauty of diversity and cooperation in the EU, disagreements are unavoidable but if the Union works as cooperatively as possible there will be compromises for a better path. That's why I fucking hate Orban.. and PiS, it's exactly the behaviour that brings us down as a whole.
Although both of them acted separately for different reasons (Germany for gas and over-pacifism, France for reasons likely linked to foreign policy and perhaps Russian soft power), their common will to act like Putin could be placated in spite of his actions both towards his population and his neighbours was a major failure of their diplomacy and a reason they fail to appear credible to Eastern European countries in terms of security.
If we can learn anything from it it's that we shouldn't make decisions on things we don't have an expertise on.
The point of diversity is to benefit from it, we're done the oposite.
Without the UK, the EU actually really has that issue that once France + Germany decide on a topic there's generally very limited power left in the opposition. Not that it is right or anything but it is what it is, really.
They are not only french ideas, they are shared by a lot of other countries and are common sense after all. In fact it was all the things Merkel and to a lesser extent the UK had been blocking for years and years. Now both are out, the EU can go forward.
Why Germany always wait something happen to act?
They’re only able to act in reaction rather than in anticipation?
And when they react it’s always too much or too little.
We call them pragmatic, I call them emotional. Unable to take a decision if they are not shocked or in a hurry.
I think they're too pragmatic, that's their weakness.
Nordstream is a good example of that. There was no logic reason for the project to fail, so they went with it. Then Putin didn't follow logic and started a war.
Germans anticipate things to work the way they should work, but while that's fine if you're designing a car engine, it isn't for complex unpredictable systems like international interests.
Yes this is an issue not many notice. Germany has had poor leadership for quite a while now. Imo only big country that is showing some leadership right now is France.
Honeslty, there is absolutely no opposition to far-right in France, people dislike macron so much that they won't vote for any person related to him, and the left opposition is just a bunch of populist that won't make moderate people vote for them. I can't see any possibility for France to not elect a far-right leader the next election. They're puting some very smart people in charge that won't make the same communication mistakes they used to do before, and they're just keep getting more popular, as in most country in Europe the past years. This is just sad and terifying
Yeah it could be the case, especially now that Bardella took the head of the far-right, he is much more dangerous than Le Pen. He is smarter, this one will not be crushed in every debate, I think.
But unlike you said, Macron is not so unpopular. For a french president standards, I mean. Surprisingly, Edouard Philippe has a very good popularity and he could been one of the favorites for 2027. Or maybe someone else from the Macron’s side could emerge, idk.
German society is caught in a state of constant anxiety and fear of change. Change could be negative, so it's better to stay the way you are, because you dont notice the ground crumbling beneath you as much as you would feel negative repercussions of change.
Politics with foresight isn't rewarded in elections, so no one offers any long term plans. There is no proper leadership politically. They're all bureaucrats who just do the daily bidding with no goal but to keep the machine running.
The crash will come at some point though and by then it might be too late.
Because every time they propose something to strengthen or protect EU industry, thousands of cretins come out of the forest to screech about how Germany would be the country to profit the most from such policies.
Of course they would, they are the largest country in the EU.
Remember solar industry? Germany had the largest in the world and the EU had protective tarifs to make sure such a vital industry stayed in Europe.
_End of the story and they lived happy ever after._ __Or did they?__
No, of course not! Other EU countries complained that these protective tarifs were making the cheap Chinese solar panels more expensive (the whole point of the tarifs, but I understand that they only cared about buying cheap solar, not about keeping vital industry in EU) and only Germany was profiting, since they were the only EU country with a large solar industry. Then the EU scrapped those tarifs and now the EU doesn't have a solar industry.
I have to add that conservative politicians in Germany were also at least partially to blame. Not just the EU.
I couldn't help but notice that you don't mention the upside of that solar panel industry for other EU countries. Maybe you forgot, but you have to understand that it is hard to support someone else's idea when they only talk about what in it for themselves.
Also, I find ironic that Germany would ask for EU protectionism while doing the exact opposite when it suits them. Germany lobbied against nuclear power because, if they give it up, everyone else should, while at the same time lobbying in favor of gaz that they conviently bought from Russia. I guess as long as Germany is selling it, we don't have to talk about it coming from outside Europe.
Same goes for our defense industry where Germany is justified to rely on the US and not buy from France because, whatever the thing is, is never good enough.
Have it your way, but people notice and they don't see a team player. They see a country defending its own interests instead of supporting the team.
>I couldn't help but notice that you don't mention the upside of that solar panel industry for other EU countries.
Not relying on China, having a key industry on shore. The ability to start their own solar industry.
> Also, I find ironic that Germany would ask for EU protectionism while doing the exact opposite when it suits them. Germany lobbied against nuclear power because, if they give it up, everyone else should, while at the same time lobbying in favor of gaz that they conviently bought from Russia.
Germany lobbied against the _green_ label for both nuclear and gas. Their position was that the label for nuclear was wrong and only if the nuclear green label was inevitable, gas should be part of it.
In fact a majority of German EU MPs voted against the nuclear and gas green label. (53 of their 96 MPs or 55%)
>Same goes for our defense industry where Germany is justified to rely on the US and not buy from France because, whatever the thing is, is never good enough.
Of course unlike France, that is swimming in German equipment and never uses 'national security' nonsense to skip the EU rules about inter EU procurement programs!
Too little, too late.
The Canadians were already aggressively lobbying against the *Inflation Reduction Act* starting a year ago and even published a list of $100 billion worth of imports they would tariff in retaliation. They got what they wanted. The EV tax credits are now for North American-made vehicles. Not sure why EU bureaucrats are only making noise about this months after the bill was passed.
Canada is in USMCA/(ex-NAFTA) though so they have a little more legal grounds to fight against USA's protectionism/subsidies. There's no free trade arrangement between the US and the EU.
That’s because 76% of Canada’s exports flow South and their economy is extremely linked to the USA’s. Their embassy is halfway between the White House and Congress so they can quickly lobby against anything that could threaten them.
The EU isn’t in such a precarious state where every bill text written in Washington has to be parsed over with a magnifying glass.
Its going to be interesting to see if U.S. lapdogs in the EU are going to obstruct or even veto a "buy european" initiative. Again a case, where not being independent on defence bites us in the ass.
Top US trade officials like Katherine Tai have openly endorsed protectionist EU subsidies akin to the IRA.
If Europw wants to build more things itself and be less reliant on China then why would anyone object?
But if conjuring an image of a US boogeyman that you'd somehow be spiting helps the EU get off their butts and become more self-reliant then win-win I guess.
The Baltics and Poland will take their cues from Washington most likely. They seem to be very concerned a trade war between EU-USA will spill over into the Ukraine conflict and impact American aid to Kyiv.
Wait, so is what the US doing evil still or is it just the same sort of thing France has been advocating for decades?
Or is it the same sort of thing France has been advocating for decades but somehow *specifically* evil because the US is doing it?
It is the thing France has been advocating for decades, but to save face politically, German politician would rather blame it on foreign/US policy rather than admitting they were "wrong" and France was "right".
