Sorry for a couple of errors in this video: - You guys are absolutely right that I made an animation mistake on this one, mixing up $ and € symbols - I also misspoke when recording the line "developing countries, especially in Africa, are desperate for credit" When it comes to bias and the use of sources. People are absolutely right that the title/content of the Economist article is provocative, and that's why we chose to feature that one over others in the video. We absolutely did use other sources, but the Economist's take is so different from their normal very neutral coverage (mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/) that we thought it was worth examining why they made such a bold call on this instance. I'd also say it's disingenuous to claim that the Economist is being anti-EU because they're British. The Economist is certainly not an anti-EU pro-Brexit publication and I think even if you support the EU fully you should still be willing to critique them and examine the decisions they're making (especially when their budgets stretch into the hundreds of billions). Going forward we will be ensuring that the scriptwriters see the finished videos as often as possible, in an attempt to catch errors as this and we've also spoken to the writing team about the use of sources and ensuring the continuation of balanced coverage. We really appreciate your feedback and hope we can improve on the back of this - Jack
This reasoning for a certain focus on that Economist article sounds valid. Besides, it is discussed in the video, and one should not draw conclusions based on the first 30 seconds of an informational video, as one should not judge a newspaper article solely by its headline…
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with calling out obvious bs. I'm pro-EU in the sense that there's no other way moving forward, but being all talk and no action is one of the many, many problems the EU currently has. If we refuse to acknowledge EU"s issues just for the sake of not encouraging euroscepticism, we're only inviting a dark future.
@Aaron Snow see, it was not that hard, give it some practice and i'm sure you will have a constructive comment to share on the internet in but a few years...
My humble opinion is the EU is looking to invest in north Africa economic corridors and Latin American ports instead of a global infrastructure plan like the silk and road initiative. In this case 300 billions is more than enough for the project.
If europe can help connect north africa better to europe and central afrika they not only strengthen ties with afrika but also prepare the ground works for futere trading as the countries of afrika develope their economies. Into Europe did a video on this many months ago if i remember correctly where he went over the difrent economic corridors that europe is intrested in and wants to expand.
@@risingphoenix02 It's more complicated than that, most of Central and West Africa is in a security crisis. This area comprises of former French colony, and the relationship between them and France are deplorable, I find it hard to see the EU establishing itself more sustainably.
I think it is hard to draw any conclusions based on this document. This sounds more like a global intent. The question is to what degree this intent document will match up with future plans. Just thinking about it logicaly you would expect the EU to suffer from a big gap between what it wants to achieve and what it does achieve. Because the EU is very reliant on the individual member states. If the EU gets more executive powers the gap between these two will close. Honestly I don't think it is a huge problem. Honestly every government has documents like this. It is good to try and make things as SMART as possible, but not everything being such in my mind isn't a big thing.
I gave up on the Economist years ago. Their neo-liberal ideological starting point has seen them miss many major disruptions and distortions until after the fact. Their UK focus is unlikely to be fair regarding EU initiatives.
It's a good idea, an example here: Siemens is building a new high-speed train system in Egypt. The German state is the guarantor. In future, the entire EU would be a guarantor, which reduces the risk for Germany. This means that further large projects can be implemented if the risk is shared. Incidentally, 2:18 it is Trieste not Venice
Ok, so what I image should EU do, is to bring together funding, projectants, engineers and EU's top technological companies and go finding infrastructure projects around the world with some clear goal in mind. As EU itself doesn't have the resources it should be the intermediary. Now, which of that does this initiative do?
This is because EU news is clickbait, because it's too boring to be newsworthy. Also with too little media attention, politicians aren't sharp enough to stop lobbied bullshit legislation from being implemented.
Dear TLDR. I beg you, do some QA before posting videos. The dollar-euro screw ups keep coming, and they both distract from the content and also make it less reliable in the eyes of the audience.
TLDR: Censors the word piss despite it becoming more of a slang than a curse in recent years Also TLDR: Censors the wrong part of the word Bullsh*t, in the title
European (and most of the world's) press: Freely prints the word everyone uses and nobody is offended by. TH-cam: You need to censor the word or our algorithm will be sad, because we're a US company, and 'free speech' jingoism is an actual example of the word.
Fair criticism of the EU is refreshing. The internet is filled with anti-EU trolls ("muh straight bananas, you EU-fascists!!1"). This is what we need, proper arguments to push EU politicians to do better.
I'm sorry, but this is a clear example on the limitations of your analysis. You CANNOT base your analysis on only on Brisith sources and interpretations. The UK has clear biases, and has always had a "peculiar" understanding of the EU and its projects. The Economist, being an English outlet, has proven this over and over. If you want to gain credibility, and improve on your analysis, you have to diversify. Moreover, you quote the Economist without having it in the references, as you don't reference any of your opinion on the quality, effectiveness and practicality of the Global Gateway initiative. This is not a correct way to list references.
wheeee wheee whee , the economist is a fairly serious economical outlet that concludes the only thing one can conclude based on the data presented ... just like how brexit didnt in fact kill the UK but did make the biggest dutch companys move to the UK ... you are the one with a bias, and one thats delussional at that
@@maxdavis7722 not at all. Being able to accept that everyone has biases is essential to make as serious an analysis as possible. The UK, mostly England, has a clear anti-EU bias, and it's nothing new. Discussing any EU project based solely on English media interpretations is disingenuous at best.
except it's *the economist*, an organisation/publication, not an economist as in a singular person, and omitting names is standard practice for them if you've engaged with their materials before
@@vampirevore You do know that columns are written by singular person expressing their personal opinion about a given subject. So yes it is still a singular "economist" giving their opinion about the Global Gateway project
The main problem for me is that they started to do this only when China approached to developing countries, they didn´t had any intention to do this. At least from a Latin American perspective seems its only a way to compete with China and not trying to help in a real way. There were a lot of these types of programs made by the west before and none of them really worked.
@@zeissiez wrong. th west did for centuries. the last decades was decolonisation..they havent even been there = thats the main issue nor france protecting mali's government from collapse
EDIT: Apparently I was wrong in my criticism below: "Individual articles are written anonymously, with no byline, in order for the paper to speak as one collective voice." --------------- You can't just say "The Economist claims ..." when you are quoting the opinions of an individual columnist. Usually, newspapers will have people of differing convictions writing for them.
Most newspapers, yes. The Economist, specifically is a bit different. If you've read it, you'd notice that none of their articles are signed by the specific author. The Economist has strict internal guidelines for how articles should be written, but all articles are signed off by the newspaper, as a whole, and not by an individual.
Explicitly mentioning the journalist would have been useful, but I would expect for a source the size of the Economist and for articles which are directly published and vetted by them for them to be responsible about the content. Unless it's don't blog type thing, they need to be as accountable for the content as the writer.
Honestly... I want EU to be THE defining player in the global stage... But I don't think making a document that looks like an Instagram post tag list is the way to go about it
@@arposkraft3616 not really the west is doing fine, the issue is that the west isn't focused enough on the things that are important. the West is still richer and stronger then the authoritarianism club the only difference is the authoritarianism club is trying to convert more and more nations to their system and because the west wasn't doing anything about it, it gave the impression that they're declining. But this isn't true, the EU can be the world leader together with the USA, Japan, Australia and india if they play their cards correctly which is already slowly happening. Look at Lithuania being full Anti china and telling the EU to step up. Or Germany it's Navy going to Taiwan straight. Although we don't know what will happen exactly but i doubt china would ever become the new global boss like the USA was during the cold war
EU had it's time to spread prosperity to the rest of the world but mostly just exploited it and failed the people of this planet. It is time for something new to rise up and unite this earth.
