India and EU announce landmark trade deal
bbc.com
bbc.com
Moving countries is hard. Not just paperwork hard, but restarting-your-life hard. Credit history, professional networks, understanding how things actually work versus how they officially work.
If the mobility framework makes it meaningfully easier for skilled workers to move between India and Europe, that's significant. Not because of labor economics, but because talented people having more options is generally good for everyone.
The H1B system in the US has created a lot of anxiety and frustration. Competition for that talent pool seems healthy.
Might we see a European flowering as the US chokes itself into a regional power?
But no, you can make 3-4x in the US. That’s not an exaggeration. And before someone says ‘free healthcare’, big-tech employers in the US provide pretty nice insurance for employees that caps maximum out of pocket expenses to about a week of your salary.
EU (except Zurich and London) tech salaries have sort of stagnated to a point that you make about the same in Bangalore, and spend significantly more.
But makes me wonder if EU policies are contributing to wage stagnation.
There had been several high profile cases in the US about wage stagnation, so much that tech companies are a bit wary of this topic.
In silicon valley, you can not afford to underpay good engineers, as they'll move across the street and get a job that pays double after a year.
In most other places, this ecosystem does not exist because it is ridiculously difficult to start and operate a company unless you are part of some conglomerate.
Not to mention the fascism problem of course.
> Not to mention the fascism problem of course.
Agreed.
The US is going in a terrible direction with this. I hope Europe has learned from history and won’t follow.
France was recently an absolute inspiration in this regard.
Turns out I can live a pretty comfortable life with EU salary. I could afford a house, car, family. Quality of Life is pretty great.
I am not sure if the extra money in the US would be worth it.
There are hobbies and interests you can pursue with a tech salary in the US that are somewhat out of reach in Europe without generational wealth.
Apparently it's much rarer in the EU, but that might not only be a cost issue.
Conversely, Europeans workers get to enjoy some hobbies more than Americans - such as frequent travel - not because of how much they earn, but because of work culture and paid vacation time rules.
The rule of thumb is that expensive hobbies cost in a year what the median yearly income in your area is.
A European tech salary would be about 2x of the median while a US tech salary can be 5-6x.
Not even that if you're a worker in rich/developed EU country, unless we're talking FAANG/big-tech, since here SW dev wages are relatively close to national medians so an average SW dev worker doesn't take home 2x the the median.
Issue further compounded by the high taxes on higher wages and more generous government benefits and tax credits for those on lower wages, and suddenly the take home difference at the end of the fiscal year between a SW dev and average worker narrows down even further, to the point that it's not a career you get into for the money, like in the US.
BUt if you're in the less wealthy EU countries, with lower taxes and less welfare benefits, where the national average wages are lower in comparison to tech wages, like from Poland to Bulgaria then yeah sure, you can easily take home 2x-5x the national median in tech because the other industries are a lot less developed compared to SW products and service industry versus places like Germany or Norway with more diverse and developed industries raising the national average wages for everyone making tech workers feel underpaid.
Even that is embarrassingly low compared to literally anywhere else with offices.
You're in the minority now in EU if you can afford to have those things now. The housing and CoL crunch is real and many industries suffered layoffs. Q3 2025 youth unemployment is around 20-25% in several EU countries including developed ones like Finland, it's no longer an issue just for the less developed southern ones.
>I am not sure if the extra money in the US would be worth it.
Since you already have a house and everything, then yeah it makes no sense for you. But I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.
A quick search tells me that home ownership in the EU is Approximately 70%, ranging from around 95% in countries such as Romania and Slovakia, to around 50% in Germany. Non-EU citizens disproportionately owns less houses.
So, no. I am not at all in the minority.
Youth unemployment is an issue, being 15% in the EU as a whole, with some countries hovering on 30%. The US has 10% of youth unemployment (considering their labor laws are appallingly bad for workers, I am not sure if this is much of an improvement).
> Since you already have a house and everything, then yeah it makes no sense for you. But I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.
Good for you, may you achieve your goals.
I didn't own a house until a year ago. Refusing offers from the US and moving to EU was likely the best decision I ever made.