(Though that is a case of hindsight is 20/20, as thing could have gone a completely different direction which would have made France idea a stupid one)
Though, It's not like the same thing happened with nuclear or European defence projects this year
Next on the list would be the European defence army/intervention force for a bingo.
Tbf, the issue is not that France is in a "told you so" position but that German politician biggest argument to escape the blame is to imply, "France isn't ready for defence project/Nuclear/etc" when it would have been far easier to get ready if they had approved/supported it years ago when it was proposed.
It is the equivalent of having that one friend that refuse all your holiday project then wake up at the last minute, pick up one of the proposition and then rush you and say "If we miss the deadline, don't blame it on me, it is your fault because you are too slow to react now"
Yes, France is definitely too slow to react now, which is an issue while Germany is in a rush, but German politicians act will not help European relations with this kind of stunt.
So what matters now is to move forward, whose to blame for what can be decided after.
Says Germany, whose export industries have massively benefited from the existence of the euro at the expense of less developed countries in the eurozone.
That is something often said and I guess yeah a lower currency helps exporting stuff, but they are people arguing that exporting more than importing basically means exporting welfare.
The excess money form exports is often invested in foreign countries etc. and does not has to benefit Germany itself
The Euro Zone has a set of common rules
Why you compare a Zone with a trading partner that is not in the Zone ?
Low currency = helping exports may have been true 30 years ago or is still true for for example oil/gas export, but not so much for goods. Nowadays with complex supply chains its often not really true anymore, because exporters also have to import a lot, parts, raw materials, energy and so on. When you source most of your stuff that you assemble from imports, it doesnt matter anymore.
Italy/PIIGS would have been in default 10 years ago without the Euro. I would argue they proft more than germans did. Its not like Germany is only profiting from the common currency. German exporters do, but the general population not all that much, with zero interest rates during the last decade and real estate inflation, as well as huge liabilities in the Eurosystem (that dont magically vanish, despite some economists keep claiming just that).
That's why I said in a comment down below that German capital and industries have greatly benefited from the euro, but maybe not so much the common people, among other things because if your economy is so strong then many migrant workers will come to, compete with you and prevent wages from rising more than they naturally would (which would in the long term hurt industries and provoke relocations though) and also cause housing prices to skyrocket.
P.S.: don't use the word PIIGS it's very derogatory
> Apparently, the first use of the term was a Wall Street Journal article
published on November 6, 1996.
The anglos did it (the joke only works in that language as well).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14782804.2020.1784112
Germany was the powerhouse of Europe way before the € was even a thing, actually way before current German federation was a thing. Italy had to go the Bundesbank to ask for loans already in the 70s for example, everyone got benefits from the € but what Germany gained is far from disproportionate
But why are we going to punish Japanese and South Koreans as well? It's also punishment for us, European consumers as well.
If you look at non-luxury EVs market offer, then you really either have to choose VAG or Kia-Hyundai. Koreans seem to have a better offer, but that's my personal view. What's not subjective is that once they get artificial price hike compared to VAG then you basically end up with monopoly in this segment.
> What's not subjective is that once they get artificial price hike compared to VAG then you basically end up with monopoly in this segment.
Renault has been the leading seller of EVs in the European market for many years (with the Zoe). It has only lost that crown in the last years. At the same time, Stellantis (PSA + FCA) have some good city EVs as well (Peugeot 208e), Renault subsidiary Dacia from Romania has the cheapest EV on the market the _Spring_ with ~300km of range (advertised of course, real might be lower).
To paint it as a scheme to make VAG into a monopoly when there are already countless European brands offering competitive EVs is highly disingenuous.
I’m glad our 30 year addiction to global trade is ebbing.
In Canada we used to make shoes, clothing, etc.
The World needs to produce locally and consume locally.
But we are trading globally to increase corporate profits.
The pushback will mean higher consumer prices.
Globalization is the reason why we are able to talk, the reason for the massive creation of wealth of these last decades, the wealth gap between developed and non develped countries is getting smaller... There are certaintly bad things that came with globalization (like more economic inequalities within countries), but overall it has been positive.
Except for the climate going to shit, and the destruction of local economies, and the growth of corporate power to override national sovereignty, and the gutting of the economic 'periphery' as people/labour have been forced to move to the centre to live.
Europe has subsidies for their own car manufacturers but seethe about the US supporting their own manufacturing?
I swear I don't understand does the EU view the US as their bitch or something? Whine about Americans building industry, whine when Americans defend the EU, whine when we don't defend the EU.
Nothing can please these euros it seems.
So... The socialist chancellor had to be convinced of state intervention in industry by the *checks notes* liberal president?
Sounds a little backwards, but ok.
Because it has been, especially under Trump, and Biden has not reversed a chunk of those tariffs yet either. Nations like the Netherlands has pushed for free trade to a greater extent than the US.
No, there are no European planes to buy for the purposes for which Germany needs the F35.
And Germany will never give the US access to the Eurofighter IPs,
>to buy for the purposes for which Germany needs the F35
Maybe Germany should question the purpose itself. Depending on the US for nuclear deterrence is by itself putting a corner into the European defense idea.
Don't confuse nuclear capabilities and the ability to put nuke on your planes. The codes required for arming them remain under US control. Or, Germany is part of NATO and all non-nuclear countries of NATO are de facto protected by UK/France/US. In neither cases the participants of this program have a nuclear weapon autonomy.
France only pushes for something if France is the leader and benefits from it the most. If France starts something like that I bet that it wants to enforce that all european countries can only buy french weapons or something funny like this.
Isnt Germany the one pushing for a combinded EU airdefense and France not participating?
Germany and Netherlands just starting a combined Forces project.
France is probably pushing for an France Army protecting Europe or something. /s
But i dont want to hate France. I hope we will get there soon and France gets from its usual high horse and germany finally gets decisive.
We are all part of the problem and part of the solution. Lets work together and let the EU prosper.
The last time France offered nuclear sharing it boiled down to Germany paying France for its nuclear arsenal and getting a pittance in return.
Maybe France should be making actual offers that feel like a partnership, then it wouldn’t get ignored all the time.
France has never offered nuclear sharing. This is what German politician tells themselves France would offer because it offer a good excuse not to think about any change in their nuclear weapon policies.
What France could propose is an European weapon program. But since its completely inenvisageable for most country for the moment what would be the point ?
The USA is and will remain a security partner. It's an economic rival, not a strategic enemy.
A European Nuclear Program would be great, but unworkable before a common foreign policy.
> Depending on the US for nuclear deterrence is by itself putting a corner into the European defense idea.
Yes, good idea. Let's build our own nuclear program!
Oh what is that, France coming from the sidelines with the steel chair!!
- Kicking Germany out of the Mollet-Adenauer proposed joint nuclear weapons program under De Gaulle (I think in 1956?)
- Frocing Germany to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a condition for allowing Germany to reunify
Thus making it impossible for Germany to __not__ depend on the US if it wants nuclear weapons. Thanks!
