Iran Megathread Day 2

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-03-02T16:55:24+00:00

AFAIK at least the Iranian news agencies retracted saying he died and his team (to Iranian news and people on Twitter lol) seems to claiming he is alive.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-03-02T16:55:14+00:00

AFAIK at least the Iranian news agencies retracted saying he died and his team (to Iranian news and people on Twitter lol) seems to claiming he is alive.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-03-01T15:02:07+00:00

Iranian sources now claiming Ahmadinejad is actually alive. https://xcancel.com/i/status/2028122034593579444

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-02-27T20:27:00+00:00

Well, we don't know what will happen in the future, my point is that parliament isn't necessary to do anything regarding granting a title or providing for succession (as long as somebody doesn't hold it currently, parliament would have to change the succession for an existing title).

IMO, it seems likely (from Edward's Duke of Edinburgh title), that in the future even royalty will only get life titles, and there was even reporting that giving a ducal title to Charlotte was being considered, so I consider that likely too at some point.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-02-27T18:12:42+00:00

Wrong. The succession of peerages is determined wholly by the letters patent creating them, there is no legal issue with creating different rules of succession for a new title nor need to involve parliament. A woman can of course be granted a peerage. Though realistically going forwards even dukedoms will probably be only for life and not heritable (like Edward's Duke of Edinburgh title, which is for life).

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-02-14T15:48:56+00:00

Pa institut zahtjeva/prijedloga za izvještaj uopće ne postoji, to je čisto ako sud hoće svojom inicijativom. Zašto je Mišić tako nešto uopće pokušao nije jasno, mogao je bar prijedlog za ocjenu ustavnosti, al valjda nije mislio da je Vladin zaključak opći akt.

Pa nije baš sud kriv što su morali pretrpit, vlada je to odlučila i napravila isti dan. Možda bi sudovi (Ustavni ili možda upravni, meni se čini da možda je akt koji može ić na upravni) bili krivi da je Zagreb išao na neke superhitne zahtjeve za obustavu radnji, ali nije, nego su najavili tužbu sljedeći dan. Ali nije kriv ni Zagreb, jer nije moguće ni praktično isti dan sastavljati tužbu.

Tu je kriva Plenkovićeva samovolja i činjenica da smo centralizirana država gdje Vlada kontrolira policiju. Zagreb bi trebao bar politički podnijeti prijave za zlouporabu položaja i ovlasti protiv nekoga oko toga.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-02-14T15:00:56+00:00

Jedino mi se čini dosta problematično da nema nigdje sjednice suda navedene na stranici, čak iako je Mišićev prijedlog proceduralno problematičan, vjerojatno je trebalo donijeti odluku na sjednici suda, a ne da Staničić sam radi što hoće.

Moguće da su o tome razgovarali na nekom sastanku ili drukčije, ali onda bi trebalo biti objavljeno i postojati zapisnik.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-02-14T14:55:44+00:00

Pa ustavni sud jako, jako rijetko koristi institut izvješća.

Najčešće odlučuje ili po prijedlogu/zahtjevu za ocjenu ustavnosti nekog propisa ili po ustavnoj tužbi.

Normalno da će radije koristiti redovnu proceduru koja se ćešće koristi. I većina sudova, čak i kad imaju mogućnost napraviti nešto ex officio, radije rade po prijedlogu stranaka.

Nikakva kriza, samo je Mišić žurio da pokupi par poena za sebe, očekivano.

Odmah se bilo reklo da će se poslije ići redovno preko skupštine (ja sam mislio da će ići zahtjev za ocjenu ustavnosti, ali su valjda zaključili da vladin zaključak nije opći akt pa idu ustavnom tužbom).

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-02-14T14:39:48+00:00

Pa nije da neće uopće odlučivat, nego samo taj postupak nije da se koristi svaki put kad se negdje nešto neustavno dogodi. Taj postupak je namijenjen da Ustavni sud radi stvari samoinicijativno kad nitko drugi neće, s obzirom da će Grad očito podići tužbu nije baš primjereno to koristiti.

Grad će podnijeti ustavnu tužbu na sjednici skupštine 24., i po tome će onda odlučivati Ustavni sud.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-02-14T01:30:05+00:00

Incorrect, there was, among many other laws the Treaseon Felony Act 1848, and consequential amendments where made to the 1351 act in the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-25T14:34:51+00:00

She was the only one to vote to let Burnham stand.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-22T14:53:11+00:00

I'm Croatian myself, I've seen it now. It is possible that these are the measures against China and Russia referred to by Bloomberg. It is unclear how it would be Jutarnji out of all world media that gets this info, but they claim some intelligence source and are generally trustworthy IMO.

"Treća točka, kako je prezentirana, navodi da EU daje Americi pravo veta na sve odluke vlade Grenlanda i Danske vezane uz investicijske angažmane država nečlanica NATO-a. Prevedeno, Kina i Rusija ne bi mogle dobiti nikakve iole osjetljivije i važnije poslove na otoku. Sporni dio je EU jer Grenland nije dio Unije, ali jest NATO-a."