I had a life threatening illness not long ago. In the US I would likely be either bankrupt of dead. I appreciate the safety net and labor protections here, even with the higher taxes.
Do you see the issue here?
Home ownership in the US is about 65%, but I presume that may vary a bit by state.
I also expect non-US citizens to disproportionately own less houses.
If I can't afford a house, it makes it no better to me if you tell me that some people in the US also can't afford one, like that's supposed to make me feel better or something.
And with 50% home ownership statistics, it seems I'm not alone. I'm glad the system worked for you but it failed me and so I will vote to those who put my interest first and not devalue my labor.
This conversation, that you replied to, was a consideration of whether it made sense to move to the US. You mentioned that if you could move there, you would.
I presumed it worked as a basis of comparison?
> And with 50% home ownership statistics, it seems I'm not alone. I'm glad the system worked for you but it failed me and so I will vote to those who put my interest first and not devalue my labor.
I presume you live in Germany? I know some engineers who live there, I used to work with a team based off on Germany years ago.
They are doing fine.
I don't really care who you vote for. Based on your stance, I presume you blame immigrants for "devaluing your labor".
Contrary to you, I believe that with more trade and movement of highly skilled people, economic progress follows.
I don't believe stagnation is a viable strategy. You are free to believe otherwise.
Have a wonderful afternoon.
Define "fine". How many own homes?
I lost contact with a couple of them over the years.
I not talking about average wages, as that has no bearing on whether I would want to live somewhere.
I'll primarily look at what I can make and what my quality of life would be like.
Meanwhile the Nordics for example consistently rank much higher in health, happiness, and quality of life, despite having lower top wages.
My point was that if you have a senior level big tech job in the US, it makes zero sense to move to Europe unless you have family there or want to make a significant financial sacrifice.
Obviously Europe wins for workers in general, and if I wanted to work in a car factory’s yes I’d do my best to work in Europe.
I know developers who have motor bikes and a Porsche or BMW or, recently, Teslas that sometimes they take to the race track. But this lifestyle is common for EU devs as well.
I am not sure why everyone keeps bringing up the average though.
You have to decide whether it makes sense for you to be somewhere, based on how much you can expect to make and what your quality of life will be.
What the average person makes does not matter except in an abstract sense that equitable societies are better in general (which is absolutely true).
> You must live in a very selective circle. > These are the only two examples out of probably more than 100 developers I worked with.
People can be very careful about keeping professional life separate. There is a boat owners club in a marina I frequent, the vast majority of the members (out of about 200) are techies, it's a common hobby.
I know several that have a pilot license but only one who bought a plane, it's somewhat convenient to just rent every few months.
There are a bunch more expensive hobbies, about half of the developers I know (personally outside of work environments) have one or more.
Planes came up because I am getting started with the training for it, horses because my friend has a farm with horses twenty minutes from a major city.
Eh, we'll see how long that lasts as the transition from financial capital to global pariah progresses. It's quite possible that our labor is extremely overvalued.
That part seems to be taking an ugly turn nowadays by a bunch of military AI/drone swarm/etc focused startups. I'm guessing that eventually after the Apple/Google model of making money is dead, you'll have to work for Skynet if you want to make money.
There is not much difference in labor share of GDP between the US and the EU. People who work for living get a similar share of the value they create in both blocks on the average (maybe a bit less in the US), but it's less evenly distributed in the US.
Top 10% earners are now responsible for ~50% of consumer spending. That doesn't mean billionaires and capitalists, but upper middle class professionals and other high earners. The economy is great on the average, but most people don't feel it.
I don't disagree, as in an abstract sense inequality is bad for society.
Try to understand why the US has high tech salaries though. It is because the last 40 years have made it pretty easy and convenient to start companies.
Hence, good employees always have great options or can just start their own companies.
I thought this was because US trade and foreign policy coerced most of the world to open up their markets to high-margin American services via treaties. It's easy to pay high salaries when you're vacuuming money from around the world, and your product (software) has very low marginal cost of replication.
Swissre, UBS and many others all have open positions in Spain/Poland/India, not actually in Switzerland
Nobody gives out positions like that easily to non geniuses. And even for more ordinary very smart candidates, there are enough of them to have a few hoops to jump through.