@@richardepping9748 You sound a little bit too butthurt. Saying bullshit in Brussels shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings and if it does, you're too sensitive. And this is coming from a pro-EU guy, who lives in the EU. I think we can agree that without concrete plans this seems like PR stunt.
Germany would really like this project since it would open the door to even more countries they can trade with Germany is the 3rd largest exporter in the world and it competes with countries such as China and the US and Germany is also the country with the largest surplus in the world This could be a thing if germany pushes hard enough
The EU's number one trading partner is China. Without China, there is really not that many countries that wants EU's high value goods. Which countries in Africa can afford Germany's Mercedes or French wines or Italian designer labels?
Europe already has a well-established infrastructure. So, it doesn't have to start from scratch like China does. 300 billion Euros could be well used to improve existing 1870's era rail lines to increase clearnaces and create corridors for US Style double stack trains.
You've missed the point. The initiative is about supporting access to resources beyond the EU and establishing the human connections to facilitate the same. It's no accident China bought the lithium and cobalt mines 15 years ago. They've been playing excellent chess while the US and Europe play checkers...badly.
@@ASK-ko9qx Yeah, there needs to be an understanding that a huge part of what makes Chinese contractors attractive is their speed and efficiency especially in hard infrastructure.
Strategic initiatives through consensus is likely to be difficult, given so many countries will be vying for their slice of the cake. It's far easier for authoritarian states like China to dictate their policies. The EU has to start somewhere, so this will be their first attempt and will no doubt go through several iterations if it survives.
EU (as an institution) should be the broker between _funding and know-how_ and regions in need of development. Establishing "Global Gateways agency" to bring together EU's best projectants, engineers and technology companies and funding it with trillion euros - that should've been already done.
The CCP doesn't need to make anyone happy If they want to start a project they can do it easily, the EU on the other had had to make each one of 27 country member happy, and counties that are struggling economically would rather invest the money on their country, i don't really know if this project will make it but i hope it does this will be very good for developing countries
Did someone have some Scotch before typing down the title? Since I speak three languages (Chinese is one), I am always amazed by the wealth gap between the rich and poor in China. I will always remember the 5-6 km long waiting line in front of Beijing Children’s Hospital (near Fuxin Gate tube station). I asked some of them why do you come to this hospital: “It’s the best in the country. We don’t trust the local hospitals.” Then I guess the Chinese should stop pouring money to others and try to solidly their own healthcare first.
China: Drive on our roads and use our ports to trade with us. EU: We should say something, so here's a bunch of meaningless babble so people think we said something. We're not willing to commit to saying anything specific, but we want you to know we said a lot. Which plan will succeed? The one with clear goals and massive funding, or the one with no clarity and no new funds? Gee, I wonder...
This seems to be the case. The EU has basically failed at every crisis in the past decade, but they like to keep up the facade. Smart, secure, research, clean, health are just the buzzwords they use for moral superiority, on which they never deliver.
@@theabaddon7457 the problem is self serving Brussels bureaucratsand they are unelected control the EU. For Europe to remain influential in the world we must stop seeing Russia as a enemy and more of as ally and even a future member state if we cant beat them join them. Russia has all of Europe needed natural resource without needing Africa or china. Russias geopolitical struggle would end as it would the EU member state there would be no need for buffer states in the west. The Eu would gain more Nukes and Moscow influence and size. plus a additional 120 million people wouldn’t hurt. 110 million are ethnic Russians. The EU would gain Pacific ports and a arctic gateway and influence. With Russia Europe wouldn’t need the U.S or China as ally we would be a lone wolf. Once Putin is gone Russia would have to courted by the EU.
@@covfefe1787 Thats some real insight here. Unfortunately Europe is under the influence of the anglo-saxon world, which sees Russia as a rival and wants to isolate it. Altough a Russian included EU would be the strongest superpower in the world in almost all aspects, but an actually strong & united Europe is not in the interest of the major powers.
@@theabaddon7457 I agree. Europes focus should be on Courting the Russian people into the EU agreeing to democratic election once Putin leaves office and a referendum of Russian EU membership. Europe benefit from it massively making it the strongest world super power. Russia would then modernize rapidly given its new developments tying Siberia with Europe would make the EU oil and energy independent for the first time.
@@covfefe1787 Eastern countries will never accept Russia in the EU, even if Putin is no longer in power.Due to its size and its economy, it will upset the state center of the EU, which is the Paris-Berlin axis. I don't think their elite wants it. The Russian elites do not wish to be to be commanded by the unelected apostles of Brussels. But I completely agree with your analysis, a Europe united with Russia would have a lot of weight, but that is unrealistic, with the current elites. Too much contradiction and constraint the United States is playing skillfully.
@@480darkshadow it’s a channel about EU news, run by British people. This channel is other times very neutral and objective, don’t know where all that change came from suddenly lol.
It was just a question, and a quoted question at that. We still don't tell you what to think or come to a conclusion in this video, we just discuss why some would call it bs - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU Even if so, the way the title is posed already encourages a certain angle on the topic. It frames the topic subliminally. Ie "People say Europe's Global Gateway is nonsense - Is that true or not?" would be distancing yourselves from the stance further than your present one does. This is just an example and there's probably even more sober ways of doing it.
Exactly, criticizing a idea before basic execution is the opposite of a vision. And then basing that criticism on just one opinion from a bias article just stupid. Most of your videos offer great Intel in interesting topics, I hope this one here will stay as a bad exception
This is nothing but European geopolitics as usual. There is no way the EU will fund their ex-colonies, which they still exploit, and make them self reliant and/or have solid manufacturing sectors. This would make the EU poorer. China on the other hand, has been poor and exploited by the west like most African countries and thereby can relate to the challenges of securing funding.
The whole conversation boils down to "how dares the EU do something?! they should not do that and be later criticized for not doing anything" Same as always. Listen there is a reason why the EU is as complicated as it is, and that reason are all the compromise that had to be made to make it possible. So let the EU do things and strive for a more centralized union...
@@placeholder4819 there always is with sovereignty , in fact it never ends, you got Europe with countries asking for more independence, then in the countries there are regions asking for it, then provinces, then communes, then communities. it never ends not even with the balkanization of a region. the only ones benefitting from extreme division are those more centralized than you, that get to leverage their power over yours, and then your sovereignty matter little to a superior global power.
It was just a question, and a quoted question at that. We still don't tell you what to think or come to a conclusion in this video, we just discuss why some would call it bs - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU what a pitiful response. Please improve, or lose me and others as viewers. The English press doesn't need another daily mail or express. Brexiters should be kept out of any serious discussion (on everything, but EU in particular).
It's a very vague project. It would make sence for EU to create connections to were it exports the most. Or maybe develop new techs like mag-lev network and space elevator. Else, China has already taken the lead.
mag lev isnt new ... its a system with to many limitations to apply in meaningful ways, mostly its upkeep expense and inflexibility with other forms of transport, a space elevator is a complete pipe dream, you cannot make cables that long
The Belt & Road initiative is already failing as by now most countries have figured out it is just a debt trap and brings little benefit to the global economy. The EU is the only entity outside China that can afford to properly counter that. It is a smaller but hopefully more focussed project. We will have to see the details. Btw, the EU's trade surplus is around EUR 500bn annually, so the issue is more the willingness, partially due to balancing the need within the EU due to the pandemic, and not the ability.
