News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
China just proved physics wrong with a new form of fusion energy, meanwhile USA is invading sovereign nations and stealing their dinosaur juice.
USA has already lost.
There is only so much that can be externally produced.
EU needs to grow a pair and quit whinning and start moving. Change internal market laws. Subsidize industry to foster development. Review taxation (make taxes higher, not lower, for profits). Establish hard ecological and sustainability policies and enforce them.
Enough about what others have done. Think about everything still needing to be done.
The issue is that China has few viable markets for export left. They are in a trade war with the US, which has 25% of global nominal GDP, they themself have 16%. China has had military issues with Japan and India two massive trade blocks 3.5% of the global economy each. If you add to that the countries they have pissed of in the South China Sea you probably get to another 10% with good reasons to not allow Chinese products.
Given how much China exports, the EU is an incredibly important market with 18% of the global economy. It is also why Trump is such an idiot to piss of the EU. This could break China.
As it sits, in my view, what we consider the markets are to change radically in a very short timetable.
China does have an impressive industrial base but they are not stupid and they understand they need to secure some degree trust with the EU.
That was why they raised little to no opposition when the EU set tariffs to import EVs and simply opted to install factories on the ground. They create jobs and give a spit shine to their image that way.
However, if the EU knows how to play their cards, they can boil the frog and simply put higher demands for the internal market, all products.
Again, China is not a stupid country and they tend to copy or near directly implement EU directives, to ensure we have little to nothing to complain about. Considering they can get free (read slave) labour to make whatever they want, they can afford losing on one side to gain on the other.
That is why the EU passed CBAM and the supply chain laws. If the EU can force China not to use slave workers, then it quickly changes the market.
Wasn't aware of that. Thank you.
China ... opted to install factories on the ground. They create jobs ...
I'm not sure whether I got that right. China has been opening up factories in Europe, so far I agree, but that has little impact on the job market in Europe as the Chinese companies bring their own workers. We see this, for example, in Spain (CATL), Hungary (BYD), in the Balkans (Norinco, a Chinese state-owned military supplier that built solar projects there, among others) as well as in other parts of the globe. There are only of few local workers at Chinese foreign subsidiaries, while the most come from China. Also, illegal workers and forced labour is widespread in this setting (recent examples are Italy's fashion industry or Chinese carmaker BYD's closure of its Brazilian plant amid accusations of 'slave-like' labour conditions).
And these are only a few examples.
Some talk of chinese companies setting foot in my country has been heard (Portugal) and one of the demands was to have local employement created, not have foreign labour be brought in. Besides, we may be a mess of a country but labour law is quiet harsh here and enforced. I'm not saying shenanigans don't happen and won't be made but things get spotted here. And if the whole idea of China is to bring hands from the mainland, that can't be allowed.
the Chinese economy has grown by about 30 per cent over the past five years
Not even Chinese economists believe China's official GDP growth rates of 5% annually. This is rubbish.
the EU had to roll over when Trump threatened tariffs, China refused to bend, and its tough strategy has so far been successful.
There are several economic reports that say the exact opposite. One analysis from April 2025 says that US tariffs with retaliation by other countries will shrink the EU's GDP by -0.05 percent and China's GDP by -0.27 percent.
The EU-US agreement that has been reported as unfavorable for Europe was, indeed, a joke. This was not a deal at all as it was not even legally binding. For example, we see now that the EU is not even remotely buying US energy for the 'agreed' 250 billion dollars but just a small fraction of it (a fact that all analysts have always been predicting). The only thing where the EU gave in was when it ditched the import tariffs for agricultural products from the US. Sounds impressive and weak - until you hear that these agri tariffs were in the range of 1-2 % on average. That's next to nothing.
These are just two points out of this very weak article. Not that I contradict everything, but what the author here does is simply conveying Chinese narratives (and he does only that). It would be good if he read other stats and reports rather than just the Chinese ones.
[Edit typo.]
