Search

Yes, on one hand, there is the American president who is forcing (GSK) to invest in the United States and who refuses to import vaccines again, so companies like GlaxoSmithKline are in difficulty. The Belgian pharmaceutical sector must be protected, not because it suffers from a competitiveness problem, but due to the attitudes of the United States and China, Bart De Wever stated on Thursday evening. #pharmaceutique #GSK #protectionisme (translated)

Bart De Wever stated during the European summit that the Belgian pharmaceutical sector must be protected from the United States and China, not due to a lack of competitiveness, but because of unfair competitive practices and investment pressure. #pharmaceutique #GSK #protectionisme (translated)

The European Union is strengthening its economic measures against China, considering trade challenges and unfair competition, but expert Adrian Negrescu argues that the solution does not lie in banning Chinese products, but in establishing bilateral agreements that protect the European economy. #ComerțInternațional #Protecționism #UniuneaEuropeană (translated)

The author argued that Europe needed to stop being naive, citing what they described as massive state subsidies, protectionism in China’s internal market, persistent currency undervaluation and ongoing intellectual-property issues. They linked to an article titled “To Stop the Chinese Tsunami.” https://t.co/wlKQ2hXoa9 #Europe #Trade #Economy #CN #EU

The author said they saw signs of what they called Europe’s protectionist reflexes and argued that the US and China had already won the race for frontier models. They urged Europe to accept this and reform the GDPR, AI Act and Digital Market Act, claiming the rules as they stood would prevent Europeans from getting early access to the best AI tools. #Europa #InteligenciaArtificial #MercadoDigital #EU #US #CN

Si on veut réduire la dette, il faut produire chez nous. Ceux qui ont cru qu’un pays sans usine pouvait être un pays prospère se trompent. Et la première chose à faire pour réindustrialiser le pays, c’est changer les politiques commerciales pour se protéger du rouleau https://t.co/siYV3WDbOl #Réindustrialisation #Dette #Protectionisme #FR

Consensus Is Not an Argument “Historians agree that Nazism was right-wing” is not an argument. It is intellectual outsourcing: replacing evidence with the number of authorities who repeat the same conclusion. Ideologies require criteria. You cannot cherry-pick political characteristics, notice that they fit your preferred category, and then pretend the classification has been demonstrated—especially when virtually every item on the list exists on both sides. Nationalism? Both. Militarism? Both. Protectionism? Both. State intervention? Both. Economic planning? Both. Collectivism? Both. Welfare policy? Both. Authoritarianism? Neither side has a monopoly. So what actually makes Nazism “right-wing”? The economic argument collapses even faster. Nazi Germany heavily directed its economy. So did the United States and Britain during the same period of war preparation and total war. If state direction proves socialism, then your criterion suddenly makes the Allies socialist too. If it doesn’t, stop using it selectively to classify Nazism. You cannot rig the test and then celebrate the result. And here is the inconvenient part: if economic policy cannot independently resolve the question, then the Nazis’ own ideological claims cannot simply be dismissed because they are inconvenient. Their party was literally called the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and they repeatedly described their movement as socialist. No, self-description does not automatically make them socialist. Political movements can lie. But rejecting their description requires an actual criterion demonstrating why it was false. “Because historians say so” is not a criterion. It is an evasion. The deeper problem is that modern political taxonomy often works backwards: decide the label first, then curate the evidence until the label looks inevitable. That is not historical analysis. It is circular reasoning wearing an academic costume. So ask the question that actually matters: was Nazism committed to individual liberty—or to subordinating the individual to the collective, the state, and the nation? If Nazism is right-wing, prove it from coherent ideological principles

“Consensus Is Not an Argument “Historians agree that Nazism was right-wing” is not an argument. It is intellectual outsourcing: replacing evidence with the number of authorities who repeat the same conclusion. Ideologies require criteria. You cannot cherry-pick political characteristics, notice that they fit your preferred category, and then pretend the classification has been demonstrated—especially when virtually every item on the list exists on both sides. Nationalism? Both. Militarism? Both. Protectionism? Both. State intervention? Both. Economic planning? Both. Collectivism? Both. Welfare policy? Both. Authoritarianism? Neither side has a monopoly. So what actually makes Nazism “right-wing”? The economic argument collapses even faster. Nazi Germany heavily directed its economy. So did the United States and Britain during the same period of war preparation and total war. If state direction proves socialism, then your criterion suddenly makes the Allies socialist too. If it doesn’t, stop using it selectively to classify Nazism. You cannot rig the test and then celebrate the result. And here is the inconvenient part: if economic policy cannot independently resolve the question, then the Nazis’ own ideological claims cannot simply be dismissed because they are inconvenient. Their party was literally called the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and they repeatedly described their movement as socialist. No, self-description does not automatically make them socialist. Political movements can lie. But rejecting their description requires an actual criterion demonstrating why it was false. “Because historians say so” is not a criterion. It is an evasion. The deeper problem is that modern political taxonomy often works backwards: decide the label first, then curate the evidence until the label looks inevitable. That is not historical analysis. It is circular reasoning wearing an academic costume. So ask the question that actually matters: was Nazism committed to individual liberty—or to subordinating the individual to the collective, the state, and the nation? If Nazism is right-wing, prove it from coherent ideological principles” - ChatGPT