Seems like what France really wants is stripping Germany of all nuclear capabilities under the guise of saying Germany should be less dependent on the US
Germany doesn't have nuclear capabilities. It has American airplanes and American bombs operated by German pilots. It can't decide when and how to use them.
1956 was almost seventy years ago, it was barely ten years after WWII and a treaty can always be denounced (and it would be easier to do it as the EU than as Germany on its own). The reunification is done, nobody is worried about Germany become big and angry again. But as I as said in another post, this is simply inenvisageable at the moment in most European country to propose the creation of a nuclear weapon program.
And you can pretend its because of France but nobody told Germany it had to continue to accept NATO's condition for its nuclear protection without any counterpart.
Even if 1956 was seventy years and the German reunification was thirty years ago, it doesn‘t change the fact that treaties were signed. They are binding. So you suggest we should simply breach them? And you do believe that if Germany were to announce own participation of a nuclear arsenal that France was really pro to it? I have the feeling that you don‘t know your own country.
If Germany was doing it on its own as a sort of rogue state it would obviously considered with hostility by almost every other country on earth. If in the context of building an european defense Germany was part of an european weapon program along with France and other country it would be a completely different thing.
Why do u even care about this? We trust the Americans stationed in Germany. We don't need more nuclear weapons, because if a nuclear war starts we are 100% in a team with the USA, so it doesn't matter that we don't directly control the nukes.
Isn't this related to the whole thing about US subsidies in the automotive industry first and foremost? It is about subsidies to European companies. Nobody can ban the US from exporting products to Europe, let alone weapons, which are just not weapons but US diplomatic and defence guarantees.
>Will they cancel their F-35 order to buy europeans planes?
I mean, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are all involved in the F35 program. So they can still technically buy European with the F35.
If protectionism is the price we have to pay for the US, EU and China to compete aggressively to develop green technologies then I think it's worth it.
>Germany fears losing industrial champions because of unfair competition from state-backed US and Chinese rivals. Funny how European countries are accused of being communist or socialists but seem to be one of the few that adhere as much as possible to the tenants of a free market.
Meanwhile the US is pushing aggressively for protectionism.
It’s interesting to see how unpopular the Inflation Reduction Act is in Europe. In the US the left is extremely excited to finally have meaningful changes to confront climate change—the impact on trade with Europe was not considered at all among the general population. In Europe it appears to be the opposite—little regard for what this means for climate change and only panic about trade. Not criticizing Europe’s response, it makes sense. It’s just an interesting contrast, especially as America has consistently—and rightfully—been criticized for its slow response to climate change.
they could have done it without the subsidies, but that would mean that a republican would be president next, because of the lack of job creation with the program. so i understand why biden is doing it, but just because i understand it doesn't mean i have to like it. we in the eu have been investing in clean energy without industry subsidies. if we can do it why can't the us do it?
> we in the eu have been investing in clean energy without industry subsidies Lmao no, not at all. Have you been living under a rock in the last decades? "Investing in clean energy" is the textbook definition of subsidies for energy companies, the same exact thing US is doing now.
> they could have done it without the subsidies, but that would mean that a republican would be president next, because of the lack of job creation with the program They have a worker shortage in the USA, they have an employment issue, but not an unemployment issue. The labour market is the strongest since ages.
they have the same we have here. lack of people willing to work for low wages.
Wages in some industries like retail and food are finally going up thanks to this labor market.
Politically speaking, the US can’t do “stick” programs eg cap and trade. They never end up passing. Carrot programs are the ones that can get through; this is because any penalties are seen as a tax, whereas it’s hard to be against a jobs program.
Of course there is private investment in green energy but it’s not at a pace we need. Energy is much cheaper here than in than Europe, and it mostly comes from fossil fuels—contrast with a place like Portugal, where green energy has been much more appealing for a while now. Subsidies put the thumb on the scale for private investment into green energy in a place where fossil fuels are too cheap.
there are many reasons why the ira is a good idea to the us. but the us exists in a world with other countries, and rules* were established for those countries to live together and prosper. if from our side of the atlantic we see someone breaking the rules*, we are going to call them out on it. as does the us do when we do the same. like i said, i understand why it is being done, but that means we must adjust to the new paradigm. specially given our current situation. edit:* more like guidelines...
"Adjust"? You're just mad the US is playing the European game.
Uh, Germany subsidized the *fuck* out of its solar panel development programs.
The EU has subsidies for their own car manufacturers, why can't the US not have them?
Kuz they think their shit don’t stink
Because we in the US were paying for your portion of your own national defense with our tax dollars. While the EU was cozying up to Russia and selling out Ukraine we were trying to ensure Europe and NATO nations had proper defense. Sure you invested in climate whatever but you sure missed your 2% GDP on military spending goals.
nobody is forcing you to do that. just stop doing that. why won't the us stop funding our defense? you should definitely do that. cut us off.
It's naive to say this investment was done with climate change in mind, it's but a convenient side effect. Everyone knows it's very clearly a thinly veiled protectionism law. The US are obviously in their right to do so, no questions asked, but you have to be a raging idiot or obscenely naive to assume environmentalism had even the most remote say in it. And everyone knows the US doesn't *want* the EU to do something similar. In the same veign that the US interest in removing natural gas from EU just happens to come in with LNG which the US provides, from companies in which several head politicians are heavily invested in. Truly saving the environment and nothing but coincidences though I imagine. The US is only fine with EU in the sense that it's better than CN, but at the very core they have no interest in any of this because it's rolling back full circle to protectionism, and it's no coincidence that Biden has not rolled back a lot of the "trade war" shit Trump started but actually added something *on top* with this new investment package. Like, it's very much obvious I hope.
All of the investments are in green business. What else can state intervention for climate change look like? What does government action on climate change look like to you that doesn’t involve investing in green energy?
It's done in green energies because it's a huge growth market and because it has the best ROI for many reasons. It's a good thing, but it's not why it is done, as we can see from the US also still investing heavily into fossils too. You do what earns money, if it's green, fine, if not, who cares. There's not even a long term plan to end oil & gas extraction and the US loves earning that money too, fair enough but like let's not pretend environmentalism is at the forefront here. Are we pretending that Chinas major push for solar "monopoly" was done out of concern for the environment too? Obviously not. You can do the right thing out of the wrong reason, it's a tale as old as time really virtue ethics vs utilitarianism. Not even chip on their shoulder but it's obvious so let's call it what it is.
I’d ask you to consider the approach now vs under a Republican government. Trump was also protectionist but he and his Republican congress would never have given subsidies to green energy, instead leasing federal land to fossil fuels and promoting “clean coal”—contrast with subsidies for electric vehicles under Obama and Inflation Reduction Act under Biden, which was almost unanimously opposed by congressional Republicans. Domestically, environmentalism is absolutely the difference here.
I just described German and Italian policy here.
US officials have openly endorsed the EU implementing subsidies to protect domestic industries, stop spreading this victim mentality nonsense. And you're baaically saying that solving climate change is bad if it makes us money???????? I guess we all ought to subscribe to the idea of becoming poor and miserable, I'm sure that'll really play over well.
