Search

The author wrote to the minister that, in his opinion, people had had enough of high taxes while cities were increasingly resembling the Gaza Strip. He referred to Belgium as a country that was becoming an economic and sociocultural battlefield and mentioned the number of native inhabitants leaving Belgium. https://t.co/CEvyXcEX3B #België #Belastingen #SociaalEconomie #BE #IL (translated)

Kövesi pleacă. Întrebările rămân. Cine face bilanțul din spatele aplauzelor? Editorial Laura Codruța Kövesi își încheie mandatul la conducerea Parchetului European. Începând cu 1 noiembrie 2026, funcția este preluată de Andrés Ritter. Este încheierea mandatului de șapte ani, nu o destituire, iar acest lucru trebuie spus corect chiar și într-un editorial critic. Dar încheierea mandatului este și momentul în care aplauzele ar trebui să lase locul întrebărilor. Pentru că un procuror cu o asemenea putere nu poate fi evaluat ca o vedetă. Nu după numărul interviurilor, după admirația politicienilor sau după cât de bine sună discursurile despre curaj și independență. Bilanțul trebuie să cuprindă rezultate definitive, bani recuperați și respectarea drepturilor celor anchetați. Nimeni nu are monopol pe dreptate Cea mai toxică idee care poate însoți lupta anticorupție este aceea că procurorul devine, prin simpla funcție, întruchiparea binelui. Din acel moment, orice critică este tratată ca o complicitate, orice întrebare devine o diversiune, iar orice solicitare de răspundere este prezentată drept un atac împotriva justiției. O asemenea logică este inacceptabilă. Procurorii exercită puterea statului. Pot declanșa proceduri care schimbă vieți, afectează reputații și pun presiune asupra unor companii. Tocmai de aceea, trebuie supuși unei examinări exigente. Dosarul penal nu este o condamnare. Conferința de presă nu este o sentință. Iar suspiciunea, oricât de spectaculos ar fi prezentată, nu ține loc de probă. Când aceste diferențe dispar din dezbaterea publică, justiția riscă să devină un tribunal al reputațiilor, în care pedeapsa începe înainte ca judecătorul să se pronunțe. Cine răspunde pentru eșecuri? O evaluare serioasă a perioadei Kövesi trebuie să urmărească fiecare categorie de rezultate: condamări, achitări, clasări, durata procedurilor și motivele pentru care anumite acuzații nu au fost confirmate. O achitare nu dovedește automat un abuz. Dar nici nu poate fi măturată sub covor, mai ales când omul anchetat a purtat ani întregi eticheta publică a vinovăției. Cine îi restituie timpul? Cine îi repară reputația? Cine explică diferența dintre gravitatea acuzației inițiale și ceea ce a putut fi demonstrat în instanță? Aceste întrebări nu apără corupția. Ele apără cetățeanul în fața puterii. Iar cine pretinde că apărarea drepturilor încurcă anticorupția a înțeles profund greșit rostul justiției. Bilanțul european trebuie citit până la capăt Nici activitatea europeană nu poate fi redusă la sloganuri. Afirmația că Parchetul European ar fi anchetat numai firme din România și Bulgaria este contrazisă de propriile comunicări ale instituției. În octombrie 2025, de exemplu, EPPO anunța o anchetă coordonată din München privind o presupusă fraudă de TVA de 48 de milioane de euro, cu peste o sută de percheziții și șapte arestări. Acestea erau măsuri într-o anchetă, nu condamnări. Dar existența unor operațiuni spectaculoase nu închide discuția despre eficiență. Raportul EPPO pentru 2025 prezintă 3.602 investigații active, prejudicii estimate de peste 67 de miliarde de euro și 275 de acte de trimitere în judecată. Același raport distinge între ordinele de indisponibilizare, de 1,13 miliarde de euro, și activele efectiv indisponibilizate în cursul anului, de 288,93 milioane de euro. Sunt indicatori diferiți. Prejudiciul estimat nu este prejudiciu confirmat definitiv. Bunurile indisponibilizate nu sunt automat bani recuperați. Trimiterea în judecată nu este condamnare. Cine prezintă aceste cifre publicului are obligația să explice diferențele. Altfel, miliardele din comunicate riscă să devină decorul unei povești de succes pe care cetățeanul nu o poate verifica până la capăt. Anticorupția nu este proprietatea unui om Susținătorii Laurei Codruța Kövesi au dreptul să îi apere activitatea. Nu au însă dreptul să transforme admirația într-o scutire de răspundere publică. Nici sprijinul politic, nici prestigiul internațional și nici imaginea de simbol nu pot înlocui examinarea critică a unui mandat. O instituție matură trebuie să poată vorbi despre propriile greșeli cu aceeași claritate cu care vorbește despre suspecții săi. Moștenirea unui procuror nu se măsoară în câtă teamă a produs și nici în cât de zgomotos a fost aplaudat. Se măsoară în ceea ce a demonstrat legal, în prejudiciile recuperate și în capacitatea de a exercita puterea fără să strivească drepturile cetățenilor. Kövesi își încheie mandatul. Cultul personalității poate continua în cercurile admiratorilor. Publicul are însă dreptul la ceva mult mai serios: un bilanț complet, verificabil, în care reușitele să nu ascundă eșecurile, iar întrebările incomode să primească răspunsuri. Cine a cerut răspundere tuturor trebuie să accepte aceeași exigență pentru propriul mandat. Fără piedestal. Fără imunitate la critică. Fără aplauze folosite în loc de explicații. (translated)