This is based on official numbers. According to these, the Chinese economy is always doing great. There was never a downturn, it's always growing, and always by around 5%. Because this annual rate is needed to achieve Xi Jinping's long-term growth target.
Don't say something else if and when you are in China, though, or if you would like to do business in China, and Goldman Sachs has a strong presence there, it's one of the few Western banks with a license for fund sales in China, for example.
In 2024, Zhu Hengpeng, a renowned Chinese economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, expressed doubt of China's 5% annual growth, claiming the growth to be much lower. He disappeared then for some months. (In the meantime he is back again working for the academy, but he is now convinced that the 5% is the number to be announced, at least that's what he is doing).
I could tell you a lot more, but I know I can save my breath. You wouldn't believe anyway. Your post history's spin tells clearly that you are not interested in independent information.
"Leaves the EU proletariat fretting for its future".
FTFY, our elite collaborated with the US fascists to arbitrage labour costs by using Chinese slave labour to fill their pockets while our societies were progressively destroyed by poor education and terciarization of the economy.
Also Chinese elites, which benefit from Chinese slave labor. After all the CCP party plenum is litterally the biggest meeting of billioniares in the world.
Chinas influence is barely something new. Automotive suppliers (and OEMs) outsource very heavily to Asia. Be it china or other countries (like india).
It is hardly a surprise. Money talks. If the OEM can just save 1 cent on a part, it will be done. There is no consideration of country.
When Japan entered the Western car market in the 60's and 70's, it was disruptive too. Especially in USA where it was made worse by the oil crisis, because American cars were giant gas guzzlers, and Japanese cars were the most fuel efficient.
Now China is entering the market, but compared to Japan, China has a 10 times bigger home market to draw from, which is a huge benefit for Chinese manufacturers in several ways.
First it helps manufacturers build large scale production for higher efficiency. Second it helps pay development of new models as cost is distributed on more cars, making it cheaper per car.
Third it allows China to experiment more, as new models that would be minor niche cars in other countries, can sell at scale.
Combined this has resulted in a development pace in China which is about three times faster than what we see in the rest of the world!
So it is no wonder that Chinese cars are gaining market share in the world outside China too. And we can expect the disruption to be bigger than when the Japanese cars arrived in the west.
But there are also a factor of diminishing returns, where scale and development speed will not yield as much benefits beyond a certain threshold.
So the Chinese advantage is probably at its peak right now, and manufacturers that can keep up with the Chinese competition for the next few years will have a good chance of making it in the future.
There's another important factor complicating things for Chinese companies:
China has copied every peace of technology they could get a hold of in the last 40 years (a smart move to close the gap between the leading nations and yourself in every sector). However, as Chinese industries now have reached the current state of the art and plan on overtaking the competition by making new innovations this leads to a problem: You hardly can dominate global markets while gatekeeping your technology. So China is now faced with the ironic problem of either protecting its innovations or exporting them to the world because it's not likely that any Western authority will give two shits about protecting Chinese intellectual property and/or patents when China itself didn't care for the last decades.
China has copied every peace of technology
Same as every other country since farming was invented.
Yes and no... there used to be something like patent protection and copyrights which, in my eyes, promoted innovation since you were ensured to be able to make use of your ideas.
which, in my eyes, promoted innovation
There is no evidence of that.
There is for developed economies.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400306
Bullshit.
The 10 industries are: Beverages (3.6%), Construction Machinery (5.6%), Electrical Components (7.7%), Food (13.8%), Household Appliances (2.2%), Industrial Chemicals (11.4%), Nonferrous Metals (5.8%), Rubber (3.6%), Scientific Instruments (35.7%), and Semiconductors (10.6%).
There is nothing in that link that shows that patents increase innovation, are you claiming beer is better because of patents?
If you are, that would be like claiming cookies you buy are better than home baked, because bought cookies make use of many patents.
I hope you can see the idiocy of the claim.
No "innovations" happened because they were patentable. But patents happen because they can prevent competition.
