Researcher of EU integration and supranational democracy | Blogger @foederalist.eu | Visiting professor @collegeofeurope.bsky.social, non-resident fellow @fiia.fi, associated researcher @iep-berlin.de | Views my own, of course
Manuel Müller
Loading...
If you like a good nail-biting electoral vote count, don't miss what's going on in #Peru right now:
He has a point here.
Not because the EU's policies are always good for humanity; they aren't. But because the idea of European integration—uniting people of different countries as equal citizens of a joint supranational democracy—is more humanist than the opposing principle of national sovereignty.
He has a point here.
Not because the EU's policies are always good for humanity; they aren't. But because the idea of European integration—uniting people of different countries as equal citizens of a joint supranational democracy—is more humanist than the opposing principle of national sovereignty.
Am 23. Juni stimmt das Europäische Parlament über einen Verordnungsentwurf ab, der den Digitalen Euro einführen will.
CEDERIC MEIER erklärt, wozu es einen Digitalen Euro überhaupt braucht – und warum der Unionsgesetzgeber mutig sein muss.
verfassungsblog.de/digitaler-eu...
If you're keen on destroying social cohesion and creating mistrust between different parts of the population (in this case, long-standing residents vs. new arrivals), creating separate welfare systems is certainly a great approach!
... is universalism so dead that we can't even understand any more the very basic idea of all dramatic acting that humans are essentially so alike that things that one person has done or felt (or is supposed to have done or felt, because fiction) can be represented by another person?
So @theguardian.com has this entirely serious piece complaining that there are no Greek actors in Nolan's Odyssey, and now I'm wondering (a) how can you dare to make a film about events supposed to have taken place in 1000BC and all the actors have been born in the 20th or 21st century?, and (b) ...
Background: Fujimori is stronger in the cities, where almost all of the votes have already been counted. Sánchez is stronger in rural areas, where counting takes more time.
So Fujimori went into an early lead, but Sánchez has been catching up all day and now looks likely to win on the last metres.
Indeed. In the 1960s many more people held racist attitudes but both the government and opposition were consistent in condemning open racism. We now have am emboldened and tolerated minority by both government and opposition.
This is a key problem of many Western countries today.
And no: better representation of racist attitudes will not make our political systems more democratic, because racism itself contradicts the idea of human equality and is therefore anti-democratic. (Popper's tolerance paradox, anyone?)
