(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
Probably in the classrom, pondering the difference between refugees and immigrants.
And Polish obligations to EU say something else. Poland can't national law their way out of supranational law obligations. And those obligations were created through democratic process between the member states. Each of them having a democratic mandate of their people.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
They do have the right, because member nations have agreed to relinquish a part of their sovereignty. It's even in the bloody text you quoted!
And promoting free trade does mean that monopolistic and unfair practices should be illegal and discouraged. To protect a free market there needs to be an intervention, because the companies themselves can't be expected to police the market (massive conflict of interest) so that their competitors are treated fairly.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
Refugee is a person that flees to the first country that is not under the war, so ye, we are dealing with immigrants.
Well even if we take those 17k ppl, the next day they will flee to Germany. Also even back then, when those "democratic processes" happened, most of the ppl in PL were against immigrants. Why they did not make a referendum back then ?
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
It is not/was not the purpose of the EU and is completely contrary to their self imposed mission statement.
You don't have to like it. But the EU is constantly overstepping its mandate, which is why leaving the EU was the UKs best decision if they hope to remain a sovereign state.
The difference that, unlike the real-world equivalent, google has a semi-monopoly (ie holds more than 30% of the market share in search engines) so therefore their actions have major impact on other markets too if they decide to leverage said monopoly to promote another activity that they own.
The EU has evolved. The individual members of the EU have voted to grant the EU it's current powers and authorities, through this the modern EU has every right to create and impose these laws. You don't have to like it, but you're wrong if you say they don't have the authority to do so. Because they do. Because they have been granted that authority by the members of the organization.
(This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)
Damn, those solid calculations totally lead to your conclusion /s
Wrong on both accounts. Other than being ad hominem, shit deflection is shit. Probably because you don't have a real counterargument when things like your idiotic math that doesn't make any sense are called out for what they are. But hey, continue to listen to a guy that constantly lies. That's going to work fer sure
If I recall correctly the normal legal standard for a monopoly that can influence the market is ~30%+, depending on the type of market (back when I studied this in college, might be a bit outdated). A quick google learns that google has about a ~70% market share when it comes to search engine in the US, would guess it's similar to the EU. Don't think anyone is contesting that they don't have a monopoly.