I understand all that, I just fundamentally disagree with it.

To be clear, I am not saying you’re wrong but I mean that this is just such irresponsible governing. It’s laziness indeed, it’s fear to take responsibility, it’s whatever else. What it isn’t is taking charge as leaders and feeling any kind of responsibility or accountability. This is something that could be done at a 10th of that amount if not less so.

I’ve worked a lot with governments myself in the past and the incredible wasteful spending just has me livid. From renting out entire castles to hold meetings to cleaning up walls, while also hollowing out just about all social services.

It’s just - it wasn’t always like this and I understand the politics behind but I will never understand it from a human point of view. It’s utter insanity and almost no one is willing to change it.

Sure, but still that’s just a price tag that can’t easily be validated - even with a subcontractor (and, frankly, municipalities should have this in their ranks - also for removing graffiti and such).

There’s a massive issue of government’s wasteful spending, local and national. This is one of those things. More generally, as a society that we have price tags like this is just insane. At the same time, basic services can’t be funded.

It just doesn’t add up, even if you agree with the removal.

True, but on a personal level I also just really can’t enjoy it anymore knowing who’s behind it regardless of how I obtain it.

(I also just grew out of it, that too)

The work came for free, courtesy of the artist.

The cleaning fee of £150k comes from - I mean wtf is that price even? That’s just absolutely bonkers on so many levels. Even if it requires some specialist work, this is just insane.

I hated the far right already but now I shall hate them even more.

Hrm…

I may have miscalculated this. Technically we’re still only at step 2 as I proposed it but with the North American and Asian equivalents of UEFA also against it, UEFA on a strike of sorts and people seemingly real mad at Infantino that might be the last step after all.

It’d be real funny if this caused the ouster of Infantino and he won’t even get a third term.

Still, I am not yet 100% convinced it won’t happen, or in some watered down version perhaps.

Well, that’s why I added links…

Sure. It’s genuinely a problematic situation. I’ll include the Washington Post too.

More of a general point: there’s little pan-European media and it isn’t well known. What’s mostly consumed is Anglo-Saxon, either from the US or the UK - neither of which are part of the EU and even the UK media sphere is barely European. They have different agendas, lack the cultural and institutional knowledge and measure the EU and Europe alongside their own standards. It frames the conversation in Europe, directly and indirectly, in a way not beneficial to Europe.

Most Europeans don’t even recognise this is happening, and has for decades, and indiscriminately share things from the US or UK, including the worst of media outlets. It has consequences and plays a key factor in Europeans failing to recognise the US as anything other than an equal and an ally which they most certainly are not (and never truly have been).

The NYT and the WaPo are two of the most established newspapers in the US and considered papers of record, both are probably also the most read US newspapers outside of the US (alongside the WSJ - which is less problematic but leans right and is not as neutral as many Europeans consider it to be). All have a history going back well over a century, and a reputation that goes along with that.

Both have issues with framing. Even if the facts are technically right, the way they are presented can make things seem different than they are. There’s a massive difference in how republicans are represented vs democrats, and more globally the right vs the left. Their difference in coverage of Biden and Trump is an extreme example of this.

WaPo was acquired by Jeff Bezos (Amazon) a few years back and he has editorial influence. One of the most notable things is that he told the opinion writers can only write about personal liberties and free markets. Anything to challenge this is no longer allowed.
Bezos also blocked WaPo from endorsing Kamala Harris in the last US election (whether or not you supported her isn’t the point - the point is that a supposedly editorially independent paper did not get to make its own decisions).

As for the NYT, there are many issues and controversies. To focus on the two big, current, ones: their coverage of the war in Gaza (I’ll let wiki do the explaining) and the incredibly biased writing on transgender people which has caused genuine harm. Alejandra Carabello (clinical instructor at Harvard) has done a tremendous deep dive going back several years.

As a side note: the parody NYT Pitchbot is a nice one to understand their pattern.

There’s so much more but this was already three times longer than I intended to write.

I’ll get off my high horse now.

