|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 02 2017 18:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 17:31 opisska wrote:On May 02 2017 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
@opisska
There is at least one objective reason to be against separatism. E.g. in Poland there is Silesian (a minority view, afaik), motivated mostly by the fact that this region is a net contributor into the country's budget (I am not sure whether that is still the case, but let's assume it is). The problem is that Poland, both before and after WW2, invested into that region heavily in an attempt to make it one of the country's core heavy industry regions. In return, people from Silesia benefited from low unemployment and relatively high wages, plus a set of privileges for the people employed in the coal mining sector.
The very goal of investing in a certain region to promote industry is for that region to become a net contributor into the budget. It makes seceding very complicated from a financial perspective. Namely, how do you estimate the alternative costs of such a divorce? After all, the country could've industrialized another region, one which wouldn't have had aspirations to secede, it would've continued to benefit from having an industrialized net contributor.
Isn't that the case with Catalonia as well? I am aware of this argument, however isn't this the problem of the investor, not the benefactor? I understand that is feels unfair to lose your investments to a secession, but that's also a very uncontextual view of the situation, only looking from a "now" perspective. If you look at it globally in time, would you consider it acceptable to force money into a region in order to make it unable to secede? I don't think so. To use the same example, I believe that the current population of Catalunya shouldn't be limited in their self-determination by the decision of previous governments of Spain to invest into their region. It would be just plainly wrong. If you're trying to point to federal investment as a reason for not seceding, Catalonia is an absolutely terrible example. You should probably stop talking about Spain. Edit: make that both of you.
Basque example a bit more accurate?
|
On May 02 2017 18:44 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 18:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 17:31 opisska wrote:On May 02 2017 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
@opisska
There is at least one objective reason to be against separatism. E.g. in Poland there is Silesian (a minority view, afaik), motivated mostly by the fact that this region is a net contributor into the country's budget (I am not sure whether that is still the case, but let's assume it is). The problem is that Poland, both before and after WW2, invested into that region heavily in an attempt to make it one of the country's core heavy industry regions. In return, people from Silesia benefited from low unemployment and relatively high wages, plus a set of privileges for the people employed in the coal mining sector.
The very goal of investing in a certain region to promote industry is for that region to become a net contributor into the budget. It makes seceding very complicated from a financial perspective. Namely, how do you estimate the alternative costs of such a divorce? After all, the country could've industrialized another region, one which wouldn't have had aspirations to secede, it would've continued to benefit from having an industrialized net contributor.
Isn't that the case with Catalonia as well? I am aware of this argument, however isn't this the problem of the investor, not the benefactor? I understand that is feels unfair to lose your investments to a secession, but that's also a very uncontextual view of the situation, only looking from a "now" perspective. If you look at it globally in time, would you consider it acceptable to force money into a region in order to make it unable to secede? I don't think so. To use the same example, I believe that the current population of Catalunya shouldn't be limited in their self-determination by the decision of previous governments of Spain to invest into their region. It would be just plainly wrong. If you're trying to point to federal investment as a reason for not seceding, Catalonia is an absolutely terrible example. You should probably stop talking about Spain. Edit: make that both of you. Care to elaborate?
Well, you'd have to start by making a case that there were EVER federal funds spent on Catalonia, let alone in a systematic way that was aimed at incentivizing Catalonia to be an economic motor for the country. That has definitely not been the case since the democracy, during which Catalonia has always been a net contributor (of course, Catalonia has been a net receiver of EU funds, but the whole of Spain has... ). Moreover, I would argue that Franco was also not exactly investing in Catalonia (although the economic reforms of the Spanish Miracle definitely did directly benefit Catalonia), and in general Franco's policies had a repressive effect on Catalonia (one of the hotbeds of resistance to Franco's rule).
But lets say you can make a convincing point that at some point in the last 150 years, Catalonia's economy was jumpstarted by Federal fiscal policy, you'd still have to somehow disentangle it from the various conflicts that led to direct repression of Catalonia by federalist policies, in particular during the 18th century and show that it's because of federal policy, and not despite it, that Catalonia is now one of the economic motors of Spain.