Keep in mind the salary is 3-5x for big tech positions with 5+ years of experience. Check levels.fyi if you don’t believe me.
> Days that you can actually take without losing the chance for a promotion?
Europe wins hands down on this. I happen to have a great employer where I have taken 4-5 weeks off a year without issues, but that’s not the norm in the US.
Another thing no one is bringing up is how colonized minds works. Colonized minds don’t suddenly become uncolonized because of a brash leader.
Something not brought up much is how colonized minds works. Colonized minds don’t suddenly become uncolonized because of a brash leader. Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviets is a great example of this.
Something not brought up much/yet is how colonized minds works. Colonized minds don’t suddenly become uncolonized because of a brash leader.
I should’ve also said that like the US, Europe, Canada, Australia, Israel are very very racist, chauvinist, exceptionalist. That benefits US hegemony.
Something also not brought up much is how many people have colonized minds around the world. Colonized minds don’t largely change because of a temporary brash leader.
Immigration remains under the purview of individual EU member states. And immigration/mobility is out of scope of the actual EU-India FTA deal and the EU-India Defense Pact deal.
Notice how this entire thread got derailed by low karma and newish accounts dogwhistling immigration instead of discussing how the deal expanded European (and India) industrial and chemical exports to India (and Europe) by giving them a tariff rate under that which is Chinese transshipped products via ASEAN get thus making European (and Indian) capital goods cost effective and now includes India as part of ReArm Europe [1] - the EU's defense fund for European and Ukrainian rearmament [2].
Who needs Russian backed farmer disinfo networks [3] when you have anonymous "software engineer" and "OSINT" accounts stirring $hit to try and undermine the EU-India relationship [4]. That said, the deal will go through because the right businesses and unions were mollified over the past 2-3 years building up to this.
[0] - https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_...
[1] - https://theprint.in/diplomacy/india-eu-sign-security-defence...
[2] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7695...
[3] - https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2025/12/01/putin-permafr...
[4] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...
Where do you see the dogwhistling? Immigration is an actual concern to all working class people in EU who understand the basics of supply and demand of the labor market and housing, and I don't agree with trying to suppress such valid concerns by brooming it under dogwhistling, as blocking discourse on this topic just serves to radicalise people.
Especially in current economic times of mass layoffs of many European industries and high unemployment especially amongst the youth, CoL and housing crunch, it's normal the tax paying locals with voting rights don't want their leaders making them compete with immigrants for the shrinking pool of jobs and housing when they themselves are struggling.
And especially given how the typical government promoted immigration systems often marketed on "solving labor shortage in critical industries" and "bringing in the best and the brightest" have historically been abused by employers to drive down wages and reduce the bargaining power of the locals in working class jobs that had no actual shortage of workers, instead of being exclusive for the "best and the brightest" as they claimed.
So given such precedents, it's perfectly normal that such policies be open to public debate and scrutiny since the public will be the one mostly affected, while the business and asset owning elite is always the sole winner in these cases and the ones pushing for them the most.
While I support free markets, that argument sounds a bit like the basis of the old 'trickle-down economics' and similar theories such as global free trade: Help the wealthy and the benefits will 'trickle down' to everyone else.
It turns out that if you help the wealthy, then the wealthy benefit. I know that doesn't sound like a surprising result when it's said that way, but the point is that the rest is a convenient fiction the wealthy tell themselves and politicians tell the public, in order to serve themselves.
In the US for example, those policies have led to historic increases in wealth for the few, and stagnated wages for the many. On the other hand, in less well off economies such as China and Brazil, the policies led to historic numbers lifted out of poverty - far more than anything in history. So that's a great result that we absolutely should not ignore or put a stop to. I support free trade.
But if the policy isn't specifically designed to benefit workers in the US, for example, if they are left to get theoretical second or third order theoretical benefits, it won't work for them. It's not 'generally good for everyone' unless it's made that way.
What should I be getting out of your argument? Asking in good faith.
For example, that there's more to it than that simple rule, or that once a certain level of general population prosperity is reached it stops working, or that impoverished populations have a culture that better benefits from such policies... ?