Do we really need the US perspective on Europe, which by its very definition isn’t neutral and often hostile? Especially the NYT which… well, there’s been a bit of a downfall in quality and neutrality to put it mildly.

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.

[T]he EU budget amounts to roughly 1% of the EU’s combined gross domestic product. Under the current 2021-2027 framework, the legal ceiling on what Brussels can even raise is 1.4% of EU GDP, and actual spending has consistently come in well under that, around 1% to 1.1%. The 2026 annual budget lands at €192.8 billion in commitments — against an EU economy worth somewhere north of €17 trillion.

Now put that next to what most national governments do with their own economies.

Germany’s federal government (excluding the Länder, the regional states that run their own substantial budgets) spent around €495.5 billion in 2025 on a German economy of roughly €4.3-4.4 trillion. That’s about 12% of GDP, from the federal layer alone, before you add a single euro of state or municipal spending. Berlin’s federal government, in other words, spends more than ten times what the EU’s confederal government does. And that’s the “frugal” German federal government we’re talking about, the one whose chancellor stood next to Jetten in Cyprus this spring and said it was time for the EU to “reduce spending.”

Dave Keating recently did a deep dive on the budget and why our leaders need to step up their game rather than slashing the budget of an EU they expect to do ever more with less money.

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.

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.

Assuming both you and your partner ‘read’ as male the world will presume you’re a gay couple. That’s not necessarily true, you’d become a same-sex couple and ‘gay’ is more a way of describing an individual’s sexual orientation. Whether or not that’s yours too is for you to decide.

It’s easy to say you shouldn’t care about how people see and/or label you but we live in a society and people judge and draw conclusions. We are all sensitive to this to at least some extent. There’s no shame in that and I hope your partner can also understand that while they become their true self this also changes your relationship and the way you see yourself. I hope you can talk about this together in honesty and with love.

If you find you’re struggling I would highly recommend you speak to a therapist who knows their stuff or find a support group. You’re not the first one to walk this path and it may prove valuable to connect with others who understand this first hand.

Your partner deserves all the love and support but so do you.

As a side note, I am wholly assuming good intentions here so no worries but using ‘biological’ is not typically seen as a positive phrasing in this context. I would use ‘assigned female at birth’ (AFAB) or ‘identified previously as female’, though I would also check with my partner as they may have their own lingo.

It is infuriating as is but it also is part of the reason why so many people are struggling with the EU currently.

We recognise the good but it just does not live up to its own values and treats equal situations differently - there’s just no defending this and it’s well out of line with the people. Let alone the fact that we continue to fall neatly in line with the US, no matter what harm it does to us.

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.

It seems you have a better grasp of Sanchez but to me he comes across as sincere when it comes to everything EU, and he has been fairly consistent for years. The China thing may be the exception, I know it baffled me when I read about the closer ties Sanchez was seeking.

I wrote it wrong, sort of. I know there have been some verdicts from the courts already but I also meant any verdict that Sanchez may face. As far as I know there’s no active case against him (yet), but then again when both your brother and wife are in hot water…

Sanchez has said he plans to run for re-election in 2027, curious to see if that still holds in a few months.

I was willing to give Sanchez some benefit of the doubt given that most if not all of the allegations came from the far right who have a habit of inventing theories or blowing things well out of proportion.
That may still be true but it seems fair to say that Sanchez et al were up to some very shady stuff. If they’re found guilty by an independent court than that’s that.

It’s extremely disappointing. I can’t really speak to Spanish politics but on the EU level Sanchez has been pretty much the sole voice pushing back against the US and in favour of further integration including a united EU defence force.

It’s funny in a weird way how this is now voluntarily for companies and the US tech giants have jumped on it while European companies reject it.

There may be a few exceptions either side, but by and large…

We need to fight CC2 in each and every way, and I presume the final battle will be in the courts, but it seems we also have to fight the functioning of Parliament now. While the way this extension passed may have been technically legal it was wholly unethical, void of decency and completely against the spirit of the EU.