sara-rey.bsky.social
Writing about the future of Europe: https://europetomorrow.substack.com (English),
and personal & sustainable finance (Dutch): https://sara-reyniers.be/
Entrepreneur during working hours. Next to writing, I love nature š», podcasts šļø and food š„
161 posts
50 followers
120 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
al helemaal niet als je belang hecht aan promotie van je naam als schrijver van het stuk. AI vlakt teksten af tot goed lezend maar weinig memorabel en zeker niet met een eigen stijl.
In NL vertaalt De Correspondent af en toe een stuk, zij werken met vertalers dan heb ik gehoord.
2/2
comment in response to
post
Een vertaler inschakelen kan natuurlijk wel, die kan nuance meenemen in de vertaling, maar het is natuurlijk wel een extra kost (dit is mijn sector, ik heb een vertaalbureau).
In bepaalde gevallen zijn tools zoals AI interessant, maar voor een journalistiek stuk zou ik dat niet doen,
1/2
comment in response to
post
We donāt have primaries or anything. No winner takes all. No gerrymandering. Just proportional seats based on region and then seats divided pro rata over all parties above 5% threshold.
comment in response to
post
I donāt blame the Dems, I think itās a problem of how the system is set up. The same goes for the GOP. Would Trump have taken it over from the old-school republicans if he could have started his own party? In Belgium itās quite simple to start a party and you need 5% of votes to get at least 1 seat.
comment in response to
post
I rather thought the current paralysis with the Dems is because they canāt agree on the right way forward. You wouldnāt have that problem if AOC etc were in a separate party and could follow their own path.
comment in response to
post
Exactly. Wouldnāt it be better if e.g. centrist tories and centrist Labour could work together, instead of Tories being dragged to the right by Johnson etc, and Labour having to put up with Corbyn for years? Coalitions also have the advantage of having a bigger share of the populationās support.
comment in response to
post
Arenāt you having this discussion because US Democrats shouldnāt be 1 party? Iāll never understand how Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton sit at the same table, while they have such different views. The political system that discourages having more parties and governing by coalition is crazy to me.
comment in response to
post
Isnāt it also because of the pendulum swing? When you pull it strongly in 1 direction (Trump) it automatically swings back strongly in the other direction. When people want complete change, they donāt vote for a centrist.
And yes, Cuomo was burnt š
comment in response to
post
Some parties in other countries were talking about leaving because of the Lisbon treaty, like Wilders in the Netherlands and Le Pen in France (Nexit and Frexit), but that died down when they saw what happened to Brexit. You really donāt hear anyone seriously campaigning for leaving anymore.
2/2
comment in response to
post
As a Belgian, I LOLāed at Hannanās post, but itās good to see the historical context. There was much talk about the Lisbon treaty at the time too. Ireland had a referendum and thenā¦ ehā¦ redid it.
1/2
comment in response to
post
This isnāt Rutteās communication style, he trumpified it. Rutte is pragmatic and always manages to slide through the net without getting caught.
Itās difficult to see what his intentions are, probably keep Trump on board while also pushing EU to strengthen itself, just in case Trump walks out.
comment in response to
post
SAFE is also open for non-EU countries? We need partnerships, yes, but not new dependencies to replace our dependence on the US. I need to look into this more first.
comment in response to
post
Holding a referendum and then ignoring the result is very harmful for peopleās trust in democracy. You can only do that if you said beforehand that it needed a min % of turnout and a min % for 1 option, like they do in Scotland.
Not that I think that referenda generally are a good tool, but okay.
comment in response to
post
Iād add Poland and Sweden to that. The Nordics may not shout and attract attention, but they have best practices the EU could follow.
Poland just has a sizeable army and understands Russia (so do the Nordics and Baltic states).
comment in response to
post
Europe sending mixed signals: good. It shows we donāt meekly follow, while by the time we need to take up some kind of role, there will be a joint plan. Itās messy, but itās supposed to be.
Calling out whatās wrong would be better, of course, but this so utterly European š¤·āāļø
comment in response to
post
Canāt believe politicians keep making that mistake over and over again. So many examples of āyou canāt win against the extreme by playing on their fieldā. Why do they keep trying? Seriously.
comment in response to
post
Yes, but it will take time. If the EU wants to spend the 800 billion euros, the industry isnāt large enough to absorb that money and deliver. Maybe more like 25% of that amount, maybe not even that. More companies and more scaling up is needed here.
comment in response to
post
The EU needs to hold accountable those who violate international law. It has not done enough the last years in that region.
But I do have to say Costa formulates his comments better than Von der Leyen or Kallas. Their right to self-defence remarks are Israeli parroting. Not what Europeans want.
comment in response to
post
Damn, of course I forgot one:
The non-proliferation treaty: exists since 1968, signed by 191 states.