Those 300$ B from the EU is probably more beneficial for other countries than the 575$ B China allocated so far. We all know how Chinese projects look like. If Country X gets a new highway on Chinese credit. What happens is a Chinese construction company with Chinese workers settle their own secluded workers town near the construction site and import everything from food to tools from China. The economic benefit to country X is fairly limited in that regard.
Actually, China’s investment in foreign countries are shown to have payed off compared to Europeans power and USA. This Anti China rhetoric is not going to stop China from forming more relationship.
@@jaybee4577 If it has been shown, then you would be able to point to where, right? There are plenty of negative examples like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zambia and Equador to name a few.
@@swanky_yuropean7514 The case for western money is not better, but worse. In Latin America there's no one who forgets the IMF loans and pillaging from the 90s. The chinese at least leave something behind, and at least in Latin America it is not true they bring mostly Chinese workers - they do like American and European companies, use local cheap labour while the higher ups come from overseas.
@@FOLIPE And what was bought from the loaned money? Its not like you wake up one time and owe the Americans millions for no reason. The difference between China and the west is if you don't pay the west the IMF comes in and gives you more money if you don't pay China you lose your biggest port for the next 99 years.
It's too early to say based on what we know but I do feel more is needed to be done to counter China political manoeuvring but for it to be impactful, it will likely need better terms than what China is offering, maybe even on trade terms. I also think the EU and US could work together on something like this because both have the same aim when it comes to China. But personally what I think the EU should do is foster better trade and relations with these countries, the EU is in a good geographical position to do so and that to some degree should help to counter China's power play in the regions. In the case of African countries, I don't blame them for wanting to accept all this money from China but there's too many strings attached to them which in the long run could be harmful to those countries, the EU and the US needs to offer something better to try and pull them away. As for the EU, we should remember that it's limited in what it can do and I feel like this is an intent from the EU to boost support among EU members which if they do that, that's when real action can start.
It seems pretty vague atm. But I do hope Europe plans to go back out to the world. Seems tough since they have SOOO many internal problems and have lackwd global action for decades. But given that I live in the West, I would like to see a strong Europe supporting democracies around the world and development. Hopefully this is the start of a more global EU.
I love the EU, to the point where I have a near patriotic feal towards it, but I don't have much confidence in this. The probleme isn't the investing in foreign countries part, rather the lack of coherent plan part. I still think that it is good that countries have an alternative to China but I will stay cautiously optimistic about this plan and will see how it goes. As of now though, I feel like it is more political big talk and I just hope they will do something about those vague words.
Considering that belt and road was closer to an accident then a plan, as its mainly made up of unilateral agreements, the EU plan may not be so much bullshit. If the EU bundle in existing unilateral loans and agreements under one umbrella than it could reach its target. The issue is what the objective is. China’s physical objective was a combination of establishing trade routes which could not be interdicted by US military forces and the establishments of potential military bases along the sea route. Its soft objective was in gaining influence in a number of strategy countries and the creating new sources of raw materials. This is reasonable enough, but what is the EU’s objective. Is the EU expecting a war with Russia and needs alternative trade routes, perhaps it does but it certainly would not wish to admit this. Does it need additional raw materials, I suspect apart from energy the answer is no. Securing its energy sources would be a good objective, but this would be securing oil, coal and gas, which is not part of the zero CO2 agenda. Once you can see a clear and self-evident objective and mission statement, then you could consider moving to stage two. Unless that occurs I suspect it is bull shit.
EU objective is to straighten the countries in North Africa and Middle East and move its outer frontiers in order to stop unwanted migration (which will become biggest problem as climate changes)
@@Έκπληξηρυσός That is a good objective which makes sense, as irrespective of climate change impacts, i suspect mass migrations will become more common due to simple population growth without economic growth.
Citing absolute numbers and that over 7 years is meaningless. If my ad hoc estimates are not too far off: This program is 16% (actually less since it includes private capital not part of the budget) of the EU budget. Germany is sending 4.3 % of its national budget to the EU, i.e. 0.68 % of German budget is distributed via the EU in this project. I understand that the German budget for developing countries is actually larger than its budget for the EU.
It's political who-ha, all PR with zero substance; however, if the EU were to set up an investment organization that would look into possible large scale infrastructure projects that would benefit EU countries and then member nations could combine their investments together and share the risk, this would be a good thing and could increase the EU's credit, thus creating money that the EU members would not usually have access to. Also, the USA should chip in as well in order to strengthen it's allies economically.
It was just a question, and a quoted question at that. We still don't tell you what to think or come to a conclusion in this video, we just discuss why some would call it bs - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU But you NEVER use this kind of term when presenting UK policies, however questionable or even ridiculous. Quite the contrary, you are at times deferential. But when it comes to talk about the EU - the foreigners - anything goes. Shame on you.
its been happening since africa became free. only for the investments to end up in the pockets of the dictators while their countries were left buried in debt.
You ommited a key factor when talking about the BRI - its a massive failure so far, achieving almost none of its goals, suffering from failed loan paybacks, corruption and an increasing reluctance of the nations building them to become so dependent on China
The EU should first invest more in the poor eastern european countries on its doorstep instead of random African nations if it wants to compete with China in any form in the future
Criticism is easy, so it is a given --- no matter what the proposal outlines. If the announcement of the plan outlined specifics, it would be criticized as "too narrow", "too rigid", "too inappropriate", "too whatever". The SALIENT point is that the world --- particularly poor countries with corrupt governments --- will suffer if a certain demonstrably anti-humanitarian, manipulative, promise-betraying, totalitarian government is allowed to take unopposed advantage by: a) excessively indebting countries (lining the pockets only of corrupt officials) b) using only its own population and companies to build infrastructure c) imposing military bases in foreign locales d) (à la Gwadar) usurping the fishing rights of locals e) seizing water supplies f) etc
Probably like with many other projects like that. It'll be successful enough for some politicians to call a success and yet failed enough for other politicians to call it a failure and waste of money. The problem with EU is that in a giant vortex of bureaucrats and lobbyists like that it's difficult to execute anything too ambitious. Much money will probably be wasted on some useless stuff.
Fundamentally a good idea but a frustrating example of how the EU doesn't currently have the cohesion to compete with the U.S. or China who can just do things like raise taxes to get the money they need for stuff like this.
You have to remember that the EU is not an individual state but a sometimes more somtimes less loose association of states who pool some of their resources. They are slow in formulating a common policy on a topic, here foreign development. As a general rule it always starts with a lot of hot air and nice flowery language, but in time they will get somewhere...
They're comparing it to the Chinese plan, but forgetting half the problems with that. It's not. And I think I'm being generous when I put it like that.
I think looking at European politics and Europe talking about being an independent power this means several things. More coordination of existing projects between nations. For example, France and Morocco have goals to like West Africa to a port in North Africa and Italy has projects in Libya. If they coordinated funds and foreign policies, they would be more effective, able to raise more money and make their foreign policies more aligned. BRI also incorporated pre-BRI infrastructure project in Africa and bilateral agreements with some nations. BRI and Global Gateway are more about marketing, publicly stating intentions and coordinating different projects to lend credit, build infrastructure, create special economic industrial zones and signal to the Global South that they matter. The criticisms that apply to GG can also apply to the US-led Blue Dot Network, but even though it's about integrating markets into global trading networks, soft power and economics - they will end up sometimes cooperating and having converging interests with BRI.
the issue is that the EU is ignoring a key crucial future geopolitical ally. Russia now hear me out lets put Putin aside for once if Russia joins the EU Russias key geopolitical needs would be earnestly quelled no Ukraine or Belarus disputes. 2 Russia has all of Europes needed natural resources putting them into allied hands would solve the EU energy crises. 3 Russia would the EU access to the pacific, Arctic and more oil and land. 4 Russian nukes combined with the rest of Europe would make the EU almost on par with the U.S militarily. 5 The EU would no longer need a alliance with the U.S or China. 6 Russia wouldn’t need to stoke up tensions or war because Moscow wouldn’t be close to enemies. 7 the EU sphere of influence would be on par with the U.S 8 this would give Russians democracy and the EU a much better safer future. now the downsides. The only downside this would bring is likely the U.S would start seeing the EU as a threat on American hegemony in the world and could lead a unlikely alliance between the U.S and China. thats the only thing I could thing of. Anyway let me know what you think.