And on the other hand evidence that patents stifle competition is pretty clear, and stifled competition decreases innovation.
Steve Balmer expressed it very well IMO, when he claimed Microsoft was a very innovative company because they had created several new types of licenses!
Patents are a disease not a solution.
Point 13 explains this to some degree:
As Murmann's (2003) study of the synthetic dye industry in Germany during the 19th century shows, the appropriateness of patent strength depends on the circumstances, including timing. The patent law of 1877 was successful because it ‘came after the industry had already developed strong firms and science was providing the tools to do systematic R&D on new dyes … Had the German patent law arrived in 1858, it is doubtful that as many German firms would have developed into strong competitors. Fewer firms would have entered the industry, and inefficient firms would have been more likely to survive’ (p: 33).
Clearly showing the authors are aware that patents harm competition, and if patents had been introduced earlier, a few companies could have taken over the market and kept competition out.
They are however completely wrong about the "timing" of patents, there is no good timing of patents. Patents will always be harmful after the fact.
I think I get the point and when thinking about it I guess you're right. Thank you.
I guess we're moving towards an era where "the developed world" just means China.
It will level out globally in the long run because it's easier to catch up with others than to lead by innovation. What will prevent the world from copying Chinese innovations after China itself did so for decades?
I mean, there's a reason out of all third world countries only China managed to do it; industrialization is actually incredibly hard, especially if there are foreign powers invested in preventing it. I mean hell, even now China already has the best manufacturing in the world and the gap is only getting bigger; it's impossible to compete with that using services or resource extraction. Now the West theoretically has the capital to catch up before it's too late, but by the time neoliberals let go of power it will be too late.
There are various reasons China made it before not instead of others. Industrialization is taking up speed on Africa for example even if we like to ignore it.
However China isn't flawless and one aspect of the price it paiys is a selfmade demographic problem: The incedrible chatch up speed wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for the one-child-poöicy which, coupled with immensly hard work by the Chinese population and heavy environmental destruction, allowed for China to become an economic giant within decades. This policy however will backfire in the near future. It's not all black and white but mostly grey... as always.
countries like Germany ... are now at risk
Didn't Germany finance the EU in big parts? The EU is at risk.
What is the EU going to export in exchange for the raw materials and Chinese imports?
Will the EU keep existing if conflicts cannot be silenced with money?
Germany is the biggest economy in Europe, and especially before East and West Germany were reunited, Germany did contribute the most as the biggest economy, but Germany also reaped the biggest benefits.
And yes EU will keep existing because it remains beneficial for all member countries. And calling it silencing problems with money is a weirdly skewed way to put it. Conflicts were not "silenced", problems were solved, and the distribution of how to pay for it settled.
Just look at @plyth's comment history. There's nothing but these weird and skewed pieces. Save our breath I would say.
also reaped the biggest benefits.
That's where the trouble started. Schröder cutting wage costs shifted production unfairly to Germany.
Now if Germany is not competitive it affects the entirety of the EU.
and the distribution of how to pay for it settled.
In Germany, Bavaria had received transfer payments for decades. Once they were prosperous themselves and had to pay, they questioned the system.
Somebody has to pay the EU budget. If Germany is in a recession then other countries have to increase taxes to compensate. I hope that the union is established enough but I won't be sursprised if it fractures.
Let's not forget that the US has announced to fracture the EU.
All in all Bavaria has paid the other German states 125 billion € more than it received (10bn a year right now). That number is accelerating almost every year. Out of the 16 German states there are basically 4 states that give massive amounts to the others with Bavaria being the biggest giver by far.
Cut the crap.
Our governing party is full of arrogant assholes but this mechanism needs to be reformed.
Or high wages unfairly shifted jobs away from Germany previously. There is nothing to substantiate your point, it is merely a biased opinion.
By the same logic all previous eastern European countries, and Portugal and Greece and Italy and France are unfairly shifting jobs to their countries by having lower wages than Germany.