Note, that I am definitely not in favour of Catalan independence. Just pointing out that Catalonia is a remarkably bad example for anybody arguing that federal investments in the past were made to benefit from in the present/future.
Edit: I am not well versed on the history of Basque country, but I doubt it is a good example either. In fact, I can't really think of a single good example from the various places I have lived of explicit national investment in a region resulting in a prosperous region wanting indepence from that nation.
Edit 2: thinking about it, perhaps a case could be made for the independence movement of Rio Grande do Sul from Brazil, but the separatist movement stems from way before the deliberate federal decision to stimulate the southeast region's economy, and it was historically a lot stronger than it is now (despite the southeast now being one of the richest regions of Brazil, and a significant net contributor to the federal treasury).
|
On May 02 2017 19:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 18:44 maybenexttime wrote:On May 02 2017 18:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 17:31 opisska wrote:On May 02 2017 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
@opisska
There is at least one objective reason to be against separatism. E.g. in Poland there is Silesian (a minority view, afaik), motivated mostly by the fact that this region is a net contributor into the country's budget (I am not sure whether that is still the case, but let's assume it is). The problem is that Poland, both before and after WW2, invested into that region heavily in an attempt to make it one of the country's core heavy industry regions. In return, people from Silesia benefited from low unemployment and relatively high wages, plus a set of privileges for the people employed in the coal mining sector.
The very goal of investing in a certain region to promote industry is for that region to become a net contributor into the budget. It makes seceding very complicated from a financial perspective. Namely, how do you estimate the alternative costs of such a divorce? After all, the country could've industrialized another region, one which wouldn't have had aspirations to secede, it would've continued to benefit from having an industrialized net contributor.
Isn't that the case with Catalonia as well? I am aware of this argument, however isn't this the problem of the investor, not the benefactor? I understand that is feels unfair to lose your investments to a secession, but that's also a very uncontextual view of the situation, only looking from a "now" perspective. If you look at it globally in time, would you consider it acceptable to force money into a region in order to make it unable to secede? I don't think so. To use the same example, I believe that the current population of Catalunya shouldn't be limited in their self-determination by the decision of previous governments of Spain to invest into their region. It would be just plainly wrong. If you're trying to point to federal investment as a reason for not seceding, Catalonia is an absolutely terrible example. You should probably stop talking about Spain. Edit: make that both of you. Care to elaborate? Well, you'd have to start by making a case that there were EVER federal funds spent on Catalonia, let alone in a systematic way that was aimed at incentivizing Catalonia to be an economic motor for the country. That has definitely not been the case since the democracy, during which Catalonia has always been a net contributor (of course, Catalonia has been a net receiver of EU funds, but the whole of Spain has... ). Moreover, I would argue that Franco was also not exactly investing in Catalonia (although the economic reforms of the Spanish Miracle definitely did directly benefit Catalonia), and in general Franco's policies had a repressive effect on Catalonia (one of the hotbeds of resistance to Franco's rule). But lets say you can make a convincing point that at some point in the last 150 years, Catalonia's economy was jumpstarted by Federal fiscal policy, you'd still have to somehow disentangle it from the various conflicts that led to direct repression of Catalonia by federalist policies, in particular during the 18th century and show that it's because of federal policy, and not despite it, that Catalonia is now one of the economic motors of Spain. Note, that I am definitely not in favour of Catalan independence. Just pointing out that Catalonia is a remarkably bad example for anybody arguing that federal investments in the past were made to benefit from in the present/future.
I was talking specifically about the Spanish Miracle. How is Spain not being democratic at that time relevant? Does the undeniable fact that Catalonia was also culturally repressed by Franco somehow nullify the investments?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miracle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Nacional_de_Industria
Protectionism and direct investment on a large scale. Both Catalonia and the Basque Country benefited greatly from Spain's development strategy at the time.