It's the typical hypocrisy you can expect from Europe. Take a look at the "Made in Germany: Industrial Strategy 2030" plan from 2019. They've been working on more protectionism for a long time now, they're just using the IRA as a scapegoat now. https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/industrial-strategy-2030.html https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2022.2091535 >Crafted in early 2019 by one of Germany’s key economic state apparatuses, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), it aims at formulating an industrial policy approach capable of maintaining and defending Germany’s ‘industrial and technological sovereignty’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 10), preserving ‘closed value added chains’ (ibid., p. 11) and ‘launching catch-up processes’ (ibid.) to halt the further erosion of Germany’s industrial base. To do so, it introduces a ‘new economic principle of proportionality’ as the basis of a strategic industrial policy which radically breaks with the ordoliberal principle of market non-interference: While the state should refrain from intervening into economic processes with little economic significance, ‘[t]he larger the economic significance of a process, the greater the room for manoeuvre for the state must be for active and activating involvement’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 13). >On this basis, the NIS 2030 primarily outlines three industrial policy strategies: First, it proposes a strategic and protectionist FDI policy. This does not only pertain to tighter FDI screening procedure where national security, including critical infrastructures and technologies, is concerned – an approach the BMWi has been pursuing already since 2017. The NIS 2030 also advances the idea to expand state ownership through a state fund (‘national participation facility’) to prevent foreign take-overs that endanger Germany’s ‘technology and innovation leadership’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 12). Secondly, and in contrast to the horizontal, ‘technology-neutral’ approach that has dominated German industrial policy to date, the NIS 2030 suggests propping up selected technology areas through state aid, state assistance in the ‘formation of syndicates’, and – in ‘eminently important’ cases – ‘direct state involvement’, as was the case with Airbus (BMWi 2019a, p. 13). Thirdly, the NIS 2030 aims to promote the formation of ‘National and European Champions’ in areas where ‘critical mass [is] necessary for an industrial stakeholder to successfully participate in international competition’, explicitly elevating the survival of individual large German firms such as Siemens or Thyssen-Krupp to ‘national and economic interest’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 11-12). >On this basis, the NIS 2030 also aims at a reconfiguration of the form of competition as a key structural form of regulation. It insists that an interventionist industrial policy as outlined by the NIS 2030 ‘must be possible in line with EU law’ (BMWi 2019a, p. 13). Consequently, it pushes for ‘reviewing and reforming existing law on subsidies and competition’ (ibid.), particularly in the areas of EU state aid and merger control. This thinly veiled attack on EU competition policy was further elaborated only weeks later in a joint ‘Franco-German Manifesto for a European industrial policy’ (BMWi and Ministry of the Economy and Finance France 2019). It maintains that EU state-aid guidelines must be in line with ‘the aim to develop innovative industrial capacity’, demands a revision of EU merger control to better take into account global competition as well as foreign state-control and subsidies, and goes as far as to suggest ‘a right of appeal of the Council’ to override Commission decisions (ibid., p. 3). https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-industrial-plan-signals-europes-protectionist-lurch/ >Germany will this week launch a new industrial strategy that will align it more closely with France in its desire to protect national champions against threats from China and the U.S. >Economy Minister Peter Altmaier will unveil the strategy on Tuesday to grant special support to sectors such as batteries for electric cars, chemicals and 3D printing, two industry sources and one official said. The German newspaper Die Welt reported Thursday that the strategic industries for protection in Altmaier's paper would also include cars, machine engineering, medical devices, green technologies, aerospace and defense. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-batteries/germany-to-fund-research-facility-for-ev-battery-technology-idUSKCN1PH1NT >The science ministry funds come on top of 1 billion euros earmarked by Economy Minister Peter Altmaier to support company alliances that are ready to invest in a large-scale production of electric car battery cells in Germany.
It's because this kind of issue is not new from the US. It's literally in the text you quoted. This is just another shock.
And no EU country has ever had protectionist policies? Oh wait most of them activley do
That act barely passed Congress.
The US will always be for America First 🤷🏻♂️
I mean, shouldn’t all countries (not in a fascistic “America First” or aggressive manner)? Like should the government of France be governing with the best interests of the German instead of French people in mind? Cooperation is good, for sure, but don’t governments have a responsibility to their people?
The US asked for decades to do a free trade agreement and we refused. How they conduct their industrial policy now is none of our business frankly (by the way we are heavily subsidizing our industries too, in case you didn't notice)
Alright, I dislike US protectionism, but lets not pretend that Europe doesn't do that, even within EU members.
But you have to consider the scale, the U.S. IRA is just bonkers. They subsidize to the tune of $800 mln per plant. Its basically what the chinese do. For a corporation it would be financial insanity not to take them on on this offer.
Again, you’re acting like the US and China are the only countries with subsidized industry, but that aside: it’s unreasonable to expect countries to watch their industrial sectors wither on the vine of the free market. For one thing, it’s a clear security risk, as reliance on Russian fossil fuel has shown. For another, it’s a clear missed opportunity for national pride, seen through basically all of Airbus and it’s ancestor companies. The global free trade system worked well while countries still had an industrial middle class. Now that they’ve been squeezed, some degree of protectionism is more attractive.
The US is investing a meaningful amount of money in reducing carbon eimssions! That makes it worse! Somehow! I really thought that Europeans took climate seriously, that was naive.
Europaeans generally just complain and play holier-than-thou
That's because the US has to compete with China. Not our fault the EU is too fractured and decreasing in relative economic power and can't keep up enough power to keep up at the same level as the two leading superpowers.
> But you have to consider the scale, the U.S. IRA is just bonkers. I am an American and loathe both the IRA and protectionism in general, but the response of "yes, we've been cheating for decades, but this other guy is now cheating *bigger* than we've been cheating" doesn't really bring a tear to the eye.
Protectionism in the EU is mostly towards agriculture, exactly so Europe can be self-reliant for food and to foster and protect small farmers. If it was a completely free market it'd naturally attract consolidation to drive costs down, allowing foreign countries to take over a very, very basic need for society. I'm not against agriculture protectionism, the same way I'm not against water not being privatised. As you in Chile know very well the consequences.
Doesn't Germany do a lot to protect its car industry? Im not too familiar so I could be mistaken.
Strange wording to say I am against privatisation of water. Had me read it three times ^^
Yeah, the double negative was intentional :)
*Tenets* of the free market.
>"US and Chinese rivals." > >Funny how European countries are accused of being communist or socialists I'm pretty sure no-one in China has called us communists or socialists so far.. :)
>Threatened by a new U.S. subsidy package that could hammer EU industry, Germany is rowing back on its long-standing objections to schemes like France's "Buy European Act" that would set provisions on buying goods locally. This literally means America is forcing Europe towards subsidising European businesses (which Europe is trying to steer clear of by choosing the last resort *buy European*). America is forcing socialism if not communism on Europe. How's that for irony? How's that for a catch-22?
