Emmanuel Macron has asked the EU to stop spewing out green regulations by the bucket-load, pointing out that the region won’t be able to compete with less regulated parts of the world if the rush to Net Zero continues. Will Rishi Sunak take note? The Telegraph has more.
Emmanuel Macron had a spring in his step as he donned a hard hat to join workers at an aluminium factory in Dunkirk.
The French president was there to trumpet the recent decision by ProLogium, a Taiwanese car battery maker, to establish its first overseas plant in the northern town, ploughing in €5.2 billion (£4.5 billion).
But he also had another message for his audience: that further factory investment was at risk unless France and the EU pressed pause on the reams of green laws and regulations flowing out of Brussels.
Europe had already done more than the likes of America and China, he argued, and tinkering further with standards would put it at a competitive disadvantage.
“I prefer factories that respect our European standards, which are the best, rather than those who still want to add standards and always more – but without having anymore factories,” he told the crowd this month.
Macron was underlining a speech he had made just a day earlier at the Elysee Palace. Outlining his green industrial strategy, the French president called for a “European regulatory pause”, adding: “We have already passed a lot of regulations at the European level, more than our neighbours… Now we have to execute, not make new rule changes, because otherwise we will lose all the players.”
Bruno Le Maire, the economy minister, later backed his boss up, telling French television: “There are rules, they are the most demanding on the whole planet. Rather than always wanting to reinforce them, you have to apply them.”
The shifts across the water pose searching questions for the U.K., about whether a loosening of the EU’s green transition could put British businesses at a disadvantage as well. Can a nation impose some of the strictest environmental rules in the world while protecting the competitiveness of its industrial base?
And as Europe pauses its drive towards net zero, is Britain at risk of becoming more isolated than ever?
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My pronouns are he/haw
Very good. I like Steve Sailer’s take on this, too: Steve Sailer – My pronouns, like Stalin’s, are Who and Whom
Mine are ho/hum
That made me laugh! 🙂
As far as I’m concerned, the use of “new-fangled pronouns” is a clear sign of mental illness and so should absolutely be taken into consideration.
I’m not saying they should be marginalised or treated badly. They should be advised to seek help.
My pronouns are ../..! is basically an order to third parties that they may only refer to the person in question using the title it(?) granted to itself. This is exactly the same as Charles III. being referred to as His Majesty instead of just he. OTOH, he’s the rightful king of England but the run-of-the-mill gendertard is just a rightful dickhead who demands special treatment because he really wants to be treated specially.
People who believed they get to order around others just because they really want to ought to be advised to shut up.
Noah Carl has exposed a very important type of discrimination. I read years ago that American medical schools have long operated a policy of admitting only applicants with leftist, politically correct views, by asking inquisitorial questions specifically designed to discover any conservative tendencies in the applicant.
This should be regarded as text book example of social junk science. But considering
In light of the borderline statistical significance, Maupin and McCannon’s study should not be considered the final word on the subject of discrimination based on pronoun-giving. But its findings won’t surprise anyone who’s familiar with what today’s universities are like.
it was obviously never meant to be anything except an appeal to the prejudices¹ certain people have about today’s universities.
¹ This doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re wrong, just that they’re theories based on hearsay and personal political disposition and not an actual empirical evidence.
Can someone explain to me why it is always two pronouns (“he/him” or “she/her”)? Why not just “my pronoun is “he”? Or why not “my pronouns are he/him/his”?
It’s basically completely nuts, obviously, but presumably the nutty pronoun formulation comes from some woke book, almost certainly American.
“For example, a broad-shouldered person with stubble might prefer to be addressed as ‘she/her’. “
I identify as a broad-shouldered person with stubble and I prefer to be addressed as “you”. Most people only use the third person when talking about someone behind his/her back.