The author said Aontú had found that 36 ICT workstations at the National Children’s Hospital had been stolen. They added that this came weeks after the discovery that 240 bathrooms were not working, described the hospital’s situation as farcical and said no one had been held to account. https://t.co/CEVWsRScMV, #Aontú #ChildrenHospital #Accountability #IE

Don't change the time! Change the schedule, not the time! The biological rhythm is regulated by the Sun, not the clock. Time is not a work schedule that we can shift at will. Time is the measure by which we organize our lives, and nature has its own rhythm. The Earth does not change its rotation twice a year. The sun does not rise earlier because we decided to move the clock forward. Animals, birds, insects, and plants follow their biological rhythms related to light, darkness, and the natural succession of seasons. Humans are part of this nature. Our bodies have their own biological clock, fundamentally influenced by light. And when we officially move the clocks by one hour, we are not changing the course of nature, but rather asking humans to abruptly adapt to an administrative convention. Why do this every spring and reverse it every autumn? Is it natural to change the time or to adapt our schedules? Let's consider the majority of people: workers, farmers, students, teachers, parents, retirees, people who must adhere to a schedule set by others. They cannot always modify their schedules at will. They need to wake up at a certain hour, get to work, take a child to school, or comply with the public transport timetable. In contrast, there are people and organizations that have the opportunity to adapt their schedules based on the season, natural light, or the needs of their activities. If, for some people, changing their schedule is feasible, why impose the time change on everyone? Let's take a hypothetical example: if 10% of people have the freedom to adapt their schedule, is it fair to change the time for all those who do not have this freedom? Would it not be more logical to change the schedule where needed, rather than change the time by which the entire society organizes itself? Stores can modify their opening hours. Factories can adapt their shifts. Institutions can adjust their schedules, and schools and public transport can analyze timetables according to local conditions and people's needs. We do not all have to operate on the same schedule to live by the same time. Nature does not need our approval to follow its rhythm. In spring, the days lengthen. In autumn, the days shorten. This is the natural rhythm of the Earth, which we can observe without moving even a single clock hand. If we want to start activities earlier in summer, we can start sooner. If winter requires a different schedule, we can adapt it. But why change the official time, get used to a new convention, and then revert to the old one? Would it not be simpler to keep the same time all year round and organize our activities according to the season? I do not claim that all living beings measure time in hours and minutes. I assert something more important: their biological rhythms are linked to the natural cycle of light and darkness, not to the numbers we display on the clock. And humans should take this truth into account when organizing their lives. The economy must serve people, not people be permanently forced to adapt to the economy. One argument presented in favor of changing the time is the more efficient use of natural light or the reduction of energy consumption. But the actual effects depend on the country, season, population habits, and how energy is used. If we want to save energy, let's examine actual consumption. If we want more light during activities, let's adapt the schedules. If we want to improve work organization, let's change the timetables where possible. There is no need to change the time for the whole society to achieve flexibility in certain areas. The schedule is a tool we can adapt. The time should be a stable reference. We cannot stop the seasons. We cannot modify the Earth's rotation. We cannot ask nature to adapt to our clock. But we can organize our lives more wisely. Instead of moving the clock hands twice a year, we can learn to adapt our schedules to the reality around us. Instead of changing the time for everyone, we can allow each field to find the appropriate schedule, within the bounds of the law and with respect for people's rights. Let's keep the time stable and make the schedules flexible! Let's leave time in peace. Twice a year, millions of people are forced to change their clocks, schedules, and biological rhythms to adapt to an administrative decision. It is said that changing the time brings economic or energy benefits. However, in modern society, these advantages are increasingly contested, while the disadvantages are felt by nearly the entire population. People, animals, and plants do not live by the clock on the wall, but by the natural rhythms of the Earth. The human body is regulated by the alternation of light and darkness. When we artificially move the time forward or back, we disturb this balance. Many people sleep worse, feel more tired, and need days or weeks to readjust. Living beings do not change their schedules twice a year. Birds do not migrate by the clock, cows