" 'Made in Europe' o 'Made to Measure?' The Legal Fault Lines of the Industrial Accelerator Act,” Dr. Magaldi Sardella, Prof. Mantuano (Oxford Univ.) SOURCE: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/made-europe-o-measure-legal-fault-lines-industrial-dr-sardella-ph-d--vwcoe/ SOURCE: https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oblb/blog-post/2026/08/made-europe-or-made-measure-legal-fault-lines-industrial-accelerator-act Today, the Oxford Business Law Blog, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, has published our latest contribution examining the legal fragilities and regulatory tensions embedded within the Industrial Accelerator Act, the legislative cornerstone of the European Clean Industrial Deal. The Act pledges to revitalise European manufacturing through “Made in EU” preferences across strategic sectors — steel, cement, batteries, electric vehicles, solar technologies, and heat pumps. Yet behind the slogan lies a dense lattice of normative ambiguities, WTO‑related vulnerabilities, and a delicate equilibrium between protectionism, strategic autonomy, and commercial openness. In our article, we analyse: the contradictions inherent in the definition of “Made in Europe”; the Commission’s discretionary power in determining eligible countries; the Council’s new compromise on “partner origin”, more orderly yet still incomplete; the risks posed by a legislative timetable that advances faster than the administrative capacity required to sustain it. Our conclusion? To be genuinely effective, what is “Made in Europe” must also be made to endure: robust in legal terms, coherent in industrial design, and credible in the international arena.

A self-inflicted wound: Americans now pay 75% more for aluminum than the rest of the world, and 64% more for steel. The price of protectionism is to drive up the cost of living for ordinary citizens and to destroy unprotected businesses’ ability to compete https://t.co/vHVuAmCi7q #TradePolicy #Protectionism #CostOfLiving #US

USA goes protectionist, all-in. Forget about anything like “transatlantic free trade area” idea. Just the contrary. USA can afford it. But EU is still not ready to acknowledge it, to analyze it and to meet the consequences, hoping that somehow it will muddle through again. Wrong. #TradeWar #Protectionism #USEURelations #USA #EU

Trump's tariffs have made US into a paragon of protectionism. The result has been higher prices, weaker investment, fewer manufacturing jobs, and a willingness to make falsehood official policy in order to defend a failed economic creed By @FareedZakaria https://t.co/3gUSNi7BHB #TrumpTariffs #Protectionism #EconomicPolicy #US

How Europe must respond to America’s AI warning shot https://t.co/430Smmsf78 "The answer is neither resignation nor retreat into protectionism. Rather, Europe must embark on the most ambitious political agenda ever attempted in peacetime" https://t.co/JNEv6Vt3fm #AI #Europe #Politics #EU #US

🇨🇳🇪🇺 #China Defends EU Trade Relations Amid Protectionism - People’s Daily - The China-EU economic relationship is “fundamentally complementary and mutually beneficial” as China is a partner in addressing Europe’s economic challenges, rather than the source, according to a #China #EUTade #EconomicRelations #CN #EU

Minister Sjoerd Sjoerdsma leidt een kleine Nederlandse handelsdelegatie naar Beijing, waar politieke spanningen en zorgpunten, waaronder importheffingen en protectionisme, de nadruk leggen op de uitdagingen voor bedrijven die actief zijn in China, met name in de chip- en landbouwsector. #handelsmissie #China #politiekeconflicten

Summitul NATO de la Ankara se va concentra pe evaluarea angajamentului aliaților de a aloca 5% din PIB pentru apărare, cu Statele Unite insistând asupra nevoii de a evita protecționismul european în domeniul industrial și anticipând anunțuri substanțiale privind sprijinul pentru Ucraina. #NATO #apărare #Ucraina