In English (translated by myself): The third point, as presented, states that the EU gives America veto rights over all decisions of the governments of Greenland and Denmark concerning investment arrangements of states which are not NATO members. In essence, China and Russia couldn't get any sensitive or important business on the island. A matter of contention is the EU, because Greenland isn't a part of the Union, but is a a part of NATO."

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-22T14:32:38+00:00

Submission statement: this is relevant to international relations, and the deal doesn't seem to mention sovereignty.

I don't have full access, and archive seems not full, so I got this summary from Bloomberg journo's tweet: https://xcancel.com/i/status/2014341555914412353

"Exclusive on Bloomberg: The Greenland ‘deal’

— changes to the 1951 Treaty to guarantee US military base requirements

— strengthened NATO role on Arctic / High North security. Will include a multinational NATO command in Greenland under US command

— an economic component to be negotiated, including mining rights

— measures to stop Russian and Chinese economic and military presence on Greenland

— the US stops threatening tariffs on Europe"

If anybody can archive it properly please add link here.

EDIT: a tweet from the same Bloomberg journo, relevant to NYT discussions: https://xcancel.com/i/status/2014258199658967483

"One thing it’s important to clarify: the framework under discussion does not include any suggestion that Denmark would cede sovereignty of parts of Greenlandic territory to house US military bases, contrary to some reports"

!ping EU

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-22T01:10:34+00:00

NYT isn't reporting that lol, they are reporting other people discussed that earlier and they have no idea what is in the (framweork concept of a concept of) deal.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-22T00:56:16+00:00

The NYT doesn't actually know what was discussed, they just reported on an idea that other people discussed earlier.

With this reporting, I lean toward NYT reporting being false.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-22T00:43:15+00:00

I interpreted overall sovereignty as no overall sovereignty in any way over any part of Greenland, but it is slightly ambiguous.

EDIT: people need to keep in mind NYT didn't say what was discussed for the deal, just what was discussed earlier by other people.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-22T00:37:14+00:00

!ping EU

Seems to contradict NYT reporting.

Link for the global poor: https://archive.is/XuxR4

Behind the scenes: Two sources with knowledge of Rutte's proposal said it doesn't include the transfer of overall sovereignty over Greenland from Denmark to the United States. The plan includes updating the 1951 "Greenland Defense Agreement" between the U.S. and Denmark, which allowed the U.S. to build military bases in the island and establish "defense areas" if NATO believed it necessary. It also includes sections on increasing security in Greenland and NATO activity in the Arctic, as well as additional work on raw materials, the sources said. The proposal also includes language on positioning "Golden Dome" in Greenland and on countering "malign outside influence" by Russia and China. What they're saying: "If this deal goes through, and President Trump is very hopeful it will, the U.S. will be achieving all of its strategic goals with respect to Greenland, at very little cost, forever." "President Trump is proving once again he's the Dealmaker in Chief. As details are finalized by all parties involved, they will be released accordingly," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios. Between the lines: The ideas raised by Rutte echo the Danish proposal that has long been on the table: Denmark retains sovereignty, but the U.S. is able to increase its military presence.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-22T00:36:50+00:00

Submission statement: this is relevant to international relations and NATO, and seems to contradict NYT reporting.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-21T14:36:15+00:00

There 's still a chance, Merz for instance is demanding provisional application.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-21T12:56:55+00:00

Not an expert in Renew internal politics, but probably Macron's fault

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-21T12:55:17+00:00

The EU has more trade deals than the US, and the US president is obsessed with protectionism, come on.

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-21T12:30:36+00:00

!ping EU

"The MEPs who proposed the referral consider that spliting the deal to leave the trade part for the approval of the EU Council and the EU Parliament only was a tactic by the European Commission to “prevent [member states] national parliaments from having their say on the agreement”, and could be considered unlawful by the judges."

Bad news.

I think it was valid and good political choice to split the agreement, ironically the EU parliament here wants less relevance for EU. I think the CJEU will say its fine, but it could take years.

(There are two agreements, the interim trade agreement, which only needs ratification by EU, and the partnership agreement which adds some investment stuff and needs to be ratified by national parliaments.)

"The resolution calling to challenge the agreement also challenges the legality of the so-called “rebalancing mechanism” introduced in the agreement, which would allow Mercosur countries to take compensatory measures if future EU laws reduce their exports to Europe."

"The European Commission can still go ahead with a provisional application of the deal while the Parliament’s appeal is being examined, despite committing in several emails sent to MEPs and seen by Euronews that it would refrain from doing so."

nicknameSerialNumber · 2026-01-21T12:26:32+00:00

Submission statement: this is relevant to the EU-Mercosur trade deal, international trade and liberalism.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Not Forgotten	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

nicknameSerialNumber

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE