Why is it not a legitimate move? A country is supposed to protect its citizens from harm.
Most deportations are unjust, and if the only efficient way to stop unfair deportations by us is to block them wholesale, then a country has the responsibility towards its citizens to do so.
Anything else would be madness.
Except not that much in Ukraine. Hungarians in Hungary took it personally, and a fraction of Hungarians in Ukraine. But most Hungarians in Ukraine were on the same page as Kyiv on what the point of that law is.
But also: Yeah, the law was thoughtlessly formulated. It should not have hurt the minorities like that.
Yes.
But, it’s also a country that has been trying to gain territories from Ukraine and Romania for several decades already. In the end of World War I, Hungary had to let many of its old areas gain independence, and pockets of Hungarians ended up living in Romania. Then, during World War II, Soviet Union took parts of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Poland was given parts of Germany as compensation, but Romania and Hungary got nothing to compensate – largely because they had been allied with Germany.
Hungary wants to undo the part of the peace agreement ending WWII that changed the ownership of the Zakarpattja area to Ukraine, and that has kept Hungary hostile to Ukraine.
Basically Hungary sees that it was unfair that its side lost the war in 1945 and wants that reversed. When the Russia attacked Ukraine, Orbán saw this as a way to “fixing” the “unfairness”.
And then there’s all the stuff that Orbán did with “women” sent to him by the Russians, using a network led by a certain J.E.
There are apparently videos or photos of him with his victims, and those are so damning that Orbán will anyways do anything to stop them from surfacing.
It’s also fun that if the driver exhausts all of their 90 days out of 180 while working, that means they are not allowed to travel within EU for a while!
And if they make a tourist trip, they are not allowed to work so much. But yeah, employing truck drivers with EU passports is a simple and good solution to the problem, so it’s not a huge thing. Also, if the British truck drivers lose their job because of not having an EU passport, they can move to an EU country and work for a truck company there. That way they get a stay permit, allowing them to spend 365 days out of 365 in EU if they so wish!
A Šahed style drone costs in the ballpark of 10 000 €. A naval drone costs a bit more, but not by much. Still in the ballpark of five numbers in the price tag.
So, the costs for destroying the ship were around one tenth of a percent of the price of the destroyed ship.
Not bad!
That’s sad to hear. And maybe something I could have figured out. But didn’t.
In a small town I’d assume you’d just walk, though. Depending on how you define “small town”, of course! Or alternatively, take a taxi of some kind. Or have your friends ferry you around?
Where is it not frowned up? (Okay, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and all of Balkans. But otherwise?)
Or, at least they don’t declare it loudly.
The question was posed in the community Buy European. Therefore, they want recommendations for what things are easiest to change for European alternatives, and also how to get the more difficult to acquire things for a reasonable price.
This is a very good sign.
This is basically Google saying that the legislation is efficient.
I know it’s absurd.
Why did you bring that absurd idea up in this comment of yours?
Good to notice that they do have a train station right in front of the stadium. It’s a 2-minute walk. And if you’re able to afford visiting the stadium, you are definitely able to afford the local train ticket there as well!
It seems quite sure that “proper transportation arrangements” can mean taking the local train just fine.
That is a self-clarity. But why should every human being use buses only? That sounds incredibly dystopic, to be honest.
Please take a look at the map. There are plenty of things there, other than just one hotel. There’s the whole town of Lyndhurst there, and the southern parts of Rutherford, just some 5 km away from the stadium. Or, if we take 5 miles, that would mean about 8 km. 8 km is about the limit until what distance can be covered by bicycle without an effort.
A society exists for maintaining infrastructure. It’s a basic function and it’s unforgivable for a city to fail on that!
EDIT: And because it’s really useful to look at the map, here’s a direct link to show the distances: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=40.81219%2C-74.07257%3B40.7875%2C-74.13428#map=14%2F40.80825%2F-74.09755
Sorry, I understand each word you wrote, but not really their meaning. Would you be able to paraphrase, please?
Do you think that the city should engage a – civil engineering project to build a pedestrian bridge over a navigable canal?
Uhmm? Yes? Have you somehow missed that there’s a stadium on the other side of the canal? There are a lot of things in the southwest corner of the map, not just one hotel. I do not believe there’s any other country on this planet where this is even a question. That bridge would absolutely get built. Building the stadium cost a big sum of money. A simple pedestrian bridge costs something like 50 000 $, maybe 200 000 $ if you want a fancy one. How would it not be possible for the stadium to pay that? It’s an increase of about one percent to the project’s expenses.
And if they somehow forgot to include the necessary traffic connections in requirements for giving the permission to build the stadium, then I can assure you that the state is able to pay for a hundred grand for simple infrastructure.
When will the pedestrian bridge be ready?
No, and that’s precisely why sports venues are not built in middle of Autobahns.
Germans would not go to that sports venue because it would be illegal to walk outside.
I still want to know who was the damn idiot that decided to call a payment system “Tax”. It gets utterly confusing when the word “Vero”/“Wero” can mean two separate things that both have to do with money. (And in Finnish W and V are considered the same letter because there was a spelling reform where all W-letters got replaced with the previously unused V).
I hope they’ll change the name to something that can be sensibly used in all of EU.
The country is not refusing the return of its own citizens. It is refusing bringing its citizen from one country to another against their own will in a situation where there is no unavoidable and pressing need to do so.