Zahtu

that is a crazy statement coming Form the Land of migration itself

which Title would come first then? Mr. President Pope - Mr. Pope President?

thanks 🙂 its great to have a civil discussion on the internet. What i mean about the first part is, that as your first point stated and my first answer to the discussion at hand stated, agreement proposals have to be done by countries with some kind of factor (yours was population size, mine were economical) in order to claim legitimacy. As you rightfully called into question the need for that in your follow-up comment, i wanted to join you and say that the factors should not play a role at all, neither populace or economical, wheb proposing improvements at the global stage.

BRICS, ADB etc. same with NATO, EU etc. were created when multiple interests among a number of states aligned with each other. I would not consider them necessary blocs for multinational agreements on topics differing from their original interest. Since we are talking on one specific topic here, they are of no use.

Any kind of agreement is legitimate as long as all sides of the agreement consider them as such. i dont think, we are talking about coercion here, as the agreement proposed is just that - a proposal. Wpuld you call it coercion if you are approached by a group of people on a topic you have a neutral opinion about? I don't think so. Whether one joins an agreement or not is up to them.

what in the article states, that they are not being inclusive? from my PoV of the article its a joint effort of EU and the CPTPP which totals 40nations

i understand your sentiment, what i was saying is i reject your claim of equivaleny between us states to european countries or countries in general. i was rly talking about, that any country, except the US, that does not have a majorly agricultral society can sort any given country into their continent correctly. Except for USA'ians who do not have this kind of geographical knowledge.

but then we are talking about a completely different thing as your first post suggested. Why is it, that one even has to have some factor in an element on the global stage to shape future agreements? Because i believe that for all countries could give any idea to how agreements should be created (yes, even the smallest unimportant countries). and apparently your top 1 and top 3 did not make any move on that, so why should other countries wait for those to take action? also note you are talking about laws, i am talking about agreements. there is no such thing as law on the international stage, only trust and credibility amid agreed upon agreed rules on that stage. Since the preivous shaper of those agreements - the US - is no longer to be trusted or have any credibility left, other countries will step up out of their volition. why restrict that?

when talking about world trade the size of ones population does not matter as much as i.e. the GDP because those are the relevant numbers when judging a economic topic.

its not equivalent at all. like most if not all people from countries with education over an agricultural society can tell, whether a country is situated at a certain continent or not. And this for all continents, whether its their own continent or not.

yeah, like the push of CDU to remove/repel erbscchaftssteuer. like, they are not even hiding, that the current administration only works for the rich people and the industry.

i guess its a great start for a more integrated Europe in order to become something like the united states of europe. Now its important to make sure, that digital only and simplified does in no way mean a reduction of workers rights or the publics right towards information about those companies. Here is hoping its a basis that will uphold those rights at a more upper level across the median of european nations and not be situated on the lower end.

you forgot to mention agent krasnovs hidden motive here: by exhausting european military, its easier for russia to occupy more territory later on.

cool malicious compliance xD

yeah, i still remember the remarks "5G bis zur Milchkanne" several years ago by CDU. like who needs this? and who has to pay for it. obviously, with CDU its the citizens that have to pay for it, even though they reap the least benefits. And all that just because the actors pushing for stuff (agrar and tech lobby) don't want to pay and always go around the "gespenst" of Europe falling behind in tech. As if our agrar producers suddenly could not produce food without it.