The post’s title match neither the headline nor the article.

If you’d like to share your analysis I’d suggest adding text to the post or a comment as it’s a good way to add one’s analysis. But please avoid replacing headlines, this is a bit misleading.

Today, some French chefs and residents are reviving wartime staples like country bread

For as far as I remember, bakeries in my area sold country bread. It’s not quite a comeback since it never disappeared.

👆

French farmers do not want unfair competition from non-EU countries that have lower environmental standards, and that export crop produced using cheap and dangerous practices and pesticides banned in the EU.

The point is not refuse trade, but to keep negociating to have mirror measures : apply equivalent environmental standards for food that is produced locally and imported.

Looking at you, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico and member countries that still import fossiel fuels from Russia. The EU executive branch include all member countries’ gouvernement. Every single one can block or delay foreign policy decisions, such as sanctions.

I doubt countries sharing a border with Ukraine or Russia would want to take that risk, but let’s ses how these countries reply, if they even bother to.

Another source:

Sabotage Targets 30s Telemasters Along Sweden’s E22

Spoiler alert.

It’s fossil fuels, again.

I missed Eurovision’s finale this year, because I watched the 803th Interstellar Song Contest

That would beat the purpose of insurance.

Insurance is about risk management, and poking a hole is creating some risk, especially for the local environnement and nearby shores.

What would the penalty be for not being insured?

The decision make sense on principle. To have any effect, it needs a penalty and enforcement.

Just stop talking to them, they have no jurisdiction

If they try and claim there’s no jurisdiction, the other party might disagree. Especially if the contract has a provision that defines which jurisdiction/court is responsible for resolving disputes.

A guess is finding a proper and legal way to break a contract is preferable for companies. An arbitrary breach of contract might make a company look unreliable, could make it more difficult to sign any contract in the future.

IANAL so I have no idea if they’d risk penalties as well.

Yes, and that’s how it should be if a politician of any party is convicted for serious offense, eg violence or hatred. Laws should apply equally to all.

Which means such law should be carefully crafted to prevent its abuse for partisan purpose, supressing the opposition, etc.

For instance making it a judicial process, not an arbitrary administrative/executive decision. Restricting this to specific well-defined offenses. Making it a time-limited ban, not a lifetime ban.

Do wear special solar googles to protect your eyes while watching the solar eclipse.

They cost 2-3 EUR, I bought one at my local optician. Some pharmacist sell them as well.

That’s the whole point.