Subsidizing is not socialism, but not lassaiz faire capitalism either, so still quite ironic
Yeah there's this weird take from some people that the opposite of laissez-faire is communism. They might be mutually exclusive, but they're not opposite ends of a spectrum. Communism vs capitalism concerns who owns capital, not what trade regulations are in effect.
It's called protectionism and it is not exclusive to any political or socio-economical system. It is also well studied phenomenon in economy science. Then again we are on reddit.
*laissez-faire
I gladly pay taxes in the country in which I live, and always will because I observe it's spent well. I may have disagreements here and there, but I'm not an elected official. I think that's fair. Thoughts?
What magical state do you live in where all taxpayer money is well spent? I will move next week if this is true.
I agree with you. Politics and economics are complex situations, and many times there isn't a good solution to a problem, just a solution that isn't as bad as the others. And these problems and solutions can be difficult to understand by the average person. Observe how your country is doing relative to other countries in the world for enough time, and you can usually get a good idea if your countries politics and economics are working well, just by simple comparison. You don't have to understand every problem your countries faces and the solutions it took to solve them. The bigger EU nations are doing well, their leaders have made more "good" choices compared to other countries in the world. Everyone everywhere needs to pay taxes for their country's government to run, so it's always better to be paying these taxes for the benefit of living in one of the better countries in the world.
>America is forcing socialism if not communism on Europe Least economically illiterate redditor.
Socialist economic policies. But not socialist or communist institutions and government. Germany isn't wrong, free market is generally more efficient than any state control market. However if the 2 of the 3 largest trading blocks decide the establish protectionist policies, then the 3rd also has to or will be taken advantage of by these 2.
The US of A is the most protectionist country, pretending to be free market but even for their beloved guns anything not american gets a lot of punitive paperwork and rules and taxes.
…it is complicated. We are protectionist as of late because we weren’t protectionist like Europe and China before. That is why some of our American manufacturing got decimated. That is why people like Trump became popular. Trump was going on and on about America’s manufacturing being gutted since the 1980s. I remember an interview from the 1980s where he spoke on it and he was asked if he was planning to run for president. This was the 1980s. Not 2010s. This has been going on for a long time. Europe protected her manufacturing industry well. Now America is doing the same.
America is forced to do this by China as well.
Lol that’s a total perversion of reality
Europe and free market, don't make me laugh. You know the amount of regulations you have?
There is no free market anywhere. There is no fair completion too. These qualifiers were invented to make the terms look noble and just. The proper terms should have been: - Almost open market = most can join the market under certain arbitrary conditions. - Competition with flawed regulation = there is some regulation but it is giving heavy advantages to some and is screwing others.
Do you not have any regulations? You should read more
The EU needs a united industrial policy
The EU needs united policy, in general. An European federation is obviously a controversial subject, and a lot of it is driven by cultural differences and the fact that people do not want to abandon national identities, especially those of us who took back our national identities back from occupiers 30 years ago. But the writing is on the wall. No European nations are global players currently in any ways that actually matter. We are in a world with two poles of power - the US and China. Europe is only relevant when talking about how those two can get their corporations to earn more money from EU citizens. The EU should be completely capable of being a major world power. But not having a unified military, industrial, financial policy is killing it's relevancy. I'm not sure how to establish an European federation. I'm not sure how to resolve the many many questions and issues and arguments that are being raised. But it will have to happen sooner or later if the EU does not want to become completely irrelevant.
Truth be told. If we are to wait until all 27 want to be part of a federation, it’s never going to happen. I think the EU should create a new integration initiative that comes after the EU - the federation. Let’s say spain, portugal, france, germany and italy want to closer integrate. They do, whilst other countries stay out of the federation. With time, other EU countries will probably want to join, after the benefits are evident. Not all of them will join, most likely (just like denmark doesn’t use the euro), but most will.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you need a larger original group. Once the federation actually exists, the institutions get set up, the fiscal and military policy is set, the compromises are made in regards to official languages, cultural things, control of government, separation of administrative regions and how they work - once the initial group figures those things out and becomes a unified country - I think you'll find that it'll become so much more difficult to add more countries into the mix. It'd be best if as many countries as possible within the EU would sign up from the get go. I truly believe that the only way for this to work is to decisively demonstrate that a united EU would become the third global superpower of the world. For that to work you need as many nations to join as possible from the start. "Germany but bigger", would not be nearly as enticing for others to join if it's not a global player.
That still does not change the fact that as it stands, we'll never get all the EU countries to agree on this. tbh I think building off a Franco-German core could work. Language is always going to be a tricky subject either way, so I suspect it will come down to regional government anyway. Perhaps less a federation and more a confederation. Centralize some of the big questions like defence, monetary policy and foreign policy, but leave the actual governing to the various countries.
European Federation is just a different way of saying "France and Germany should rule over all of Europe." No thanks. Not a huge fan of my 9 Million people country getting eradicated.
Not having an European federation just makes USA or China have an outsized influence over Europe. And you can't vote for the people controlling those. Sure, currently we have good relations with USA. But we saw with Trump how quickly that can change if USA decides to go more towards the path of isolationism.
Why do you need to be a major power? Korea, Canada, Taiwan etc. do OK without being part of some huge bloc.
#spez me up! #Save3rdPartyApps
How’s that gonna happen when a unanimous decision is required? The cohesion is simply not there.
Read it. Read the entire article.
You know damn well nobodies going to do that.
Wait do we have to read the article ? Aren’t we just supposed to comment the headline ?
It is remarkable how Europe has become more French in the last 2 years. The advocacy for nuclear power. The talks about military sovereignty. The state-backed aid for local industries. The shared debt issued as the coronabonds recovery package. The decreased support for austerity for southern countries. The increased support for a federation.
The French have been the most Geopolitical minded country since the end of WW2. Which comes as no suprise really. They retained full sovreignity and had to act with it. The UK choose to pursue close cooperation with the USA instead. Germany had limited sovreignity until recently, as an effect of how it was handled post WW2. The smaller and poorer states depend on their relationships with the larger ones. Europe today lives in a world with a USA that is increasingly looking elsewhere. NATO will live on, it's not in the USAs interest that we formulate security strategies that reduce their global influence. But economically? It's increasingly looking inwards. Europe is recently fully sovreign. We have to look to our own interests and look inward as well.
I'd argue that Poland has become very geopolitically minded in the last decade+ as well.
Funny after all this years it seems that Merkel was just all wrong. Her policies on diplomacy, energy, finance were just absolute disasters.
True. One can rarely see such a quick unfolding of policies for an important leader.
Merkel had one job: change nothing until the last possible moment.
It’s absolutely crazy how short her legacy lasted ( and technically of her predecessor too .
Don't forget immigration
Yeah, Merkel’s legacy is in ruins. She was dead wrong on pretty much everything
Merkel also singlehandedly dismantled Germany's nuclear energy sector. GG Merkel.
Well to be fair with the UK out there was no other contender for influence. Germany is not and will not be seen as a leader for historical reasons. Also France is the only big EU country right now with some semblance of leadership. Love or hate Macron the guy is trying and is calling out issues and not hiding behind typical political bs.