do not produce milk according to the official hour, and dogs do not understand why their owner takes them for a walk an hour earlier. Nature follows the sun, not administrative decisions. There is also a principle issue. For a relatively small percentage of people and activities that would benefit from more light in the evening, the schedule of the entire society is modified. About 90% of people are forced to adapt, even though they did not ask for this and do not gain direct advantages. It would be more logical for the sectors that need a different schedule to adapt it themselves. Stores can open earlier or later. Factories can modify their work shifts. Schools, institutions, and companies can adjust their schedules as needed. It is much easier for certain organizations to change the schedule in a targeted manner than to change the official time for the entire population. Moreover, modern technology has greatly diminished the argument for saving energy. Lighting now represents a smaller proportion of total consumption, while air conditioning, computers, and other equipment operate regardless of time changes. The time should serve people, not people be obliged to serve the time. A modern society can function efficiently without moving the clock hands twice a year. Stability, health, and respect for natural rhythms are stronger arguments than the tradition of a measure introduced in another era. Therefore, the most rational solution is to keep the same time throughout the year and adapt schedules where necessary, rather than changing the lifestyle rhythm of an entire population. Why should we keep the same time all year? Changing the time twice a year represents an artificial intervention in the natural rhythm of society. Although it was introduced with the intention of saving energy, numerous modern studies show that the benefits are minimal, while the social, medical, and economic costs are significant. 1. The biological rhythm is regulated by the Sun, not the clock. The human body operates according to an internal biological clock, synchronized with the natural alternation of day and night. Research in chronobiology shows that artificial changes in time disrupt sleep, concentration, and metabolism. In the days following the switch to summer time: - sleep disorders increase; - more traffic accidents occur; - productivity at work decreases; - there is an increase in the risk of heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems. In practice, millions of people are forced to suffer a slight "jet lag" without having traveled anywhere. 2. Nature does not change the time. Animals and plants regulate their activity according to light. Birds, insects, domesticated and wild animals do not change their schedules just because the government decides to move the clock forward by one hour. Farmers often observe that cows continue to adhere to their biological schedule regardless of the change in official time. The same happens with many other living beings. In reality, we are changing the clock display, not the position of the Sun in the sky. 3. Economic benefits are diminishing. Changing the time was introduced in an era when lighting consumed a significant proportion of the energy used by the population. Today: - lighting is much more energy-efficient; - the main consumption comes from air conditioning, heating, servers, computers, and appliances; - estimated savings are very low or even nonexistent in many states. In contrast, the economic costs are real: - employee productivity decreases after the time change; - absenteeism increases; - additional costs associated with accidents and medical problems arise; - computer and logistics systems need to be periodically adjusted. 4. It is unfair to change the schedule of all for the needs of a minority. If certain economic sectors find it useful to start activities earlier in summer, they can adapt their schedules. For example: - stores can operate from 07:00 to 21:00 instead of 08:00 to 22:00; - factories can alter shifts; - public institutions can temporarily adjust working hours; - schools and companies can decide locally what schedule is optimal. It is much simpler for 10% of organizations to change their schedule than for 100% of the population to change their biological clock. 5. Stability means efficiency. Transport, information systems, international economic activities, and public services function more smoothly when the official time remains constant. One hour throughout the year: - reduces scheduling errors; - simplifies transport and communications; - eliminates confusion regarding timetables; - provides predictability for citizens and companies. Conclusion The sun does not change its time. The Earth does not change its time. Nature does not change its time. Only humans move the clock hands and then endure the consequences of this decision. Instead of modifying the schedule of an entire society twice a year, it is more logical to keep the same time constantly and allow those fields that need a different schedule to adapt their programs individually. This way, natural biological rhythms are respected, economic costs are reduced, and the comfort of the majority of the population is increased. A modern society needs flexibility in scheduling, not the constant change of the clock. (translated)