Not him but I'd say it suppresses wage bargaining power in the USA or in this case Europe.
I don't know. It might have been good luck: outsourcing low-wage labor will of course benefit low-wage workers in other countries, and China's workers happened to be the beneficiaries. Maybe China's government, with a strong motivation to transform its economy from widespread and deep poverty (at the time, much poorer than anyone in wealthy nations), designed their trade policy to achieve that result. (People will also give simplistic answers that serve their ideologies, which I'm not addressing.)
The US's and China's policies were necessarily different: One country was outsourcing low-wage work (hopefully replacing it with higher-wage work) and the other was trying to get as much low-wage work as possible. One was exporting and the other importing.
My main, general point was that unless US policy is designed specifically to benefit X, it won't. Often leaders try to smooth over difficulties by claiming some second-order or third-order effect will benefit X, but that doesn't happen. In this case, X was US workers, and the policy was designed specifically to benefit corporations (afaik).
The immigration process filters for particular traits, not just what's on a resume.
55% of the 1 million Syrians living in Germany are dependent on welfare.
The act of immigrating on its own does not select for anything other than a willingness to relocate.
Tautologically: good immigrants are great and bad immigrants are terrible. I certainly know a few awful immigrants too.
30% of our population was born overseas. It seems to be working fine for those born here and for the immigrants.
Young New Zealanders emigrate, and existing immigrants get older so NZ has an ongoing need to have more immigrants.
People want to come here so we have the luxury of setting filters. I'm not sure what will happen when other countries start competing harder for the "better" immigrants.
Australia is similar but it has less trouble with losing its young people - it gains a lot of New Zealanders because it is a wealthier country with better weather (but bitier fauna)
Some developed countries have terrible demographics and need fresh kids.
I am expecting that sometime soon New Zealand will start accepting unskilled immigrants if they have >2 healthy kids under 10 years old. It wouldn't surprise me if the dept of internal affairs already has a soft rule to encourage that.
At some point many countries with shitty demographics are going to have to start competing to import kids.
The current challenge is that China has so much industrial overcapacity that it possibly can sell goods at near , sometimes even below mfg costs which makes it difficult if not impossible for India or other country made goods to even think of competing in the middle part of the value chain. Yet, it is the only hope for India to climb at least slightly even if they can never hope to get to the frontier of mfg. Chinese goals now are to amortize their existing mfg investments in any way possible but they still find it difficult to spur domestic consumption
Especially cars, India has had insane tariffs on luxury cars and motorcycles that will disappear, which is interesting. On the face this seems like a good deal for India as India can probably export much more than EU can to India except for a few sectors like Automobiles and Chips, but who knows, I assume EU officials seem to think the gains in a few high tech sectors are enough to offset the cheap goods on all other sectors.
In a cost of living crisis, maybe this is seen as a helpful import?
Chinese manufacturers got hounded out and as a result the PRC tried [0] and failed [1] to weaponize the WTO against India [0] for India trying to subsidize GreenTech driven industrialization.
Chinese manufacturers are allowed to enter India, but on terms similar to what the PRC used when Western, Japanese, and Korean players began entering the Chinese market - something which German policymakers even pointed out [2].
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-files-wto-case-aga...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/india-stops-chinas-reque...
[2] - https://table.media/china/thema-des-tages/indien-weshalb-chi...
If you position an automotive product in India to be affordable, you lose aspirational consumers (India1).
Toyota is trying to position itself as a luxury brand in India in order to better defend revenue, as in NAM and JP the Toyota brand has a similar reputation as Maruti Suzuki does in India.
Our bureaucracy and governments has finally learnt how to do a Pareto analysis and learnt the difference between high volume/low margin vs low volume/high margins.
It's not a coincidence that EU suddenly signs trade deals left and right with the utmost urgency, see the recent Mercosur deal. The coffers are going dry and they need to bring in every euro they can no matter the future societal cost.
I'm happy to be proven wrong, but personally I'm skeptical these trade deals will lead to an increase in purchasing power and QoL for the average EU working class citizen in many countries, who've seen a stagnation or even decrease in the last decade or so.
Did I miss anything?
