I don’t think he/she is hard to understand at all. Europe is a continent. The EU is the political entity. If we are talking anything “made in Europe” then we are talking about the continent. But if the French claim the European continent does not extend out to the UK, which would then even include Northern Ireland, obviously the Republic of Ireland would not get included in their continent definition. Obviously the right course of action is to more correctly state “made in the EU” because else we risk not only including the UK but we also include the non Siberian part of Russia, the Thracian part of Turkey and even Iceland.
The French are claiming that the UK is not part of the EU, which is correct. Also in the article they are taking about including Canada and Japan which also wouldn’t work under the “made in Europe” brand for people like you.
Then call the law something else. Don’t call it the “made in Europe law” if the UK is excluded and Canada and Japan is included. That name simply makes no sense.
The Guardian calls it the made in Europe law. It’s in the title of the article. That’s maybe not what the law is officially called but that’s the term that the Guardian uses and I think it’s wrong of them to use that term.
Edit: I checked and the full official name is the “industrial accelerator act” while “made in Europe law” and “made in eu law” are both used by different media to refer to this act. I stand by my opinion that “made in Europe” is not a good term for this act.
The linked article refers to the, still under negotiation, law as “Made in Europe” in the headline and like 4 other places throughout the article. At no point does it refer to the law as the “Made in EU” law. It does say some countries like Germany want a broader definition more like that, while France wants a more specific definition.
The original responder is saying, rightly, that if it is limited to EU members, it needs to be called that as opposed to a name with a wider definition.
“Europe” is not just the EU. Just like so many Europeans always complain that “America” is more than the USA.
The argument is moot anyways as the act is called “Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA)”, which mentions neither Europe or the EU.
The French are rightfully arguing that EU tax dollars should only support EU projects.
It’s like Trump saying that Americans are not paying for industrial projects in Mexico, which would be his most sane take ever.
Also I am from the EU so I know the difference between the EU and Europe. I never argued that the UK is not part of Europe.
I don’t think he/she is hard to understand at all. Europe is a continent. The EU is the political entity. If we are talking anything “made in Europe” then we are talking about the continent. But if the French claim the European continent does not extend out to the UK, which would then even include Northern Ireland, obviously the Republic of Ireland would not get included in their continent definition. Obviously the right course of action is to more correctly state “made in the EU” because else we risk not only including the UK but we also include the non Siberian part of Russia, the Thracian part of Turkey and even Iceland.
The French are claiming that the UK is not part of the EU, which is correct. Also in the article they are taking about including Canada and Japan which also wouldn’t work under the “made in Europe” brand for people like you.
Then call the law something else. Don’t call it the “made in Europe law” if the UK is excluded and Canada and Japan is included. That name simply makes no sense.
You misunderstood. None of those are included.
The Guardian calls it the made in Europe law. It’s in the title of the article. That’s maybe not what the law is officially called but that’s the term that the Guardian uses and I think it’s wrong of them to use that term.
Edit: I checked and the full official name is the “industrial accelerator act” while “made in Europe law” and “made in eu law” are both used by different media to refer to this act. I stand by my opinion that “made in Europe” is not a good term for this act.
Well good news, it’s not called the made in Europe act, according to yourself.
I don’t think they are misunderstanding at all.
The linked article refers to the, still under negotiation, law as “Made in Europe” in the headline and like 4 other places throughout the article. At no point does it refer to the law as the “Made in EU” law. It does say some countries like Germany want a broader definition more like that, while France wants a more specific definition.
The original responder is saying, rightly, that if it is limited to EU members, it needs to be called that as opposed to a name with a wider definition.
“Europe” is not just the EU. Just like so many Europeans always complain that “America” is more than the USA.
The argument is moot anyways as the act is called “Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA)”, which mentions neither Europe or the EU. The French are rightfully arguing that EU tax dollars should only support EU projects. It’s like Trump saying that Americans are not paying for industrial projects in Mexico, which would be his most sane take ever.
Also I am from the EU so I know the difference between the EU and Europe. I never argued that the UK is not part of Europe.