You don't have to watch the second one if you don't want to, it's at the end of the video so feel free to stop watching, there's never going to be anything after it - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU Sorry for lashing out, but it really gets on the nerves when binging your videos - to the point I sometimes wish you'd get someone else's sponsorship to mix things up a little :D
Overrealiance on the Suezcanal. Can we make a back up over land route through Israel. Chinas belt and road initiative is a debt trap for many countries. The EU initiative seems to have to many spearheads to be called a spear head. It tries to achieve to many goals at the same time with the risk of getting bogged down reaching none of them.
Overland back up won't do much unless it is huge, and then you'd essentially create capacity that isn't needed, ie. wasted money. Honestly sailing around Africa might be more economic than creating an overland back-up.
While I agree with your last part, I doubt there is much economic insentive to make a land route through isreal as that means going throught the middle east which is not in a good state right now. And if we go through their just to skip the suez, well thats just gonna raise costs of shipping by a lot. The chinese belt and road is a trap, but shipping is still the most efficient form of transport. Also whats wrong with the suez? Its been working for the better part of half a century.
To summarize this European initiative, I shall quote the acronym from the Africans, "NATO," which stands for No Action, Talk Only. 😂 That is what they think of the Western colonial powers when it comes to aids for Africa.
@@winterrising8738 Coonservative are actually worse. Those people are so ignorant and uneducated that they can’t even identify a state/province in their own country. 😂
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
Sorry for a couple of errors in this video:
- You guys are absolutely right that I made an animation mistake on this one, mixing up $ and € symbols
- I also misspoke when recording the line "developing countries, especially in Africa, are desperate for credit"
When it comes to bias and the use of sources. People are absolutely right that the title/content of the Economist article is provocative, and that's why we chose to feature that one over others in the video. We absolutely did use other sources, but the Economist's take is so different from their normal very neutral coverage (mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/) that we thought it was worth examining why they made such a bold call on this instance. I'd also say it's disingenuous to claim that the Economist is being anti-EU because they're British. The Economist is certainly not an anti-EU pro-Brexit publication and I think even if you support the EU fully you should still be willing to critique them and examine the decisions they're making (especially when their budgets stretch into the hundreds of billions).
Going forward we will be ensuring that the scriptwriters see the finished videos as often as possible, in an attempt to catch errors as this and we've also spoken to the writing team about the use of sources and ensuring the continuation of balanced coverage. We really appreciate your feedback and hope we can improve on the back of this - Jack
This reasoning for a certain focus on that Economist article sounds valid. Besides, it is discussed in the video, and one should not draw conclusions based on the first 30 seconds of an informational video, as one should not judge a newspaper article solely by its headline…
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with calling out obvious bs. I'm pro-EU in the sense that there's no other way moving forward, but being all talk and no action is one of the many, many problems the EU currently has. If we refuse to acknowledge EU"s issues just for the sake of not encouraging euroscepticism, we're only inviting a dark future.
@Aaron Snow as always, very constructive criticism from those that oppose the EU.
@Aaron Snow see, it was not that hard, give it some practice and i'm sure you will have a constructive comment to share on the internet in but a few years...
Going forward I will be ensuring to not watch unoriginal and very simplistic analysis.
My humble opinion is the EU is looking to invest in north Africa economic corridors and Latin American ports instead of a global infrastructure plan like the silk and road initiative.
In this case 300 billions is more than enough for the project.
If europe can help connect north africa better to europe and central afrika they not only strengthen ties with afrika but also prepare the ground works for futere trading as the countries of afrika develope their economies. Into Europe did a video on this many months ago if i remember correctly where he went over the difrent economic corridors that europe is intrested in and wants to expand.
@@risingphoenix02
It's more complicated than that, most of Central and West Africa is in a security crisis. This area comprises of former French colony, and the relationship between them and France are deplorable, I find it hard to see the EU establishing itself more sustainably.
The 300b figure however, is not real.
Watch the video again mate, 300bi is an illusion
@@le_draffar5370 this is not true, Vietnam had a terrible war with the US but Vietnamese have a 76% favorable view of the US
I think it is hard to draw any conclusions based on this document. This sounds more like a global intent. The question is to what degree this intent document will match up with future plans.
Just thinking about it logicaly you would expect the EU to suffer from a big gap between what it wants to achieve and what it does achieve. Because the EU is very reliant on the individual member states. If the EU gets more executive powers the gap between these two will close.
Honestly I don't think it is a huge problem. Honestly every government has documents like this. It is good to try and make things as SMART as possible, but not everything being such in my mind isn't a big thing.
I'm so happy to see the Estonian pin badge in nearly every video. Finally my country is getting some air-time.
Or it might just be a hint that those haven't been selling too well and there's too much stock left...
Also, pin not bin. The latter is where you throw your trash.
@@Megalomaniakaal yikes lmao
@@Megalomaniakaal estonia belongs in the bin, tbh
If it did and you do not, what would the reason be?
I am doubtful over how possible this is to achieve, but I am nonetheless happy that the EU is challenging China more and more.
Because they are racist
Lol worry about the 10 year stagnant economy andshithole cities first
@@thexdatabase because its dangerous to have a country thats left unchallenged...
@@thexdatabase what?? 😂
@@jasonjin5253 as if china didn't have anything to worry about internally
Censoring the “u” rather than the “I” in bullshit tho 😂
censoring words everyone knows what they are tho :')
I gave up on the Economist years ago. Their neo-liberal ideological starting point has seen them miss many major disruptions and distortions until after the fact. Their UK focus is unlikely to be fair regarding EU initiatives.
It's a good idea, an example here:
Siemens is building a new high-speed train system in Egypt. The German state is the guarantor. In future, the entire EU would be a guarantor, which reduces the risk for Germany. This means that further large projects can be implemented if the risk is shared.
Incidentally, 2:18 it is Trieste not Venice
@@Salarat Germany alone is carrying out the specific project in Egypt. It is about future projects that will be beneficial for the whole EU.
Ok, so what I image should EU do, is to bring together funding, projectants, engineers and EU's top technological companies and go finding infrastructure projects around the world with some clear goal in mind. As EU itself doesn't have the resources it should be the intermediary. Now, which of that does this initiative do?
@@Salarat Well, there's your problem. Relying on business metrics in ideological projects, that's a mismatch...
Wow Germany debt trap through “Economic and Infrastructure development.” Egypt have to be Cautious of Germany debt trap diplomacy.
sure let us pay for the south who already gets billions from us in the north ... brilliant... stealing my money for your glory
honestly i think the title might be too clickbaity
Agreed
Well it was described the economist as bullshit so it's really not?
@@mr.politics1388 There titles are getting worse and worse.
This is because EU news is clickbait, because it's too boring to be newsworthy. Also with too little media attention, politicians aren't sharp enough to stop lobbied bullshit legislation from being implemented.