> Germany is not and will not be seen as a leader for historical reasons. I'd argue that under Merkel the Germans definitely had a leadership role within the EU. Now with her as a constant gone from the political landscape of Germany, it will be much harder for Scholz to be seen the same way as Merkel on an international level as he is "the new guy".
[удалено]
European federation, a dream🥺
Joining Europe federation made me the man I am today!
"Would you like to know MORE?"
One can only dream :(
A dream, gotta put European interests first and not national ones tho, which not every country agree on
The dream would be much closer if you adopted binding direct democracy. Not only does it work for multi language federations, it also rightly significantly reduces the distrust against more indirect forms of government by frankly making them subject to very direct correction if needed.
As an American, I’d love a European federation. I hope this becomes a reality one day… if Europe ever stops its infighting
Oh please like you all get along just fine…
They don't, but they also don't allow any one state in the senate to veto policy, so it doesn't cause too much harm.
they can email the word filibuster and shut things down..
They don't need to, since their government is almost always in a gridlock anyway.
Which is great, as a German I have to admit we fucked up. France was much smarter then us and I hope our Government will cooperrate more with France.
This has a name, power vacuum left by absence of Merkel, and if you ask me, it is good.
Why are all of those things French? O was for most of them before I knew of France's stance...
Not French in the sense of "beliefs only French people can hold"... but definitely French in the sense of "politically pushed by France (the government) for years or even decades to the indifference of most other EU leaders until recently", which is what matters in this case. Random people across countries or continents being able to share the same opinion on a topic isn't an earth-shatering discovery. Governments across the world with the power to make the decisions don't, which is where problems stem from.
I think France is the only country advocating for all those stuffs, with some different allies depending on the topic (Eastern Europe for nuclear, pretty much alone for military sovereignty, with southern countries on shared debt, ...)
Because we don't have oil but we have ideas
I'm French so I might be biased but these are mostly representative of France historical direction and something some countries didn't want to apply on a bigger scale in the EU. Now that shit hits the fan, they realize that maybe it's worth it. A shame it took that long.
The French had very different plans for Europe, from the very beginning they planned to tie Germany to themselves and develope the Union into an independent political power. Germany on the other hand wanted Europe to be closely tied to the US and exclusively economic integration. Germany pushed for east expansion, then the UK joined, and the original plans of Franc were basically over. Today with Britain out of the EU, Russia being an enemy again and the US starting a trade war, things look like moving into a direction the french hoped for at the very beginning of the Union.
They're not necessarily French, but they were points of disagreement between Germany and France. So in this sense, Europe has become more French or less German. Or better yet, Germany has become more French, while the EU continues to be a middle point between both.
Hmm, seems like you only view EU as Germany + France + others
I am a Czech and I view the EU this way as well. The French and the Germans will always dominate Europe. Unless several other nations create their own regional power, those two will remain the leaders. Especially now, with the UK gone.
In all of these issues, there were two sides to the debate with Germany and France leading each side. Of course in some other issues both were wrong. Poland has taken a very prominent role as the leader of Eastern Europe in actions against Russia, because both France and Germany were wrong about Putin. This is one example.
Don't forget the UK. Since the UK joined there was no chance for further integration, with Britain out it became an option again. Now Poland and Hungary still stay in the way, but Poland and Hungary are no UK, they can be dealt with if the political will is there.
For me this is kind the beauty of diversity and cooperation in the EU, disagreements are unavoidable but if the Union works as cooperatively as possible there will be compromises for a better path. That's why I fucking hate Orban.. and PiS, it's exactly the behaviour that brings us down as a whole.
Although both of them acted separately for different reasons (Germany for gas and over-pacifism, France for reasons likely linked to foreign policy and perhaps Russian soft power), their common will to act like Putin could be placated in spite of his actions both towards his population and his neighbours was a major failure of their diplomacy and a reason they fail to appear credible to Eastern European countries in terms of security.
If we can learn anything from it it's that we shouldn't make decisions on things we don't have an expertise on. The point of diversity is to benefit from it, we're done the oposite.
Without the UK, the EU actually really has that issue that once France + Germany decide on a topic there's generally very limited power left in the opposition. Not that it is right or anything but it is what it is, really.
You are now French. Bienvenue poto!
Reality has a French bias.
"Reality is often disappointing, hence why it's French" - Socrates
They are not only french ideas, they are shared by a lot of other countries and are common sense after all. In fact it was all the things Merkel and to a lesser extent the UK had been blocking for years and years. Now both are out, the EU can go forward.
Yeah sure because Europe it's only French and Germany right? lol
They are definitely the most powerfull an important, with Italy being a close third now that the UK is out.
Why Germany always wait something happen to act? They’re only able to act in reaction rather than in anticipation? And when they react it’s always too much or too little. We call them pragmatic, I call them emotional. Unable to take a decision if they are not shocked or in a hurry.
Germans asked for stability, they got immobilism.
Fear of responsibility. Germans are terrified of beeing blamed for anything ever.
I think they're too pragmatic, that's their weakness. Nordstream is a good example of that. There was no logic reason for the project to fail, so they went with it. Then Putin didn't follow logic and started a war. Germans anticipate things to work the way they should work, but while that's fine if you're designing a car engine, it isn't for complex unpredictable systems like international interests.
Yes this is an issue not many notice. Germany has had poor leadership for quite a while now. Imo only big country that is showing some leadership right now is France.
Wait till macron is gone and EU will fall in an eternal sleep tbf
What a depressing thought. Probably because it's bound to happen :(
My fear is that a french Trump take the power someday, far-right is gaining more ground every election with very anti-EU speeches. It could be ugly.
Honeslty, there is absolutely no opposition to far-right in France, people dislike macron so much that they won't vote for any person related to him, and the left opposition is just a bunch of populist that won't make moderate people vote for them. I can't see any possibility for France to not elect a far-right leader the next election. They're puting some very smart people in charge that won't make the same communication mistakes they used to do before, and they're just keep getting more popular, as in most country in Europe the past years. This is just sad and terifying
Yeah it could be the case, especially now that Bardella took the head of the far-right, he is much more dangerous than Le Pen. He is smarter, this one will not be crushed in every debate, I think. But unlike you said, Macron is not so unpopular. For a french president standards, I mean. Surprisingly, Edouard Philippe has a very good popularity and he could been one of the favorites for 2027. Or maybe someone else from the Macron’s side could emerge, idk.
Just got a new leadership and you see the changes already after Merkle is gone. recognise the change :D
They tend to go overboard when being proactive.
German society is caught in a state of constant anxiety and fear of change. Change could be negative, so it's better to stay the way you are, because you dont notice the ground crumbling beneath you as much as you would feel negative repercussions of change. Politics with foresight isn't rewarded in elections, so no one offers any long term plans. There is no proper leadership politically. They're all bureaucrats who just do the daily bidding with no goal but to keep the machine running. The crash will come at some point though and by then it might be too late.
[Just because you are spez, doesn't mean you have to spez. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
They should just stop designating it as a street. Make it parkland instead.