Edit: At the same time, I do agree that Silesia is a much better example. While I doubt that Catalonia reluctantly accepted the investments, I don't think it had a choice under Franco's regime either way.
|
On May 02 2017 19:31 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 18:44 maybenexttime wrote:On May 02 2017 18:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 17:31 opisska wrote:On May 02 2017 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
@opisska
There is at least one objective reason to be against separatism. E.g. in Poland there is Silesian (a minority view, afaik), motivated mostly by the fact that this region is a net contributor into the country's budget (I am not sure whether that is still the case, but let's assume it is). The problem is that Poland, both before and after WW2, invested into that region heavily in an attempt to make it one of the country's core heavy industry regions. In return, people from Silesia benefited from low unemployment and relatively high wages, plus a set of privileges for the people employed in the coal mining sector.
The very goal of investing in a certain region to promote industry is for that region to become a net contributor into the budget. It makes seceding very complicated from a financial perspective. Namely, how do you estimate the alternative costs of such a divorce? After all, the country could've industrialized another region, one which wouldn't have had aspirations to secede, it would've continued to benefit from having an industrialized net contributor.
Isn't that the case with Catalonia as well? I am aware of this argument, however isn't this the problem of the investor, not the benefactor? I understand that is feels unfair to lose your investments to a secession, but that's also a very uncontextual view of the situation, only looking from a "now" perspective. If you look at it globally in time, would you consider it acceptable to force money into a region in order to make it unable to secede? I don't think so. To use the same example, I believe that the current population of Catalunya shouldn't be limited in their self-determination by the decision of previous governments of Spain to invest into their region. It would be just plainly wrong. If you're trying to point to federal investment as a reason for not seceding, Catalonia is an absolutely terrible example. You should probably stop talking about Spain. Edit: make that both of you. Care to elaborate? Well, you'd have to start by making a case that there were EVER federal funds spent on Catalonia, let alone in a systematic way that was aimed at incentivizing Catalonia to be an economic motor for the country. That has definitely not been the case since the democracy, during which Catalonia has always been a net contributor (of course, Catalonia has been a net receiver of EU funds, but the whole of Spain has... ). Moreover, I would argue that Franco was also not exactly investing in Catalonia (although the economic reforms of the Spanish Miracle definitely did directly benefit Catalonia), and in general Franco's policies had a repressive effect on Catalonia (one of the hotbeds of resistance to Franco's rule). But lets say you can make a convincing point that at some point in the last 150 years, Catalonia's economy was jumpstarted by Federal fiscal policy, you'd still have to somehow disentangle it from the various conflicts that led to direct repression of Catalonia by federalist policies, in particular during the 18th century and show that it's because of federal policy, and not despite it, that Catalonia is now one of the economic motors of Spain. Note, that I am definitely not in favour of Catalan independence. Just pointing out that Catalonia is a remarkably bad example for anybody arguing that federal investments in the past were made to benefit from in the present/future. I was talking specifically about the Spanish Miracle. How is Spain not being democratic at that time relevant? Does the undeniable fact that Catalonia was also culturally repressed by Franco somehow nullify the investments? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miraclehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Nacional_de_IndustriaProtectionism and direct investment on a large scale. Both Catalonia and the Basque Country benefited greatly from Spain's development strategy at the time.
Yes yes. If an imposed dictatorship first destroys the local economy you can then swoop in and save the day with later investments. It'd be like saying Poland is ungrateful to the Soviet Union for the significant investments they made in rebuilding Poland after WW2...
|
On May 02 2017 19:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 19:31 maybenexttime wrote:On May 02 2017 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 18:44 maybenexttime wrote:On May 02 2017 18:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 17:31 opisska wrote:On May 02 2017 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
@opisska
There is at least one objective reason to be against separatism. E.g. in Poland there is Silesian (a minority view, afaik), motivated mostly by the fact that this region is a net contributor into the country's budget (I am not sure whether that is still the case, but let's assume it is). The problem is that Poland, both before and after WW2, invested into that region heavily in an attempt to make it one of the country's core heavy industry regions. In return, people from Silesia benefited from low unemployment and relatively high wages, plus a set of privileges for the people employed in the coal mining sector.