Dear TLDR. I beg you, do some QA before posting videos. The dollar-euro screw ups keep coming, and they both distract from the content and also make it less reliable in the eyes of the audience.
As mentioned it's more a statement of intent and it's good intent. It has potential
TLDR: Censors the word piss despite it becoming more of a slang than a curse in recent years
Also TLDR: Censors the wrong part of the word Bullsh*t, in the title
European (and most of the world's) press: Freely prints the word everyone uses and nobody is offended by.
TH-cam: You need to censor the word or our algorithm will be sad, because we're a US company, and 'free speech' jingoism is an actual example of the word.
Fair criticism of the EU is refreshing. The internet is filled with anti-EU trolls ("muh straight bananas, you EU-fascists!!1"). This is what we need, proper arguments to push EU politicians to do better.
@TheWeeaboo why? why is this not fair criticism?
I'm sorry, but this is a clear example on the limitations of your analysis. You CANNOT base your analysis on only on Brisith sources and interpretations. The UK has clear biases, and has always had a "peculiar" understanding of the EU and its projects. The Economist, being an English outlet, has proven this over and over.
If you want to gain credibility, and improve on your analysis, you have to diversify.
Moreover, you quote the Economist without having it in the references, as you don't reference any of your opinion on the quality, effectiveness and practicality of the Global Gateway initiative. This is not a correct way to list references.
wheeee wheee whee , the economist is a fairly serious economical outlet that concludes the only thing one can conclude based on the data presented ... just like how brexit didnt in fact kill the UK but did make the biggest dutch companys move to the UK ... you are the one with a bias, and one thats delussional at that
Just saying “it’s British so it’s bias” is an awful argument. The same could be applied everywhere.
@@maxdavis7722 not at all. Being able to accept that everyone has biases is essential to make as serious an analysis as possible. The UK, mostly England, has a clear anti-EU bias, and it's nothing new. Discussing any EU project based solely on English media interpretations is disingenuous at best.
@@arposkraft3616 cleraly you know as much about economics as political matters. I leave it at this.
@@fedethefico a non reply ... indeed leave it at that since you have 0 of value to add
One economist's opinion piece does not constitute a source
Agreed
Thanks
except it's *the economist*, an organisation/publication, not an economist as in a singular person, and omitting names is standard practice for them if you've engaged with their materials before
@@vampirevore You do know that columns are written by singular person expressing their personal opinion about a given subject. So yes it is still a singular "economist" giving their opinion about the Global Gateway project
@@TheOsis181 I would add that it's an English outlet publishing another anti-EU piece.
This has a very strong pong of anglo-sphere
How? There are no English speaking countries involved in this initiative. The primary economies will be France and Germany.
@@CJLloyd
I think that OP was implying that the criticism was coming from the Anglo-sphere. And that the video was representing the Anglo perspective.
@@stooge_mobile I thought he was implying the idea is very anglo-sphere
@@thepittstop
Guess we'll see. But replies tend to be annoyed that the analysis is too Anglo focused (what the British think of the proposal)
@@CJLloyd He/she is not talking about the initiave, he/she meant the video stinks!
The main problem for me is that they started to do this only when China approached to developing countries, they didn´t had any intention to do this. At least from a Latin American perspective seems its only a way to compete with China and not trying to help in a real way. There were a lot of these types of programs made by the west before and none of them really worked.
Exactly, this is to just to show presence or to save face. The West has been exploiting Africa for decades.
No it's because of China's Debt Trap where they end up owning the indebted country for 99 years..
@@ameyas7726 you know those small people who can’t see other’s success? don’t act like a small people with a small heart.
@@zeissiez wrong. th west did for centuries. the last decades was decolonisation..they havent even been there =
thats the main issue nor france protecting mali's government from collapse
@@TheMagicJIZZ
Imperialism has not vanished, it’s just being disguised in sheep’s skin, under the flag of liberalism.
EDIT: Apparently I was wrong in my criticism below: "Individual articles are written anonymously, with no byline, in order for the paper to speak as one collective voice."
---------------
You can't just say "The Economist claims
..." when you are quoting the opinions of an individual columnist. Usually, newspapers will have people of differing convictions writing for them.
Agreed, this article is one Brexit opinion that claims eu is stupid.
More bias isn’t possible
Most newspapers, yes. The Economist, specifically is a bit different. If you've read it, you'd notice that none of their articles are signed by the specific author. The Economist has strict internal guidelines for how articles should be written, but all articles are signed off by the newspaper, as a whole, and not by an individual.
Explicitly mentioning the journalist would have been useful, but I would expect for a source the size of the Economist and for articles which are directly published and vetted by them for them to be responsible about the content. Unless it's don't blog type thing, they need to be as accountable for the content as the writer.
@@Halesnaxlors Thanks, I'll have to withdraw my criticism then.
Honestly... I want EU to be THE defining player in the global stage... But I don't think making a document that looks like an Instagram post tag list is the way to go about it
lol the west is in decline
@@arposkraft3616 not really the west is doing fine, the issue is that the west isn't focused enough on the things that are important.
the West is still richer and stronger then the authoritarianism club the only difference is the authoritarianism club is trying to convert more and more nations to their system and because the west wasn't doing anything about it, it gave the impression that they're declining.
But this isn't true, the EU can be the world leader together with the USA, Japan, Australia and india if they play their cards correctly which is already slowly happening.
Look at Lithuania being full Anti china and telling the EU to step up.
Or Germany it's Navy going to Taiwan straight.
Although we don't know what will happen exactly but i doubt china would ever become the new global boss like the USA was during the cold war
I sincerely don't want the EU to be THE defining player in the global stage.
EU had it's time to spread prosperity to the rest of the world but mostly just exploited it and failed the people of this planet. It is time for something new to rise up and unite this earth.
@@MrCoolbanna you can enjoy having no voice alone
Feels like you voted brexit in the past with that title, please stay unbiased . Incl the title…
And china has paid everything on a loan as well. You should do a video on the debt of China. Which is becoming unsustainable
I agree, that was the most bias in a while
@@richardepping9748 You sound a little bit too butthurt.
Saying bullshit in Brussels shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings and if it does, you're too sensitive.
And this is coming from a pro-EU guy, who lives in the EU.
I think we can agree that without concrete plans this seems like PR stunt.
If you actually watched the video you would know it was referring to the opinion piece by the Economist.
@@richardepping9748 EU has bigger loans with a smaller gdp and smaller population
Germany would really like this project since it would open the door to even more countries they can trade with
Germany is the 3rd largest exporter in the world and it competes with countries such as China and the US and Germany is also the country with the largest surplus in the world
This could be a thing if germany pushes hard enough
Open what trade door?
if germany pushes hard enough another poland might pop out of it's arse
The EU's number one trading partner is China. Without China, there is really not that many countries that wants EU's high value goods. Which countries in Africa can afford Germany's Mercedes or French wines or Italian designer labels?
Europe already has a well-established infrastructure. So, it doesn't have to start from scratch like China does. 300 billion Euros could be well used to improve existing 1870's era rail lines to increase clearnaces and create corridors for US Style double stack trains.
True, but it's supposed to be a global project.
China's High speed rail is bigger than that of the rest of the Earth's High speed rail if i'm not wrong.
You've missed the point. The initiative is about supporting access to resources beyond the EU and establishing the human connections to facilitate the same. It's no accident China bought the lithium and cobalt mines 15 years ago. They've been playing excellent chess while the US and Europe play checkers...badly.
@@cakeisyummy5755 and it's lossing a ton of money, that they cant recover
Visit China if you have not, you will have a different perspective
2:40 € not $
Another question is, can they do projects in record time as China?