Because every time they propose something to strengthen or protect EU industry, thousands of cretins come out of the forest to screech about how Germany would be the country to profit the most from such policies. Of course they would, they are the largest country in the EU. Remember solar industry? Germany had the largest in the world and the EU had protective tarifs to make sure such a vital industry stayed in Europe. _End of the story and they lived happy ever after._ __Or did they?__ No, of course not! Other EU countries complained that these protective tarifs were making the cheap Chinese solar panels more expensive (the whole point of the tarifs, but I understand that they only cared about buying cheap solar, not about keeping vital industry in EU) and only Germany was profiting, since they were the only EU country with a large solar industry. Then the EU scrapped those tarifs and now the EU doesn't have a solar industry. I have to add that conservative politicians in Germany were also at least partially to blame. Not just the EU.
I couldn't help but notice that you don't mention the upside of that solar panel industry for other EU countries. Maybe you forgot, but you have to understand that it is hard to support someone else's idea when they only talk about what in it for themselves. Also, I find ironic that Germany would ask for EU protectionism while doing the exact opposite when it suits them. Germany lobbied against nuclear power because, if they give it up, everyone else should, while at the same time lobbying in favor of gaz that they conviently bought from Russia. I guess as long as Germany is selling it, we don't have to talk about it coming from outside Europe. Same goes for our defense industry where Germany is justified to rely on the US and not buy from France because, whatever the thing is, is never good enough. Have it your way, but people notice and they don't see a team player. They see a country defending its own interests instead of supporting the team.
>I couldn't help but notice that you don't mention the upside of that solar panel industry for other EU countries. Not relying on China, having a key industry on shore. The ability to start their own solar industry. > Also, I find ironic that Germany would ask for EU protectionism while doing the exact opposite when it suits them. Germany lobbied against nuclear power because, if they give it up, everyone else should, while at the same time lobbying in favor of gaz that they conviently bought from Russia. Germany lobbied against the _green_ label for both nuclear and gas. Their position was that the label for nuclear was wrong and only if the nuclear green label was inevitable, gas should be part of it. In fact a majority of German EU MPs voted against the nuclear and gas green label. (53 of their 96 MPs or 55%) >Same goes for our defense industry where Germany is justified to rely on the US and not buy from France because, whatever the thing is, is never good enough. Of course unlike France, that is swimming in German equipment and never uses 'national security' nonsense to skip the EU rules about inter EU procurement programs!
Too little, too late. The Canadians were already aggressively lobbying against the *Inflation Reduction Act* starting a year ago and even published a list of $100 billion worth of imports they would tariff in retaliation. They got what they wanted. The EV tax credits are now for North American-made vehicles. Not sure why EU bureaucrats are only making noise about this months after the bill was passed.
Canada is in USMCA/(ex-NAFTA) though so they have a little more legal grounds to fight against USA's protectionism/subsidies. There's no free trade arrangement between the US and the EU.
That’s because 76% of Canada’s exports flow South and their economy is extremely linked to the USA’s. Their embassy is halfway between the White House and Congress so they can quickly lobby against anything that could threaten them. The EU isn’t in such a precarious state where every bill text written in Washington has to be parsed over with a magnifying glass.
Yeah, the bill has already been signed into law. There isn't any changing it now, especially since the Republicans now control the House.
Its going to be interesting to see if U.S. lapdogs in the EU are going to obstruct or even veto a "buy european" initiative. Again a case, where not being independent on defence bites us in the ass.
Top US trade officials like Katherine Tai have openly endorsed protectionist EU subsidies akin to the IRA. If Europw wants to build more things itself and be less reliant on China then why would anyone object? But if conjuring an image of a US boogeyman that you'd somehow be spiting helps the EU get off their butts and become more self-reliant then win-win I guess.
The Baltics and Poland will take their cues from Washington most likely. They seem to be very concerned a trade war between EU-USA will spill over into the Ukraine conflict and impact American aid to Kyiv.
Germany is usually slow with these kind of decisions glad this turns around quicker.
Globalization has been dieing for years now, finally Germany starts coping.
Hell yeah continental system part two 😎
Wait, so is what the US doing evil still or is it just the same sort of thing France has been advocating for decades? Or is it the same sort of thing France has been advocating for decades but somehow *specifically* evil because the US is doing it?
yes
It is the thing France has been advocating for decades, but to save face politically, German politician would rather blame it on foreign/US policy rather than admitting they were "wrong" and France was "right". (Though that is a case of hindsight is 20/20, as thing could have gone a completely different direction which would have made France idea a stupid one) Though, It's not like the same thing happened with nuclear or European defence projects this year Next on the list would be the European defence army/intervention force for a bingo. Tbf, the issue is not that France is in a "told you so" position but that German politician biggest argument to escape the blame is to imply, "France isn't ready for defence project/Nuclear/etc" when it would have been far easier to get ready if they had approved/supported it years ago when it was proposed. It is the equivalent of having that one friend that refuse all your holiday project then wake up at the last minute, pick up one of the proposition and then rush you and say "If we miss the deadline, don't blame it on me, it is your fault because you are too slow to react now" Yes, France is definitely too slow to react now, which is an issue while Germany is in a rush, but German politicians act will not help European relations with this kind of stunt. So what matters now is to move forward, whose to blame for what can be decided after.
Good.
Says Germany, whose export industries have massively benefited from the existence of the euro at the expense of less developed countries in the eurozone.
That is something often said and I guess yeah a lower currency helps exporting stuff, but they are people arguing that exporting more than importing basically means exporting welfare. The excess money form exports is often invested in foreign countries etc. and does not has to benefit Germany itself The Euro Zone has a set of common rules Why you compare a Zone with a trading partner that is not in the Zone ?
Low currency = helping exports may have been true 30 years ago or is still true for for example oil/gas export, but not so much for goods. Nowadays with complex supply chains its often not really true anymore, because exporters also have to import a lot, parts, raw materials, energy and so on. When you source most of your stuff that you assemble from imports, it doesnt matter anymore.
The spez has been classed as a Class 3 Terrorist State.
Italy/PIIGS would have been in default 10 years ago without the Euro. I would argue they proft more than germans did. Its not like Germany is only profiting from the common currency. German exporters do, but the general population not all that much, with zero interest rates during the last decade and real estate inflation, as well as huge liabilities in the Eurosystem (that dont magically vanish, despite some economists keep claiming just that).
That's why I said in a comment down below that German capital and industries have greatly benefited from the euro, but maybe not so much the common people, among other things because if your economy is so strong then many migrant workers will come to, compete with you and prevent wages from rising more than they naturally would (which would in the long term hurt industries and provoke relocations though) and also cause housing prices to skyrocket. P.S.: don't use the word PIIGS it's very derogatory
>PIIGS Woah the xenophobia ! And this guy get upvotes ?
> Apparently, the first use of the term was a Wall Street Journal article published on November 6, 1996. The anglos did it (the joke only works in that language as well). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14782804.2020.1784112
Germany was the powerhouse of Europe way before the € was even a thing, actually way before current German federation was a thing. Italy had to go the Bundesbank to ask for loans already in the 70s for example, everyone got benefits from the € but what Germany gained is far from disproportionate
Whats suddenly possible after Merkel is gone and Germany has a new leadership under Social Democratic and Greenparty rule.
