Well this is offensive if not blatantly racist. They could also just present general guidelines on cooking and personal hygiene and people can figure out how it applies to their personal situation.

How do things like this keep happening? (well, I know why but jfc)

More generally - most people don’t use excessive water. The problem really lies elsewhere, perhaps focus on that.

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.

When it comes to defence a) much of Europe is already working together while b) the EU also can’t get its act together on a shared defence.

I am pro Iceland and Norway joining the EU but when it comes to defence I am not sure it particularly matters (for many other things it absolutely does however).

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 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.