Just look at how long Berlin's airport took to complete as an example.
This is an important question.
@@ASK-ko9qx Yeah, there needs to be an understanding that a huge part of what makes Chinese contractors attractive is their speed and efficiency especially in hard infrastructure.
I live in Brussels right now. The Justice Palace not far away has been under renovation since I was born.
At least they´re trying, but the EU can never do more than its members allows it to.
$575 or €575?
Strategic initiatives through consensus is likely to be difficult, given so many countries will be vying for their slice of the cake. It's far easier for authoritarian states like China to dictate their policies. The EU has to start somewhere, so this will be their first attempt and will no doubt go through several iterations if it survives.
EU (as an institution) should be the broker between _funding and know-how_ and regions in need of development. Establishing "Global Gateways agency" to bring together EU's best projectants, engineers and technology companies and funding it with trillion euros - that should've been already done.
Not to mentioned that it's also a lot easier for China to make a profit with slave labour compared to the West.
The CCP doesn't need to make anyone happy
If they want to start a project they can do it easily, the EU on the other had had to make each one of 27 country member happy, and counties that are struggling economically would rather invest the money on their country, i don't really know if this project will make it but i hope it does this will be very good for developing countries
Did someone have some Scotch before typing down the title?
Since I speak three languages (Chinese is one), I am always amazed by the wealth gap between the rich and poor in China. I will always remember the 5-6 km long waiting line in front of Beijing Children’s Hospital (near Fuxin Gate tube station). I asked some of them why do you come to this hospital:
“It’s the best in the country. We don’t trust the local hospitals.”
Then I guess the Chinese should stop pouring money to others and try to solidly their own healthcare first.
fake news, keep lying gweilo your collapse is imminent.
@@winterrising8738 Maybe. But the CCP censoring everyone they don't like just fostering more fake news.
Add bullshit to the list of languages you speak
@@winterrising8738 Sure... 有本事你自己去看看
@@ihatehandles3 Then that’s English. My first language.
He says dollars whilst the animation shows euros.
China: Drive on our roads and use our ports to trade with us.
EU: We should say something, so here's a bunch of meaningless babble so people think we said something. We're not willing to commit to saying anything specific, but we want you to know we said a lot.
Which plan will succeed? The one with clear goals and massive funding, or the one with no clarity and no new funds? Gee, I wonder...
This seems to be the case. The EU has basically failed at every crisis in the past decade, but they like to keep up the facade. Smart, secure, research, clean, health are just the buzzwords they use for moral superiority, on which they never deliver.
@@theabaddon7457 the problem is self serving Brussels bureaucratsand they are unelected control the EU. For Europe to remain influential in the world we must stop seeing Russia as a enemy and more of as ally and even a future member state if we cant beat them join them. Russia has all of Europe needed natural resource without needing Africa or china. Russias geopolitical struggle would end as it would the EU member state there would be no need for buffer states in the west. The Eu would gain more Nukes and Moscow influence and size. plus a additional 120 million people wouldn’t hurt. 110 million are ethnic Russians. The EU would gain Pacific ports and a arctic gateway and influence. With Russia Europe wouldn’t need the U.S or China as ally we would be a lone wolf. Once Putin is gone Russia would have to courted by the EU.
@@covfefe1787 Thats some real insight here. Unfortunately Europe is under the influence of the anglo-saxon world, which sees Russia as a rival and wants to isolate it. Altough a Russian included EU would be the strongest superpower in the world in almost all aspects, but an actually strong & united Europe is not in the interest of the major powers.
@@theabaddon7457 I agree. Europes focus should be on Courting the Russian people into the EU agreeing to democratic election once Putin leaves office and a referendum of Russian EU membership. Europe benefit from it massively making it the strongest world super power. Russia would then modernize rapidly given its new developments tying Siberia with Europe would make the EU oil and energy independent for the first time.
@@covfefe1787
Eastern countries will never accept Russia in the EU, even if Putin is no longer in power.Due to its size and its economy, it will upset the state center of the EU, which is the Paris-Berlin axis. I don't think their elite wants it. The Russian elites do not wish to be to be commanded by the unelected apostles of Brussels. But I completely agree with your analysis, a Europe united with Russia would have a lot of weight, but that is unrealistic, with the current elites. Too much contradiction and constraint the United States is playing skillfully.
You okay bro? Feeling left out?
Hahaha
Agressive title and for what? Lol, to appeal to your eurosceptic audience?
It’s just referring to the response of this initiative.
@@zladvevo9724 the response to this initiative by mainly British media and anglophone reporters?
@@zedero8 it’s a British channel so yes
@@480darkshadow it’s a channel about EU news, run by British people. This channel is other times very neutral and objective, don’t know where all that change came from suddenly lol.
@@480darkshadow I mean can you really blame anyone for expecting a European perspective from a channel named "TLDR News EU"?
That's a very opinionated title.
Agreed
It was just a question, and a quoted question at that. We still don't tell you what to think or come to a conclusion in this video, we just discuss why some would call it bs - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU Even if so, the way the title is posed already encourages a certain angle on the topic. It frames the topic subliminally. Ie "People say Europe's Global Gateway is nonsense - Is that true or not?" would be distancing yourselves from the stance further than your present one does. This is just an example and there's probably even more sober ways of doing it.
Rome wasn't built in a day, give it time.
Exactly, criticizing a idea before basic execution is the opposite of a vision.
And then basing that criticism on just one opinion from a bias article just stupid.
Most of your videos offer great Intel in interesting topics, I hope this one here will stay as a bad exception
for Africa it has been more than 400 years
This is nothing but European geopolitics as usual. There is no way the EU will fund their ex-colonies, which they still exploit, and make them self reliant and/or have solid manufacturing sectors. This would make the EU poorer. China on the other hand, has been poor and exploited by the west like most African countries and thereby can relate to the challenges of securing funding.
Lmao that title though.
If something this vague has billionaires this concerned, I'm all for it.
The whole conversation boils down to "how dares the EU do something?! they should not do that and be later criticized for not doing anything"
Same as always. Listen there is a reason why the EU is as complicated as it is, and that reason are all the compromise that had to be made to make it possible. So let the EU do things and strive for a more centralized union...
yeah. there is only an issue of sovereign governments on the way
Indeed
Did you watch the video?
@@dandun3244 I did, and it's the poorest take possible. Very brexity, a video reading an Express or Daily Mail article. Indeed, bullshit.
@@placeholder4819 there always is with sovereignty , in fact it never ends, you got Europe with countries asking for more independence, then in the countries there are regions asking for it, then provinces, then communes, then communities. it never ends not even with the balkanization of a region. the only ones benefitting from extreme division are those more centralized than you, that get to leverage their power over yours, and then your sovereignty matter little to a superior global power.
What the hell is this title?
Couldn’t have picked anything more subtle?
It was just a question, and a quoted question at that. We still don't tell you what to think or come to a conclusion in this video, we just discuss why some would call it bs - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU what a pitiful response. Please improve, or lose me and others as viewers. The English press doesn't need another daily mail or express. Brexiters should be kept out of any serious discussion (on everything, but EU in particular).
@@fedethefico "Should be kept out of any serious discussion" speak of a hypocritical popo brain response.
@@husted5488 do you have Isis panelists discussing on the BBC about England's NHS reforms? Or even more interestingly, social norms? Why not?
@@fedethefico , just say you worship the EU and go home. This is a bullshit project and you know it.