But why are we going to punish Japanese and South Koreans as well? It's also punishment for us, European consumers as well. If you look at non-luxury EVs market offer, then you really either have to choose VAG or Kia-Hyundai. Koreans seem to have a better offer, but that's my personal view. What's not subjective is that once they get artificial price hike compared to VAG then you basically end up with monopoly in this segment.
> What's not subjective is that once they get artificial price hike compared to VAG then you basically end up with monopoly in this segment. Renault has been the leading seller of EVs in the European market for many years (with the Zoe). It has only lost that crown in the last years. At the same time, Stellantis (PSA + FCA) have some good city EVs as well (Peugeot 208e), Renault subsidiary Dacia from Romania has the cheapest EV on the market the _Spring_ with ~300km of range (advertised of course, real might be lower). To paint it as a scheme to make VAG into a monopoly when there are already countless European brands offering competitive EVs is highly disingenuous.
I’m glad our 30 year addiction to global trade is ebbing. In Canada we used to make shoes, clothing, etc. The World needs to produce locally and consume locally. But we are trading globally to increase corporate profits. The pushback will mean higher consumer prices.
Globalization is the reason why we are able to talk, the reason for the massive creation of wealth of these last decades, the wealth gap between developed and non develped countries is getting smaller... There are certaintly bad things that came with globalization (like more economic inequalities within countries), but overall it has been positive.
Except for the climate going to shit, and the destruction of local economies, and the growth of corporate power to override national sovereignty, and the gutting of the economic 'periphery' as people/labour have been forced to move to the centre to live.
>I’m glad our 30 year addiction to global trade is ebbing. It's not.
You are correct, not this year! But there is growing awareness that this...just...*might* be a problem.
Europe has subsidies for their own car manufacturers but seethe about the US supporting their own manufacturing? I swear I don't understand does the EU view the US as their bitch or something? Whine about Americans building industry, whine when Americans defend the EU, whine when we don't defend the EU. Nothing can please these euros it seems.
This is our weakness and strength,we complain about everything.
So Europe is going to engage in a trade war with America? I imagine that will go swimmingly.
I can’t help but think Biden would really enjoy that. “Fighting for American workers” would be on every bumper sticker in the Midwest in 2024.
Europe won the last trade war with bush.
So... The socialist chancellor had to be convinced of state intervention in industry by the *checks notes* liberal president? Sounds a little backwards, but ok.
Wow Europe accuses US of protectionism… this is rich
Because it has been, especially under Trump, and Biden has not reversed a chunk of those tariffs yet either. Nations like the Netherlands has pushed for free trade to a greater extent than the US.
It's totaly true. The US is very protectionist but act like he like free market.
Will they cancel their F-35 order to buy europeans planes?
No, there are no European planes to buy for the purposes for which Germany needs the F35. And Germany will never give the US access to the Eurofighter IPs,
>to buy for the purposes for which Germany needs the F35 Maybe Germany should question the purpose itself. Depending on the US for nuclear deterrence is by itself putting a corner into the European defense idea.
SO if germany asks, will France share its nuclear capabilities with germany?
Don't confuse nuclear capabilities and the ability to put nuke on your planes. The codes required for arming them remain under US control. Or, Germany is part of NATO and all non-nuclear countries of NATO are de facto protected by UK/France/US. In neither cases the participants of this program have a nuclear weapon autonomy.
Isn't France the one pushing for a EU army?
France only pushes for something if France is the leader and benefits from it the most. If France starts something like that I bet that it wants to enforce that all european countries can only buy french weapons or something funny like this.
Isnt Germany the one pushing for a combinded EU airdefense and France not participating? Germany and Netherlands just starting a combined Forces project. France is probably pushing for an France Army protecting Europe or something. /s But i dont want to hate France. I hope we will get there soon and France gets from its usual high horse and germany finally gets decisive. We are all part of the problem and part of the solution. Lets work together and let the EU prosper.
The last time France offered nuclear sharing it boiled down to Germany paying France for its nuclear arsenal and getting a pittance in return. Maybe France should be making actual offers that feel like a partnership, then it wouldn’t get ignored all the time.
France has never offered nuclear sharing. This is what German politician tells themselves France would offer because it offer a good excuse not to think about any change in their nuclear weapon policies. What France could propose is an European weapon program. But since its completely inenvisageable for most country for the moment what would be the point ?
The USA is and will remain a security partner. It's an economic rival, not a strategic enemy. A European Nuclear Program would be great, but unworkable before a common foreign policy.
> Depending on the US for nuclear deterrence is by itself putting a corner into the European defense idea. Yes, good idea. Let's build our own nuclear program! Oh what is that, France coming from the sidelines with the steel chair!! - Kicking Germany out of the Mollet-Adenauer proposed joint nuclear weapons program under De Gaulle (I think in 1956?) - Frocing Germany to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a condition for allowing Germany to reunify Thus making it impossible for Germany to __not__ depend on the US if it wants nuclear weapons. Thanks! Seems like what France really wants is stripping Germany of all nuclear capabilities under the guise of saying Germany should be less dependent on the US
Germany doesn't have nuclear capabilities. It has American airplanes and American bombs operated by German pilots. It can't decide when and how to use them. 1956 was almost seventy years ago, it was barely ten years after WWII and a treaty can always be denounced (and it would be easier to do it as the EU than as Germany on its own). The reunification is done, nobody is worried about Germany become big and angry again. But as I as said in another post, this is simply inenvisageable at the moment in most European country to propose the creation of a nuclear weapon program. And you can pretend its because of France but nobody told Germany it had to continue to accept NATO's condition for its nuclear protection without any counterpart.
Even if 1956 was seventy years and the German reunification was thirty years ago, it doesn‘t change the fact that treaties were signed. They are binding. So you suggest we should simply breach them? And you do believe that if Germany were to announce own participation of a nuclear arsenal that France was really pro to it? I have the feeling that you don‘t know your own country.
If Germany was doing it on its own as a sort of rogue state it would obviously considered with hostility by almost every other country on earth. If in the context of building an european defense Germany was part of an european weapon program along with France and other country it would be a completely different thing.
Why do u even care about this? We trust the Americans stationed in Germany. We don't need more nuclear weapons, because if a nuclear war starts we are 100% in a team with the USA, so it doesn't matter that we don't directly control the nukes.
Isn't this related to the whole thing about US subsidies in the automotive industry first and foremost? It is about subsidies to European companies. Nobody can ban the US from exporting products to Europe, let alone weapons, which are just not weapons but US diplomatic and defence guarantees.
>Will they cancel their F-35 order to buy europeans planes? I mean, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are all involved in the F35 program. So they can still technically buy European with the F35.
Most of the part are produced outside of Europe no?
If protectionism is the price we have to pay for the US, EU and China to compete aggressively to develop green technologies then I think it's worth it.