I have seen a lot of smart people in thrall of ideologies that could be used to manipulate them left and right at will. Meanwhile, true morons tend to be unpredictably chaotic.
2. India has a massive male surplus[1] and they actively look to send them abroad to prevent domestic unrest
[0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.DT.GD.ZS?lo...
Great, now other countries can import and share that domestic social unrest from the oversupply of frustrated reproductive age celibate males, all in the name of making GDP number go up. Lovely.
Surely using hindsight of documented history and well researched human behavior science, we can't already predict this will lead to a rise in political far right extremism, and everyone will be shocked as if it will suddenly come out of nowhere, and then the local males will exclusively be to blame for it, leading to further frustration, radicalisation and disenfranchisement. Surely this is not EXACTLY what's gonna happen.
[1] https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl%2F40615%2...
I read it as he is working on a separate deal besides the aforementioned FTA.
I don't even understand what "lop-sided" means here.
Would you say that Canada's oil and softwood businesses are lop-sided because we produce and export a lot of it? Or that the groceries' market is lop-sided because we don't produce a lot of it and therefore have to import?
Canada is an importer of people (not only from India) because it can't produce a lot of people. It is not different from groceries.
So does every country that can't grow it's population indefinitely need to import a ton of people? What is the endgame there?
And I thought trade in people as some kind of fungible economic token was out of vogue.
Variety isn't a bad idea in and of itself. But you're making the mistake of assuming all the people who live inside a particular nation's boundaries are the same.
Not being racist is really a pretty modern idea that didn’t become popular anywhere until the last 50 years. For most of human history it was conventional wisdom that (whatever I am) is the obviously superior form of human. Statistically this is probably still what most living people think.
I mean of course whatever you are is the master race. Isn’t it obvious?
>It is not different from groceries.
Do you appreciate that, in the wider historical context, this position is an exceptionally radical one? You seem to not understand how there could even exist a difference of opinion on this, but I'm confident that this outlook of humans as being completely fungible, transactional economic units would appear unthinkable to anyone throughout 99% of human history. Just the suggestion that a nation's population should be restocked by swapping it out with another nation's population would be tantamount to treason any time prior to the revolution of the 1960s.
The previous Trudeau govt? Absolutely not. He was the prime minister of everyone except Canadians.
Look at this chart for example: https://preview.redd.it/in-the-first-three-months-of-2025-ca...
I remember reading recently that Canada's population actually decreased last year. A quick Google confirms it: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/251217/dq251...
The reduction came from international students and temporary workers' permits expiring. We keep increasing permanent residents.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2025008...
Citation very much needed. This sounds like _your_ concern that you're trying to launder through projecting onto the rest of the country.
It is one of the top 5 issues for ALL Canadians.
So we just let racists determine national policy now? I wonder how that's working out in the US.
Racism is a serious allegation. Let's not cry wolf when there is a reasonable explanation here.
> will only drive people towards right-wing extremists
The right talks a big game about personal responsibility, but somehow their worst beliefs are always someone else's fault. Funny, that.
> naturally become associated
Now see, that's exactly what I'm talking about. It's _not_ natural or inevitable.
My point is is that if leftists cannot talk about immigration policy in a nuanced way, right-wing extremists (for there are no other kinds of right wingers these days) will be the only game in town, and people who want to talk about immigration policy will therefore be drawn towards them.
Humans see patterns in everything, that's how we work. You can be a naive idealist all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that people will inevitably associate the effects of a bad policy with the policy itself.
Does nuance mean agreeing to your framing of a situation? If so, I guess not. That's not what it means to me.
> a naive idealist
Insults aren't helping your case.
> associate the effects of a bad policy with the policy itself.
What are the effects you're referring to here?
> Humans see patterns in everything, that's how we work.
Here's a pattern I see: American-owned propaganda networks take over Canadian news and trying to drum up racist sentiment and lots of people falling for it.
It sucks that you started with them then by calling people who disagree with you racist.
>What are the effects you're referring to here?
Drastically reduced wage bargaining power in various sectors and also for general unskilled labour typically done by students and the like. Straight up displacement in some areas. More strain on a housing supply that's already incredibly overvalued. Hell I'd argue that the migration was incentivized by the canadian local governments tax dependence on housing prices going up.