It's a very vague project. It would make sence for EU to create connections to were it exports the most. Or maybe develop new techs like mag-lev network and space elevator. Else, China has already taken the lead.
mag lev isnt new ... its a system with to many limitations to apply in meaningful ways, mostly its upkeep expense and inflexibility with other forms of transport, a space elevator is a complete pipe dream, you cannot make cables that long
Having a head start doesn't mean everything
The USSR had a head start on the space race but still the US landed the fist man to the moon
No Chinese Link in France . Polluters Get out.
What a huge mistake of Italians to accept ship road link to Amazing Venice Area!
EU plan is to invest in NA and ME countries so they can serve as a buffer to future migrations.
And its a good strategy.
The Belt & Road initiative is already failing as by now most countries have figured out it is just a debt trap and brings little benefit to the global economy. The EU is the only entity outside China that can afford to properly counter that. It is a smaller but hopefully more focussed project. We will have to see the details.
Btw, the EU's trade surplus is around EUR 500bn annually, so the issue is more the willingness, partially due to balancing the need within the EU due to the pandemic, and not the ability.
You're talking as if the EU isn't responsible for debt trapping much of the world?
Ever heard of neo-colonialism?
@@inbb510 well recently China was probably the biggest offender.
@@tobiwan001 And the EU and the US are scrambling to follow after the Chinese's footstep in debt trapping them. What a world we're living in.
Already failing where? Haha iran and cuba just signed into it.
@@inbb510China has done much more than that in Africa than EU like wayyyy more. EU is a much fair side.
The extremely biased title is the final straw. Goodbye everyone. Unsubscribing
I support that.
Also gonna
Cry is free
Those 300$ B from the EU is probably more beneficial for other countries than the 575$ B China allocated so far. We all know how Chinese projects look like. If Country X gets a new highway on Chinese credit. What happens is a Chinese construction company with Chinese workers settle their own secluded workers town near the construction site and import everything from food to tools from China. The economic benefit to country X is fairly limited in that regard.
Actually, China’s investment in foreign countries are shown to have payed off compared to Europeans power and USA. This Anti China rhetoric is not going to stop China from forming more relationship.
@@jaybee4577 Indeed they did. They paid off for China. BRI is not about trade, but about control and influence.
@@jaybee4577 If it has been shown, then you would be able to point to where, right? There are plenty of negative examples like Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zambia and Equador to name a few.
@@swanky_yuropean7514 The case for western money is not better, but worse. In Latin America there's no one who forgets the IMF loans and pillaging from the 90s. The chinese at least leave something behind, and at least in Latin America it is not true they bring mostly Chinese workers - they do like American and European companies, use local cheap labour while the higher ups come from overseas.
@@FOLIPE And what was bought from the loaned money? Its not like you wake up one time and owe the Americans millions for no reason. The difference between China and the west is if you don't pay the west the IMF comes in and gives you more money if you don't pay China you lose your biggest port for the next 99 years.
It's too early to say based on what we know but I do feel more is needed to be done to counter China political manoeuvring but for it to be impactful, it will likely need better terms than what China is offering, maybe even on trade terms.
I also think the EU and US could work together on something like this because both have the same aim when it comes to China.
But personally what I think the EU should do is foster better trade and relations with these countries, the EU is in a good geographical position to do so and that to some degree should help to counter China's power play in the regions.
In the case of African countries, I don't blame them for wanting to accept all this money from China but there's too many strings attached to them which in the long run could be harmful to those countries, the EU and the US needs to offer something better to try and pull them away.
As for the EU, we should remember that it's limited in what it can do and I feel like this is an intent from the EU to boost support among EU members which if they do that, that's when real action can start.
It seems pretty vague atm. But I do hope Europe plans to go back out to the world. Seems tough since they have SOOO many internal problems and have lackwd global action for decades.
But given that I live in the West, I would like to see a strong Europe supporting democracies around the world and development.
Hopefully this is the start of a more global EU.
Like invading Iraq ?
We already have America supporting democracies around the world, we don't need Europe to do that.
I love the EU, to the point where I have a near patriotic feal towards it, but I don't have much confidence in this. The probleme isn't the investing in foreign countries part, rather the lack of coherent plan part. I still think that it is good that countries have an alternative to China but I will stay cautiously optimistic about this plan and will see how it goes. As of now though, I feel like it is more political big talk and I just hope they will do something about those vague words.
We should thank china for making others invest in the development of mankind.
last time I wanted to comment "wow, that is what a racist looks like"
now he actually proved it
Considering that belt and road was closer to an accident then a plan, as its mainly made up of unilateral agreements, the EU plan may not be so much bullshit. If the EU bundle in existing unilateral loans and agreements under one umbrella than it could reach its target. The issue is what the objective is.
China’s physical objective was a combination of establishing trade routes which could not be interdicted by US military forces and the establishments of potential military bases along the sea route. Its soft objective was in gaining influence in a number of strategy countries and the creating new sources of raw materials. This is reasonable enough, but what is the EU’s objective.
Is the EU expecting a war with Russia and needs alternative trade routes, perhaps it does but it certainly would not wish to admit this. Does it need additional raw materials, I suspect apart from energy the answer is no. Securing its energy sources would be a good objective, but this would be securing oil, coal and gas, which is not part of the zero CO2 agenda.
Once you can see a clear and self-evident objective and mission statement, then you could consider moving to stage two. Unless that occurs I suspect it is bull shit.
EU objective is to straighten the countries in North Africa and Middle East and move its outer frontiers in order to stop unwanted migration (which will become biggest problem as climate changes)
@@Έκπληξηρυσός That is a good objective which makes sense, as irrespective of climate change impacts, i suspect mass migrations will become more common due to simple population growth without economic growth.
What's with the title?? Unsubscribing
EU is doing the right thing 👏. UK is left out but that's there own stupid fault.
I'm sure UK has their own plans in regards to this, this all a follow up on what was agreed upon by the G7 in the last summit.
@@Megalomaniakaal they may have plans but no more do they have the financial or political power
EU has no real power without UK and US
Citing absolute numbers and that over 7 years is meaningless. If my ad hoc estimates are not too far off: This program is 16% (actually less since it includes private capital not part of the budget) of the EU budget. Germany is sending 4.3 % of its national budget to the EU, i.e. 0.68 % of German budget is distributed via the EU in this project. I understand that the German budget for developing countries is actually larger than its budget for the EU.
Whether the Economist is right or not is hard to say. But you can’t ignore the Economists foaming at the mouth hatred of the EU.
Why would you censor the "bull" in "b*llshit", isn't "shit" the word you should censor "bullsh*t"
It's political who-ha, all PR with zero substance; however, if the EU were to set up an investment organization that would look into possible large scale infrastructure projects that would benefit EU countries and then member nations could combine their investments together and share the risk, this would be a good thing and could increase the EU's credit, thus creating money that the EU members would not usually have access to. Also, the USA should chip in as well in order to strengthen it's allies economically.
Why EU Bullsh*t? In the title? Doesn’t that indicate a definite bias? I don’t remember TDLR talking about Brexit in the same terms?
It was just a question, and a quoted question at that. We still don't tell you what to think or come to a conclusion in this video, we just discuss why some would call it bs - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU But you NEVER use this kind of term when presenting UK policies, however questionable or even ridiculous. Quite the contrary, you are at times deferential. But when it comes to talk about the EU - the foreigners - anything goes. Shame on you.
It's good that Europe is investing in developing countries, but there are no plans whatsoever so I'm doubtful that much would happen.
Mate a project takes time to develop…nothing starts without time and work…stuff doesn’t simply spawn out of nowhere.