Refused to sign: India, Pakistan, and Israel. North Korea signed, but withdrew in 2003.
Israel also refuses to give the IAEA access to facilities.
comment in response to
post
6ļøā£Ā Do these leaders actually respect Trump? He says something, they ignore him, and then he says he was on board with it all along and how great their relationship is. We seem to stumble into crises based on lies, pettiness, inflated egos and general stupidity. Things arenāt looking good.
š§µ17 (end!)
comment in response to
post
5ļøā£Ā Attacked countries seem to show more restraint than aggressors: Ukrainian civilians dead: 13340, Russian civilians dead: 400; Palestinian civilians: 44000, Israeli civilians: 800 (conflict with Hamas); even for a conflict of 1 week: Iranian civilians: 224, Israeli civilians: 24.
š§µ16
comment in response to
post
E.g. Israel/Gaza ā Iran, Russia became more repressive to its own citizens which led to protests ā Ukraine, US/California ā Iran.
š§µ15
comment in response to
post
4ļøā£Ā autocratic leaders operate in similar ways: cause conflict and chaos at home, push citizens to a state of survival and protest, start a war elsewhere to divert attention away from whatās happening at home and bring dissidents back into the fold in common support against the foreign enemy.
š§µ14
comment in response to
post
3ļøā£Ā Netanyahu claims itās for Israelās safety. Risking a nuclear disaster in a neighbouring country is whatās best for your citizens? Radiation doesnāt stop at borders. Being bombed in retaliation is whatās best for your citizens? The situation was stable in 2016-2018 and Netanyahu opposed this.
š§µ13
comment in response to
post
2ļøā£Ā Trump is easily convinced. I remember Obama actually saying that Netanyahu was a liar, but because of the US/Israel relationship, he had to work with him. That didnāt stop Obama from signing the Iran nuclear deal against Netanyahuās wish.
š§µ12
comment in response to
post
Conclusions:
1ļøā£Ā Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? When Trump withdrew from the deal, Iran stepped up its nuclear efforts. Netanyahu clearly wasnāt interested in a peaceful relation with Iran. The Iran nuclear deal only postponed his opportunity to attack.
š§µ11
comment in response to
post
Netanyahu disregarded the US and then pressured Trump to participate. Trump did not get the permission of Congress to get involved in the conflict, which may even lead to impeachment, but now seems on board with Israel.
š§µ10
comment in response to
post
The uranium present (60% enriched) is not enriched to the level needed for a war head (90% enriched).
šĀ Present day: there were diplomatic talks with Iran in Geneva going on. The US wanted a 2-week window to talk and decide what to do. Israel succeeded in torpedoing both.
š§µ9
comment in response to
post
šĀ 2020-2025: the IAEA communicated concern that Iran has facilities to which the IAEA has no access and it has 400 kilograms of enriched uranium, which could be used for 9 or 10 war heads. There is however still no proof that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. There is only an increased risk.
š§µ8
comment in response to
post
šĀ 2019: Iran announced that its low-enriched uranium exceeded the threshold and in 2020, Iran withdrew from the deal but continued to cooperate with the IAEA.
š§µ7
comment in response to
post
The IAEA explicitly stated that Iran was abiding by the rules. The EU was appalled and tried to do damage control by imposing a blocking statute to declare the new US sanctions against Iran null and void in Europe. The Commission also instructed theĀ EIB to facilitate investment in Iran.
š§µ6
comment in response to
post
šĀ 2018: in May 2018 Trump withdrew from the deal based on information from Netanyahu and a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia. The information allegedly claimed that Iran didnāt share all information about its facilities.
š§µ5
comment in response to
post
ā The IAEA confirmed that Iran was honouring its commitments under the deal in March 2018.
š§µ4
comment in response to
post
The IAEA would get access to inspect the facilities. In return Iran received relief from sanctions.
Results:
ā Israel was AGAINST this deal, even though this stopped proliferation efforts. Saudi Arabia was also opposed to the deal.
š§µ3
comment in response to
post
šĀ 2016: the US, the EU, the UK, China and Russia put in motion the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or Iran nuclear deal. Iran agreed to eliminate enriched uranium, reduce its gas centrifuges and not build heavy-water facilities.
š§µ2
comment in response to
post
The EU is talking to Australia too at the moment šŖšŗ š¦šŗ
comment in response to
post
The more data collected, the more you need to rely on AI to filter through whatās relevant and what isnāt.
Your previous point about time spent per incident decreasing is correct, but the number of incidents goes up significantly, so time is not spent more efficiently (reviewing flagged incidents).
comment in response to
post
5. Referring to my comment elsewhere in the thread: I think itās the wrong focus. Stronger punishment doesnāt lead to deterrence as hoped. I think itās better to focus on causes of crime and decreasing recidivism with adequate support.
4/4