The very goal of investing in a certain region to promote industry is for that region to become a net contributor into the budget. It makes seceding very complicated from a financial perspective. Namely, how do you estimate the alternative costs of such a divorce? After all, the country could've industrialized another region, one which wouldn't have had aspirations to secede, it would've continued to benefit from having an industrialized net contributor.
Isn't that the case with Catalonia as well? I am aware of this argument, however isn't this the problem of the investor, not the benefactor? I understand that is feels unfair to lose your investments to a secession, but that's also a very uncontextual view of the situation, only looking from a "now" perspective. If you look at it globally in time, would you consider it acceptable to force money into a region in order to make it unable to secede? I don't think so. To use the same example, I believe that the current population of Catalunya shouldn't be limited in their self-determination by the decision of previous governments of Spain to invest into their region. It would be just plainly wrong. If you're trying to point to federal investment as a reason for not seceding, Catalonia is an absolutely terrible example. You should probably stop talking about Spain. Edit: make that both of you. Care to elaborate? Well, you'd have to start by making a case that there were EVER federal funds spent on Catalonia, let alone in a systematic way that was aimed at incentivizing Catalonia to be an economic motor for the country. That has definitely not been the case since the democracy, during which Catalonia has always been a net contributor (of course, Catalonia has been a net receiver of EU funds, but the whole of Spain has... ). Moreover, I would argue that Franco was also not exactly investing in Catalonia (although the economic reforms of the Spanish Miracle definitely did directly benefit Catalonia), and in general Franco's policies had a repressive effect on Catalonia (one of the hotbeds of resistance to Franco's rule). But lets say you can make a convincing point that at some point in the last 150 years, Catalonia's economy was jumpstarted by Federal fiscal policy, you'd still have to somehow disentangle it from the various conflicts that led to direct repression of Catalonia by federalist policies, in particular during the 18th century and show that it's because of federal policy, and not despite it, that Catalonia is now one of the economic motors of Spain. Note, that I am definitely not in favour of Catalan independence. Just pointing out that Catalonia is a remarkably bad example for anybody arguing that federal investments in the past were made to benefit from in the present/future. I was talking specifically about the Spanish Miracle. How is Spain not being democratic at that time relevant? Does the undeniable fact that Catalonia was also culturally repressed by Franco somehow nullify the investments? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miraclehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Nacional_de_IndustriaProtectionism and direct investment on a large scale. Both Catalonia and the Basque Country benefited greatly from Spain's development strategy at the time. Yes yes. If an imposed dictatorship first destroys the local economy you can then swoop in and save the day with later investments. It'd be like saying Poland is ungrateful to the Soviet Union for the significant investments they made in rebuilding Poland after WW2...
I fail to see the evidence of the USSR making significant investments in post-war Poland aimed at rebuilding the country.
Did Franco deliberately destroy Catalonia's industry or was it destroyed during the civil war, in which Catalonia actively fought? Wasn't Catalonia's industry relatively insignificant prior to the civil war compared to its industry after the Spanish Miracle?
Those are honest questions. I am only briefly familiar with Spanish history.
|
On May 02 2017 20:56 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 19:56 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 19:31 maybenexttime wrote:On May 02 2017 19:22 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 18:44 maybenexttime wrote:On May 02 2017 18:26 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2017 17:31 opisska wrote:On May 02 2017 16:42 maybenexttime wrote:
@opisska
There is at least one objective reason to be against separatism. E.g. in Poland there is Silesian (a minority view, afaik), motivated mostly by the fact that this region is a net contributor into the country's budget (I am not sure whether that is still the case, but let's assume it is). The problem is that Poland, both before and after WW2, invested into that region heavily in an attempt to make it one of the country's core heavy industry regions. In return, people from Silesia benefited from low unemployment and relatively high wages, plus a set of privileges for the people employed in the coal mining sector.