Safe to say that the 1990s "End of History" theory has been proven wrong. It may be that the ~1960s-2010s "post-national" political consensus was actually just a historical aberration that is still in the process of being unwound.
Wild sequence of sentences.
> is now widely agreed has contributed to a noticeable decline in the quality of life for all.
Citation very much needed.
I'm skeptical that an increase in so called "low skill" workers are even a problem considering that the country is experiencing labour shortages that have contributed to construction costs being so out of whack that building new buildings is unviable.
Now we've "solved" that problem by turning immigration down to zero but that is a kludge and not an actual long term solution to systemic problems.
It's pretty hard be critical of the need for supposed "low skill" immigration when pretty much all of our settler ancestors were penniless dirt farmers.
We do need immigration long term for sure! Canada is and will always be an immigrant country. That said, I also don't think an appeal to the past (the fact that almost all of our ancestors came as penniless farmers) should enter into the conversation. To my view, this is a dispassionate conversation about politics. Concerns over hypocrisy are irrelevant.
I'm skeptical that those migrants helped add more to the housing pool than their own needs.
These are a bit of a legacy thing that countries can't just develop.
India to CH, gold, jewelry, equipment, textiles.
I always thought of Brussels as the city where decisions go to die; that the EU discusses everything, poses for pictures and solves nothing. Then, in less than a month we have the trade deal EU-Mercosur and this one with India.
Maybe the Europeans can actually solve problems, after all.
4.) EU does get things done. Maybe you don't read the news (where do you live?)
It is funny that it took less time for South Americans to create the Mercosur and for the Pacific countries to create the trans-Pacific partnership than to negotiate any trade deals with the EU.
> where do you live?
Latin American living in Canada.
"Latin American living in Canada." Probably thats why you dont read about EU laws. Today Commission investigate into Google for breaking the DMA. The DMA itself is a very important piece of law.
Of course that's probably not including things that aren't progressing for whatever reason. Otherwise, a lot of this isn't of much interest to someone on another continent.
I expect something similar with the India Deal, there is always some form of Veto in the EU that makes it very hard to act as a unit.
This is great news for professionals wishing to move to the EU, and I hope many will use this opportunity.
Does it not commit the member states to for example uncap student visas which are a common route for migration?
Like if the framework would explicitly say "EU to allow in 20 million Indian workers every year" the political backlash would have been devastating, but since the framework only talks in vague phrases like "facilitate labour mobility" and "Enable mobility for skilled workers, young professionals" which are obvious migration policies but disguised in super vague terms to obfuscate the real intent.
That's why they're politicians, that's their job, they need to gaslight you on how policies that only benefit the business/asset owning class is gonna benefit you, the working class, even if that's not true. Their job is to get the voters to buy into and accept the policies their lobbyists push for.
Way to fall-off from being the one source of news everyone in "Anglo" countries in the Third-World used to turn to (and love and respect... however biased the news may have been).
Edit: am trying to access from US, I see a paywall. Good to hear from comments that other countries don't see a paywall.
Only the US traffic has a paywall, there's none if you visit it from somewhere else. Understandable to charge people who don't pay for it with their taxes in my opinion, especially if you delivery videos and other expensive content for free without ads.
From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vgkn7w10o
The other countries most likely don't make up such a big chunk of visits / costs.
FWIW: There's many news sources in the US (Usually regional news papers etc.) that just throw a forbidden or 402 status code right away at anyone not using a US IP.
I would have expected Britain to realize this and continue funding it.
The BBC will regularly criticise the government, especially when it's a Labour government.
Not paying the Licence Fee is a criminal offence.
None of these make the BBC "state media."
> UK Government cannot determine its agenda or directly influence its funding.
> The BBC will regularly criticise the government
The funding is set for a 10 year cycle, beyond the scope of any individual government specifically to protect the BBC from editorial interference by the government. That’s why it’s a publicly funded broadcaster, not “state media.”
The onus is now on you and the OP to prove your claim that the BBC is state media.
> State media are typically understood as media outlets that are owned, operated, or significantly influenced by the government.
