Countries with working national legislation at home for decades are somehow "reactionary cultures", while countries that failed to introduce any legislation against rape at home because that would cost them support from their retarded voters are now disappointed the EU didn't force them to do it.
All that while any votes against this were purely based on the EU not being responsible here anyway and not wanting to create a precedence of the EU creating national law outside their jurisdiction.
So this articlepiece of trash manages to tell us none of the facts, but a lot of feelings wrapped up in a lie. Peak journalism...
Zensursuala/Flinten-Uschi/Ursula von der Leyarbeit performs exactly as expected in every job she gets. The she's promoted away to the next post... I'm really eager to know what her next position will be.
You say this as if the housing market issue isn't created by policies. And as if there was some magical massive influx of immigrants when it's in fact still too low to (even in addition to existing birth rates) keep the population stable.
So it's not exactly an unsolvable problem. In fact babies tend to be incredible expensive and bad at working, so any other population increase (or just stabilisation of numbers) would be even more expensive.
If your plan is however to not address any existing issues, then yes. In that scenario immigration will bring additional problems. But that's not the point.
Neither are they a left party (or is "left" the new definition for parroting conspiracy theories, Kremlin narratives and anti-imigration hate speech and populist talking points?) nor is a new party barely getting enough votes to into parliaments and majorily getting their votes from former none-voters some kind of shake-up.
Surprising no? But still sad as they are -again and again- too stupid to lash out at the actual reason and are easily manipulated to target someone else. And that's usually either low income classes or foreigners, not coincidently because those are lacking a lobby.
And in the same time they will save (also in the article) 2.8 trillion (or 100 billion on average per country) in fossil fuel imports and 2.5 trillion (or 90 billion per country) in prevented damages.
So I'd call this a great bargain...
Now, we only need to explain them the obvious: Who starts early will get a higher share of the savings.
It doesn't ewven need to when (by the article linked) those investments are one side of a plan that also includes saving 2.8 trillion in fossil fuel exports in the same time, while also projecting +2.4 trillion in damages if no climate action is taken.
And that's not even a new thing. We know that taking climate action now will actually save us money, short and long term. But it will also decrease the money paid by lobbyists to politicians and media and the profits of fossil fuel companies, so we will get headlines like these and a lot of political narratives to discourage us.
One doesn't exclude the other. You can get money from Putin to destabilise Europe while also getting money from people trying to profit from this via shorts on the the losing economy.
And they actually planned accordingly by milking combustion engines for as long as possible while developing alternatives.
That's no reason not to pay for reports about their severe struggle, because public money to help them, also maximises their profit.
Those poor German car makers produce 7 of the 10 most sold EVs in Germany. 6 of those are from parts of the VW group that in 2023 climbed to the 3rd spot in global EV market share, while crying at home how they are surely dying off soon.
The worst part is that technological advancements massively improved productivity. So nowadays you need to work 7 days to support a family instead of 5, but then produce the same in just 3 of it. Because the actual problem is that payment hasn't increased wiht output. That increase collects at the top as massive amounts of money for a very few.
Because the companys at the core (and the sectors they work in) of these megas are comparably ancient compared to technologiy megas. And they started at a time before today's easily accessable global market.
While big tech companies are the startups of just a few decades ago. And there it is immensely beneficial a) to have a big domestic market and then b) to be able to reach a lot of international markets that speak your language without the need for translations (the translations can basically start later for the countries with an already established market to finance it).
For this reason you see a US dominance in tech (big domestic market and the language most internationally understand), then followed by countries like UK (same language), China or (emerging) India (big domestic market).
While new European companies especially in the tech sector basically have no chance unless they develop in foreign english in the first place, and even then they are still at a disadvantadge.
Your perspective is probably skewed, since we Germans are comparatively fluent.
It's even worse. Germany has still some generational divide here but high proficiency on average on a level comparable to countries without that generational gap. So in reality Germans are not comparably fluent, but very proficient... or not at all. Which skews perception even more.
Not having a massive domestic market to start in and even higher requirements to translate your product costs money. It's not a coincidence that the country with the most successful tech startups in europe is english-speaking.
But isn't that part of my point? Nobody would care about Merz' daily bullshit claim, if not for massive media attention. Only very few would view AfD morons as serious politicians if not for the media giving them a platform (one full of softball questions and zero criticism for their bullshit).
I don't want to pretend that the governemnt is perfect in their communication. Yet those actually communicating the most are also the ones completely mispresented constantly.
And simply blaming the government for a lack of communication is too short-sighted when we have a media that is on one-hand over-amplifying right-wing propaganda and underrepresenting government communication.
You are right that propaganda needs to be constantly debunked. But why is that a government only job with media having no part of it, while every single sentence of known populist at some side event is distributed two dozen times within an hour.
How can we not address that problem and pretend the government would just need to start communicating?
All of the parties failed to even try to paint a positive picture of immigration in those past years, or at least clearly communicate the necessity of it: Germany alone needs 400.000 additional immigrants across all levels of qualification a year to keep up the workforce and keep the social systems running
And where did you get this information? From the parties that "failed to communicate" it for years perhaps, who have told us about their plans in their programs, then wrote them down for the coaltion agreement?
They told us we need immigration. They told us they wanted to make immigration easier for needed workes. And they told us expolicitly their plans. And they lost votes for it, as those plans were drowned out by right propaganda about illegal immigrants (has someone already found those imaginary millions yet)?
They also for example told us explicitly about future plans in transitioning industry and energy. And they again lost votes for it, as every moron chose to believe the narrative (from increasing totally green coal use, to prohibiting heating) instead,
Because the majority gives a fuck about information. They mostly listen to right-wing trash media.
What do German politicians transparently communicating their plans and German politicians universally hated have in common? They are the same people... As they are the ones targeted by desinformation the most and Germans are majorily too stupid to not fall for propaganda every single time.
Did nobody there propose Madagascar as the destination for "voluntary migration" of Gaza inhabitants yet?