The very goal of investing in a certain region to promote industry is for that region to become a net contributor into the budget. It makes seceding very complicated from a financial perspective. Namely, how do you estimate the alternative costs of such a divorce? After all, the country could've industrialized another region, one which wouldn't have had aspirations to secede, it would've continued to benefit from having an industrialized net contributor.
Isn't that the case with Catalonia as well? I am aware of this argument, however isn't this the problem of the investor, not the benefactor? I understand that is feels unfair to lose your investments to a secession, but that's also a very uncontextual view of the situation, only looking from a "now" perspective. If you look at it globally in time, would you consider it acceptable to force money into a region in order to make it unable to secede? I don't think so. To use the same example, I believe that the current population of Catalunya shouldn't be limited in their self-determination by the decision of previous governments of Spain to invest into their region. It would be just plainly wrong. If you're trying to point to federal investment as a reason for not seceding, Catalonia is an absolutely terrible example. You should probably stop talking about Spain. Edit: make that both of you. Care to elaborate? Well, you'd have to start by making a case that there were EVER federal funds spent on Catalonia, let alone in a systematic way that was aimed at incentivizing Catalonia to be an economic motor for the country. That has definitely not been the case since the democracy, during which Catalonia has always been a net contributor (of course, Catalonia has been a net receiver of EU funds, but the whole of Spain has... ). Moreover, I would argue that Franco was also not exactly investing in Catalonia (although the economic reforms of the Spanish Miracle definitely did directly benefit Catalonia), and in general Franco's policies had a repressive effect on Catalonia (one of the hotbeds of resistance to Franco's rule). But lets say you can make a convincing point that at some point in the last 150 years, Catalonia's economy was jumpstarted by Federal fiscal policy, you'd still have to somehow disentangle it from the various conflicts that led to direct repression of Catalonia by federalist policies, in particular during the 18th century and show that it's because of federal policy, and not despite it, that Catalonia is now one of the economic motors of Spain. Note, that I am definitely not in favour of Catalan independence. Just pointing out that Catalonia is a remarkably bad example for anybody arguing that federal investments in the past were made to benefit from in the present/future. I was talking specifically about the Spanish Miracle. How is Spain not being democratic at that time relevant? Does the undeniable fact that Catalonia was also culturally repressed by Franco somehow nullify the investments? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_miraclehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instituto_Nacional_de_IndustriaProtectionism and direct investment on a large scale. Both Catalonia and the Basque Country benefited greatly from Spain's development strategy at the time. Yes yes. If an imposed dictatorship first destroys the local economy you can then swoop in and save the day with later investments. It'd be like saying Poland is ungrateful to the Soviet Union for the significant investments they made in rebuilding Poland after WW2... I fail to see evidence of the USSR making significant investments in post-war Poland aimed at rebuilding the country. Did Franco deliberately destroy Catalonia's industry or was it destroyed during the civil war, in which Catalonia actively fought? Wasn't Catalonia's industry relatively insignificant prior to the civil war compared to its industry after the Spanish Miracle? Those are honest questions. I am only briefly familiar with Spanish history.
Franco didn't deliberately destroy Catalonia's industry, of course, but he did brutally repress Catalonia as a region, with thousands of political prisoners and thousands more in exile (most fled to France). Add that to the damage of the war (including the bombing of Barcelona), and it's obvious that Franco's ascendancy to power did undeliberate as well as deliberate damage to Catalonia's economy. Moreover, the first ~20 years of his reign were spent on an economic policy focused on autarky, which basically neglected Catalonia's industry focused around foreign export (Catalonian economy has been about export since the early middle ages, and probably before).