Which part of this definition is lacking, in your opinion? Which part of the UNESCO report do you think is incorrect? My source: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380618.locale=en
The sad part is that as soon as someone wearing a blue shirt enters office, they will get right in line with whatever the blue shirt says. I saw this with Obama's drone strikes in Syria...
> I saw this with Obama's drone strikes in Syria...
Again, you are mistaking Obama for a far-left liberal when he was basically a moderate with no qualms on intervention. Now that we can compare Obama to a populist who claims to be but is not really a conservative either, I don't think we can claim much.
I admittedly am part of a trade organization, so I am quite friendly to both teams. Call what I see intuition. I usually place these numbers at:
>Total Loyalists: 30-40%
>Ideological Believers: 30-40%
>Ambitious Opportunists: 30%
Party loyalists are moderates, the far left is the one that doesn't turn out to vote when Democrats aren't pursuing their agenda, they were the ones to get on the Bernie train, etc...
> Call what I see intuition.
Sure, it is obviously not fact driven.
>The Problem of Priors ruins basically all of science
>Particulars vs Universals
>Your senses are organic chemical reactions that lose reality, then you use different chemical reactions that turn it into logical thought, further simplifying and allowing mistakes.
>Deflationary Theory of Truth is probably the correct one.
I don't need to know about gravity to know the sun will rise tomorrow, I can use my intuition. However, my intuition also says the earth is flat. So take what you will.
Everyone is just going to move on and ignore the silly tariffs.
You know it's a good deal for the EU and India given that China has been attempting a diplomacy blitz against the deal [0] for [1] years [2] now [3].
Indian DefenseTech and Dual Use technologies vendors can also now participate in ReArm Europe/Readiness2030 [4] (the EU's Defense Modernization fund) as part of the India-EU Defense Pact [5] that was also signed, especially after the French Government identified [6] a Chinese-led disinformation operation against French and Indian DefenseTech which the DGSE reported on with AP [7].
---
Edit: Notice how even on HN new accounts are suddenly popping up trying to make a wedge about this deal by dog whistling immigration even though mobility is not mentioned in the draft seen by Reuters and is a power that falls under individual state's sovereignity in the EU.
---
Edit 2: Note the subsequent whataboutism that has arisen. A nation trying to conduct disinformation ops against another nation is an offensive action. It's the tip of the iceberg of attempts of foreign interference within France [8]
---
Edit 3: Replying here
> I still don't know what 'diplomacy blitz' are you talking about.
The GT is the de facto voice of China's foreign policy, and has consistently viewed the EU-India deal as an attempt to isolate China. Additonally, Table Media (Germany's equivalent of Axios) noted He Lifeng's statements against the EU-India deal dueing Davos 2026, as the EU and India are investigating a compromise on CBAM for Indian exports.
---
Edit 4: Unsurprisingly, the entire HN thread has been derailed by immigration.
---
[0] - https://table.media/china/thema-des-tages/indien-weshalb-chi...
[1] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1222983.shtml
[2] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202105/1222993.shtml
[3] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202010/1205230.shtml
[4] - https://theprint.in/diplomacy/india-eu-sign-security-defence...
[5] - https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/security-and-defence-eu-and-...
[6] - https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froi...
[7] - https://apnews.com/article/france-china-pakistan-india-defen...
[8] - https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2024/07/02/deux-espio...
The comment is so absurdly out of step that it's clearly just trying to stir the issue.
[1] https://www.amazon.fr/Pouvoir-sans-visage-complexe-militaro-...)
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_...
That should hopefully help increasing the much needed immigration.
Edit: The BBC article is wrong, as can be seen by the draft reported by Reuters [0]
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/india/details-eu-india-trade-d...
Culturally more similar would be South-America I'd say. Them I wouldn't mind at all.
The mass emigration from India is a direct consequence of India's poor wages and living standards. If that was not the case, most people I know (and I myself) wouldn't have emigrated. From what I see[1], the average South American is much better off than the average Indian. Maybe that (and India's huge population) explains why South Americans do not emigrate as much[2] as Indians?
In other words, people from "countries with similar society and culture to us Europeans" may not want to move to Europe. It's all supply and demand at the end of the day
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...