thisislieven

Honestly, football isn't my thing but from the little reporting I saw UEFA (and others) came out swinging against this but the next day the tone was already considerably different.

The single fact that Infantino seems to have widespread support, also in Europe, for a third term to me basically tells the whole story. From the countries that were awarded the tournament in recent history, to the 'Today I am' speech, the FIFA Peace Prize, the influence from Trump... somehow that's acceptable.

FIFA was incredibly corrupt, people got charged and somehow the next guy is even more corrupt.

So yeah, I have little hope.

My guess:

1. UEFA says no.
2. UEFA says really, really no.
3. EU issues warning.
4. FIFA says yes.
5. UEFA says yes.
6. EU says nothing.

I struggle to understand why they would create such a gigantic caveat that undermines the entire law unless the goal is to undermine it.

unfuckingbelievable

Any connection is tangential at best and the forces against either are wholly different, and so is the nature of the allegations and everything else that surrounds them.

Either way this is not a thread about Platner, I won't entertain this further.

I'm not claiming it didn't happen but an investigation was not conclusive enough to establish this beyond any reasonable doubt. Not quite that overwhelming.

What does seem clear, however, is that these allegations regardless of their veracity seem to have been (ab)used by Israel and the US to get rid of the one person trying to hold Israel accountable for its actions.

What is certainly clear is that no European or EU leader could be bothered to stand up for the ICC and demand indisputable clarity of Khan's conduct.

The whole thing is muddy and disturbing. I am not saying Khan's removal wasn't the right decision, but the way that decision was ultimately made is incredibly problematic and likely will have wider consequences.

First of all, there were multiple issues with Platner beyond the allegations. He also kept changing his story which made him unreliable.

He also was not removed, people called on him to step down but he made the call. He could have refused - it would not have made him friends but it was within his right to remain the candidate.

More importantly, he did not have arrest warrants out for some of the worst people in global politics that are somehow revered by much of the rest of the world. He also did not work for an institution grounded in international law others are seeking to dismantle.
Not quite at the same scale as someone running for US senate, let alone the numbers of the people of Maine vs the people of 125 independent countries.

Let's not pull Platner into this. Quite a different situation.

True, but with 82 out of 125 voting for his removal it feels fair to say that at least some European countries voted in favour. This being closed-door is problematic in its own right but that's another story.

My more general point is the utter failure of our leaders to defend the ICC as an institution and stand up for its people (even those without misconduct allegations). Let alone they won't insist proper procedure is followed. On paper that may have been the case but in reality it appears to have been quite something else.

I think for me as well, if you check the flip side of the G notes I also love that the people show a fair bit of diversity. There's a figure in a wheelchair (50), some people of colour and two sets of people who could well be same-sex couples (or siblings, or friends - imagine your own adventure, 100/200). None of the other designs have this.

Fun* fact: Politico is the main news source for EU politicians, leaders and eurocrats. While you can make a tepid argument that their news coverage is ok their opinion pieces are biased, not exactly pro-EU and clearly informed by the Anglospheric view of things.

*not really

Nihilism and misanthropy are weird terms to use here.

Good they took the network down but these are telling misnomers.

Yes, but only if you hold firm.

VDL et al have a history of doing the exact opposite, no matter how many times this has proven a failed strategy. Somehow they even seem surprised he responds this way, again and again.

Let's hope they've learned but so far there's been little reason to think they have (frankly the fine was already reduced by billions under what the DMA allows, most likely out of fear).