And Denmark is shifting jobs away from Denmark by having some of the highest wages in EU. Yet we have the lowest unemployment rate in EU.
Somebody has to pay the EU budget. If Germany is in a recession then other countries have to increase taxes to compensate.
No that is not how things work, this is such an extreme oversimplification to the point that it is decidedly wrong. (just as your previous claim).
Budgets are negotiated, and obviously the state of the economy is a significant part of those negotiations. But when making the budgets a certain percentage is decided for each country to pay of their GDP or a fixed amount is decided, depending on which program. One country paying slightly more or slightly less because of variations in GDP has no impact on how much the other countries pay. All countries can pay the same percentage on next years budget if that is what is decided.
Your economic thinking is wrong, you need to educate yourself more if you want to have valid opinions on economic issues. As it is now, you have controversial opinions but without the required understanding to validate them. If you had the understanding, you wouldn't make these claims.
Or high wages unfairly shifted jobs away from Germany previously.
And Denmark is shifting jobs away from Denmark by having some of the highest wages in EU.
That's how it should be. Innovate and create new jobs so that weaker economies can catch up by doing the old jobs. Otherwise the EU becomes a tool to exploit the weak countries.
There was less pressure to innovate which is becoming a problem now.
All countries can pay the same percentage on next years budget if that is what is decided.
Technically correct but I didn't specify next year's budget. The EU will decide differently when the income declines.
That’s how it should be. Innovate and create new jobs
Nonono you can't just explain it away with more platitudes. How do you define that the wages were to low after the job reform?
If they are to ow, why don't the unions fight to make them higher?
Technically correct but I didn’t specify next year’s budget. The EU will decide differently when the income declines.
That simply doesn't make any sense, are you saying other countries pay more on a budget already decided? Because what you wrote before was wrong, but this is crazy!
How do you define that the wages were to low after the job reform?
For starters:
Some scientists see the wage depression in Germany fostered by the Agenda 2010 as one of the causes of the European debt crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_euro_area_crisis
The problem is that resource allocation became wrong. The German workers lost income while money had to be payed for unemployed people in other countries. Overall the EU lost.
It was only good for German company owners. Funny enough, most shareholders are not German.
why don’t the unions fight to make them higher?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/VW-Korruptionsaff%C3%A4re (only German)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hartz was a key figure in the reform and the skandal.
are you saying other countries pay more on a budget already decided?
No. The EU would simply take a credit or cut the budget.
But a new budget has to be decided the next year and the military budget cannot be cut.
Link #1 doesn't support your claim:
However, most EU nations had increases in labour costs greater than Germany's.[33] Those nations that allowed "wages to grow faster than productivity" lost competitiveness.
So the problem was not Germany, but that other countries INCREASED their wages above what was sustainable, Germany is in no way to blame for that.
In Your german link the only appearance of wage when translated to english is VolksWagen. I also checked salary, and that only appears as part of how a fine was calculated.
I see nothing at all relating to your claim. Also I read German fine, but I read English faster, but feel free to post German sources.
Regarding the Harz guy, I have no idea why you find him relevant, apart from being part of the corruption at VW so what?
No. The EU would simply take a credit or cut the budget.
Now you are contradicting yourself from your previous comments.
Are you an AI in beta? Or what the fuck is your argument? So far you have shown NOTHING!
I'm considering simply blocking you, because you make absolutely no sense?!?!
I can throw you links too without explanation:
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid
https://www.andersenstories.com/language.php?andersen=037&l=en&r=da (includes original text in Danish)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorvald_Stauning
The last link in particular is very informative.
So the problem was not Germany, but that other countries INCREASED their wages
You are technically correct but another part of the article shows that the share of wages declined in Germany.
Regarding the Harz guy, I have no idea why you find him relevant
The unions are heavily influenced and don't necessarily do what is best for the workers. Thus no strikes.
Now you are contradicting yourself from your previous comments.
There is no contradiction. I am talking about different years.