The developing world are looking for resources somewhere else , the global south especially Africa does not need Europe now
mummy can we have a belt and road? Honey we have a belt and road at home. Belt and road at home:
America and Europe should invest massively in Africa. A New Marshall Plan for democracy and stability.
its been happening since africa became free. only for the investments to end up in the pockets of the dictators while their countries were left buried in debt.
Nope, pls keep your money.
Nope get out of Africa.
How to say 'neo-colonialism' without actually saying the word.
Them "investing" in Africa is why Africa is so unstable
You ommited a key factor when talking about the BRI - its a massive failure so far, achieving almost none of its goals, suffering from failed loan paybacks, corruption and an increasing reluctance of the nations building them to become so dependent on China
Did your mother tell you it’s a failure
Ha ha must take more time to work? Look at The Cuba😂
Europe: back in my heydays.
The EU should first invest more in the poor eastern european countries on its doorstep instead of random African nations if it wants to compete with China in any form in the future
Criticism is easy, so it is a given --- no matter what the proposal outlines. If the announcement of the plan outlined specifics, it would be criticized as "too narrow", "too rigid", "too inappropriate", "too whatever". The SALIENT point is that the world --- particularly poor countries with corrupt governments --- will suffer if a certain demonstrably anti-humanitarian, manipulative, promise-betraying, totalitarian government is allowed to take unopposed advantage by:
a) excessively indebting countries (lining the pockets only of corrupt officials)
b) using only its own population and companies to build infrastructure
c) imposing military bases in foreign locales
d) (à la Gwadar) usurping the fishing rights of locals
e) seizing water supplies
f) etc
EU: Hey, can I copy your work?
China: Ok, but don't make it obvious
EU: *Global Gateway*
It's like comparing Greta Thunberg with Liziqi 😂💥
One is a talker, the other one is a doer.
Probably like with many other projects like that. It'll be successful enough for some politicians to call a success and yet failed enough for other politicians to call it a failure and waste of money. The problem with EU is that in a giant vortex of bureaucrats and lobbyists like that it's difficult to execute anything too ambitious. Much money will probably be wasted on some useless stuff.
The Europeans should have built something like belt and road going east over 20 years ago.
One years since the global gateway announced , where is the 300B Euro
Fundamentally a good idea but a frustrating example of how the EU doesn't currently have the cohesion to compete with the U.S. or China who can just do things like raise taxes to get the money they need for stuff like this.
once more lovely communication, and only rubbish behind. who has ever seen a politician sticking to his commitments ?
Who heard a toilet flush just now with a wad of money?
Lol it looks like the Italian politicians are leading EU!
You have to remember that the EU is not an individual state but a sometimes more somtimes less loose association of states who pool some of their resources. They are slow in formulating a common policy on a topic, here foreign development. As a general rule it always starts with a lot of hot air and nice flowery language, but in time they will get somewhere...
2:40 you talk about 575 billion US dollars but the price tag says €575B, so which is it?
You put the asterisk on the wrong vowel
Does this mean that China is doing the right thing?
they will not tell you that...
EU needs a reality check real quick
That’s a lot of containers! Which port is that?
X, Y, or Zee? No Jack we pronounce it "Zed" in this country, we are not Americans.
The title might be just a bit too clickbaity. The video is fine though.
They're comparing it to the Chinese plan, but forgetting half the problems with that. It's not. And I think I'm being generous when I put it like that.
@@123ricardo210 I agree with you, no real research
That Jabba-jabba description can be summed up as Progress.
And EU just declared itself pro-progress. What a relief!
The E-Team! If A through D teams are unavailable.
575 billion US Dollars or Euros? There’s quite a big difference. You must stop making silly mistakes.
I think looking at European politics and Europe talking about being an independent power this means several things. More coordination of existing projects between nations. For example, France and Morocco have goals to like West Africa to a port in North Africa and Italy has projects in Libya. If they coordinated funds and foreign policies, they would be more effective, able to raise more money and make their foreign policies more aligned.
BRI also incorporated pre-BRI infrastructure project in Africa and bilateral agreements with some nations.
BRI and Global Gateway are more about marketing, publicly stating intentions and coordinating different projects to lend credit, build infrastructure, create special economic industrial zones and signal to the Global South that they matter.
The criticisms that apply to GG can also apply to the US-led Blue Dot Network, but even though it's about integrating markets into global trading networks, soft power and economics - they will end up sometimes cooperating and having converging interests with BRI.
the issue is that the EU is ignoring a key crucial future geopolitical ally. Russia now hear me out lets put Putin aside for once if Russia joins the EU Russias key geopolitical needs would be earnestly quelled no Ukraine or Belarus disputes. 2 Russia has all of Europes needed natural resources putting them into allied hands would solve the EU energy crises. 3 Russia would the EU access to the pacific, Arctic and more oil and land. 4 Russian nukes combined with the rest of Europe would make the EU almost on par with the U.S militarily. 5 The EU would no longer need a alliance with the U.S or China. 6 Russia wouldn’t need to stoke up tensions or war because Moscow wouldn’t be close to enemies. 7 the EU sphere of influence would be on par with the U.S 8 this would give Russians democracy and the EU a much better safer future. now the downsides. The only downside this would bring is likely the U.S would start seeing the EU as a threat on American hegemony in the world and could lead a unlikely alliance between the U.S and China. thats the only thing I could thing of. Anyway let me know what you think.
We already know about your bloody badges, stop it. You don't need to put the ad TWICE into EVERY video.
You don't have to watch the second one if you don't want to, it's at the end of the video so feel free to stop watching, there's never going to be anything after it - Jack
@@TLDRnewsEU Sorry for lashing out, but it really gets on the nerves when binging your videos - to the point I sometimes wish you'd get someone else's sponsorship to mix things up a little :D
Close the road between Turkey and 🇪🇺.
Overrealiance on the Suezcanal. Can we make a back up over land route through Israel.
Chinas belt and road initiative is a debt trap for many countries.
The EU initiative seems to have to many spearheads to be called a spear head. It tries to achieve to many goals at the same time with the risk of getting bogged down reaching none of them.
Overland back up won't do much unless it is huge, and then you'd essentially create capacity that isn't needed, ie. wasted money. Honestly sailing around Africa might be more economic than creating an overland back-up.
While I agree with your last part, I doubt there is much economic insentive to make a land route through isreal as that means going throught the middle east which is not in a good state right now. And if we go through their just to skip the suez, well thats just gonna raise costs of shipping by a lot.
The chinese belt and road is a trap, but shipping is still the most efficient form of transport. Also whats wrong with the suez? Its been working for the better part of half a century.
I thought Israel and Emirates already had a project planned for this.
It is a good idea. As trade would be better.
Nice hoodie, might get one, it looks much better then what it seems from the other pictures of the store.
You need a logo. Pay for a good one. Can you also let us know who funds your channel?
6:00 1000 billion is just a trillion, right?
Old saying springs to mind "words are cheap"
To summarize this European initiative, I shall quote the acronym from the Africans, "NATO," which stands for No Action, Talk Only. 😂 That is what they think of the Western colonial powers when it comes to aids for Africa.
well, a paper published in an English newspaper... can't be really "pro-European",
Personally I think it's mostly a slight refocus of priorities
global gateway is QUANT overledger network
Africa is not a country 05:20
haha this is what the libtards actually think about Africans
Right, I was struck for a moment 😂
@@winterrising8738 Coonservative are actually worse. Those people are so ignorant and uneducated that they can’t even identify a state/province in their own country. 😂
@@winterrising8738
"Libtards"
^ I found the American