Catalonia was a moderately rich region at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, being well situated to take advantage of the industrial revolution. This is evidenced nowadays by tourists coming to goggle at Gaudi's architecture and other Modernista buildings, usually built by barons of industry (like the famous Guell family). While this centered on Barcelona, most of the region prospered. Obviously, the great depression hit Catalonia the same as the rest of the industrial world, and the second republic's failure to execute any kind of effective reform was one of the principal causes of the civil war.
|
|
|
@lastpuritan :
I'm not really into the Turkish-Kurds conflict, but since your argumentation seems to rests a lot on the nation-state idea : why would Turks have the right to self-determine and be a nation-state, and Kurds (whom you apparently recognize to have a different culture) wouldn't ? I mean, if you consider that Turkey has fought against imperialists oppressors to become a free country (something which I don't disagree on), why don't you consider that Kurds are fighting an oppressor to become a free country ?
|
I can confirm Kaczynski is included in the list (audio available at rmc.bfmtv.com ~16'25''). Your second quote seems accurate.
|
On May 02 2017 23:45 Oshuy wrote:I can confirm Kaczynski is included in the list (audio available at rmc.bfmtv.com ~16'25''). Your second quote seems accurate.
Thanks. It's not the speech that was allegedly the source of his remark, but still... It's a pretty stupid thing to say. T__T
|
On May 03 2017 00:15 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2017 23:45 Oshuy wrote:I can confirm Kaczynski is included in the list (audio available at rmc.bfmtv.com ~16'25''). Your second quote seems accurate. Thanks. It's not the speech that was allegedly the source of his remark, but still... It's a pretty stupid thing to say. T__T
There was, one week ago, a battle between him and Le Pen about the Whirlpool factory of Amiens, that's going to be closed in favor of a factory in Poland. Hence why Poland isn't going to get any favor in both candidates' declarations until the election.
|
The context makes it understandable but it's hard to imagine Merkel saying something like that during German elections.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Well neither Macron nor Le Pen are Merkel clones. Thankfully.
|
On May 03 2017 01:10 Sent. wrote:
The context makes it understandable but it's hard to imagine Merkel saying something like that during German elections.
Assuming she was up against the AfD ? I dunno. I mean she still probably wouldn't because she literally held the EU on her back for several years, but you get the idea.
|
She'd maybe think it but she'd never say it. She's never been big on making diplomatic conflicts public, she likes to manage that stuff behind closed doors, which is probably where it belongs.
|
I mean, she knows she will have to cooperate with us for a few more years at least, so even if she thinks we're bad there is no need to burn bridges with such remarks. Promising a more protectionist stance should be enough to satisfy displeased factory workers, I doubt they care about political sanctions.
|
Just because it's so much fun: The Austrian conservatives (currently in a coalition with the social-democrats) have released a 58 page long "Red-Green Manifesto" in which they are warning that (SPÖ) Chancellor Christian Kern wants to create some form of communist state.
Guess who has has a new profile picture. 
+ Show Spoiler +
|
aren't they in a coalition with a right-wing party? Or is that the same as the Conservative party?
edit: whoops sorry got FPÖ and ÖVP mixed up
|
On May 03 2017 00:50 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 00:15 maybenexttime wrote:On May 02 2017 23:45 Oshuy wrote:I can confirm Kaczynski is included in the list (audio available at rmc.bfmtv.com ~16'25''). Your second quote seems accurate. Thanks. It's not the speech that was allegedly the source of his remark, but still... It's a pretty stupid thing to say. T__T There was, one week ago, a battle between him and Le Pen about the Whirlpool factory of Amiens, that's going to be closed in favor of a factory in Poland. Hence why Poland isn't going to get any favor in both candidates' declarations until the election.
The link Marine Le Pen - Jaroslaw Kaczynski is one claimed by MLP in an interview in march, I think on a question about her views on Europe (which led to an official denial by Kaczynski).
The depiction of the current Poland as not having an open and free democracy, mostly because of Kaczynski, is linked to a few warnings last year: law on public media, replacement of 5 juges in the supreme court, replacement of a number of officials by loyalists. The situation had lead the EU to officially state its concern (which must be some kind of diplomatic code).
I agree having Putin, Kaczynski and Orban in the same bag is indeed awkward (even having them in the same room might not be the best idea).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://images.kurier.at/46-96126432.jpg/940x540nocrop2/261.464.261)