Dominic Fritz wrote that the post through which Diana Buzoianu said goodbye from her position as USR Minister of Environment gathered 125,000 likes. He stated that Buzoianu, whom he called the youngest minister, had exceeded expectations through results, not just through posts. Fritz said that USR supporters should not be intimidated by those who considered them too few to change something and stated that, together with Buzoianu and the other former USR ministers, they were preparing to win the next elections. #USR #Alegeri #Mediu (translated)

George Buhnici wrote that the division among the great powers would have no effect and that Russia, the USA, and China would try to decide the fate of another country without including it in the discussions. He argued that Europeans, technology, and another element that would be lacking for the three would have been left out of the discussion. Buhnici stated that if Ukraine had enough motivation, it would not only resist but could also bring Russia to its knees. He attributed the difference between the two countries to the heroism of Ukrainians and wrote that they fight because they are building their national history, not because a leader sent them to the front. The author said that the USA and China would have interests, while Russia would be driven by shame and fear. He requested a recent example of a significant Russian achievement for humanity, mentioning space, technology, innovation, industry, medicine, and art, and concluded by saying that he had an example he was about to present. #Ucraina #istorie #eroism (translated)

"I don't know what Zelensky said. I'm not sure that Zelensky knows what he is talking about, but it wasn't something deliberate. We have nothing to do with that. No... The United States, no one ordered the slowdown of Starlink. It just happened, but, as far as I understand, the service has been restored. It has returned to the level it was at before." American Secretary of State Marco Rubio responded to Ukraine's accusations regarding the operation of Starlink satellite internet services, stating that no one at the White House ordered anyone to slow down the internet or reduce connection speed. #MarcoRubio #Starlink #Ucraina (translated)

The author of the post wrote that the CMA CGM group has acquired FedEx Supply Chain, one of the largest logistics companies in the United States, which also operates in Canada. The value of the company, previously owned by FedEx Corp, was estimated at USD 1.4 billion, and its operations were to be integrated into the French CEVA Logistics. #logistyka #CMA_CGM #FedEx #US #CA #FR (translated)

"Real responsibility is not a formula for speech, but the measure of the things you do when you are put in a position to pay a price. And for the National Liberal Party, a vote for the investiture of the Niculescu Government, that is, for the return of the PSD to power with names from whom you have no expectations, could cost us not only politically but also personally. The most comfortable option would be for the PNL to refuse and be radical. However, without a functional government, the country risk remains high, and we cannot do this to Romania just to avoid the personal cost of image." Ilie Bolojan announced that he will propose a favorable vote for the investiture of the new Executive to the party leadership, without this meaning the re-establishment of the coalition or a political guarantee for the designated prime minister. #PNL #GuvernulNiculescu #crizăpolitică (translated)

But for the National Liberal Party, a vote for the investment of the Niculescu Government, that is, for the return of the PSD to power with names from whom you have no expectations, could cost us not only politically but also personally. On Thursday, the PNL president, interim Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, sent a message stating that a vote for the investment of the Niculescu Government, 'that is, for the return of the PSD to power,' could politically cost the party and him personally and that the liberals could refuse, but without a functional Government, the country risk remains high and they cannot do such a thing to Romania. #PNL #GuvernulNiculescu #politicaRomânească (translated)

It is very important for PNL to show that it is not PSD. "PNL, as I told you, is going into opposition; starting next week we are in a situation where we will not block the good things that any government will do. We have never done this. We will come up with correct proposals for the development of Romania, and when there is overreach, when public money is wasted, we will tax these things. So we will make a fair and honest opposition, and I believe it is a period where it is very important for PNL to show that it is not PSD, where we reconnect with the people, where we listen to the people and build a pole of modernization, so that the people who work in this country, the people who believe that something can be done in life, through honest work, through normality, that the direction of Romania is the European one, will have someone to vote for in 2028," said Ilie Bolojan. #PNL #LucaNiculescu #IlieBolojan (translated)