> common lisp, emacs lisp, racket and scheme are different languages with exact same syntax
Far from it. On the s-expression level there are already differences. On the actual language level, Common Lisp for example provides function definitions with named arguments, declarations, documention strings, etc.
For example the syntax for function parameter definition in CL is:
Above is a syntax definition in an EBNF variant used by Common Lisp to describe the syntax of valid forms in the language. There are different operator types and built-in operators and macro operators have especially lots and sometimes complex syntax. See for example the extensive syntax of the LOOP operator in Common Lisp.
Yes, of course I meant the basic S-exp syntax. They are indeed very different languages. The IMHO the biggest differences are scoping, and 1-Lisp and 2-Lisp; which makes different worlds.
Maybe, but I haven't pushed very hard for it as I don't use OOP very often. I did buy Art of the Metaobject Protocol in case I wanted to try to make some of the improvements myself, but haven't gotten around to it.
> Unpopular, unsuccessful ex-government officials from member states are governing the EU, where they are appointed by bureaucrats.
Von der Leyen was not appointed by bureaucrats.
> It's telling that the Von Der Leyen Commission scraped in with just 51.4% of MEP votes.
That's nothing special in European voting systems. Various governments (regional or country wide) in Germany have small, but relatively stable majorities provided by coalitions. That's very different to the mostly two-party systems in the US or the UK.
The CDU is a large party, not a particular large "organization" in terms of full-time CDU employees. The bureaucracy of the CDU is in no way responsible for nominating/selecting the EU President of the Commission.
Ursula on der Leyen was 2019 supported by Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany) as the future president of the EU commission. That's no secret. Macron also supported her. The European Council then nominated Ursula on der Leyen and she was accepted by the European Parliament. The Parliament is directly elected the citizens of the European Union.
The election of her was kind of unfortunate, since it was signalled by parties that the election to the parliament will also find the proposed EU commission president. But that was not the case. Since a candidate was not found (various parties and governments were not happy with the proposed candidates), the European Council finally proposed Ursula von der Leyen, which then also got a majority in the parliament.
All EU Member States, except Denmark, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'."
> Now, every country joining the EU is expected to join the Euro at some point.
In theory yes, in practice no. The Swedish government has said repeatedly they don't plan to join despite being legally obliged to do so.
EU law says they have to do it, but it also says it can't be done without their active cooperation, and there is no penalty if they refuse to cooperate. The obligation is essentially toothless.
So Denmark having a formal opt-out from the Euro and Sweden not, is really more of a theoretical difference than a practically relevant one.
> Sweden is long in the EU. CURRENTLY the expectation to new member states to join the Euro when joining the EU is different -> much higher.
I don't agree. It isn't just Sweden; Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania too. The time between EU accession and Euro adoption is normally a decade or more. If a government doesn't want to adopt the Euro, there are heaps of levers they can pull to slow the process down, and there is no way to punish a government for doing that. The easiest is that you have to join ERM II at least two years before adopting the Euro, but nobody can force you to join ERM II – so Sweden, Poland, Czechia, Hungary and Romania have all refused to join it. The only current ERM II members are Denmark (with a formal opt-out), and Bulgaria (which wants to adopt the Euro – it had hoped to do it 1 January 2025, but the ECB says their inflation is too high – 5.1%, the limit is 3.3%). If Bulgaria gets inflation down in 2025, they may succeed in joining on 1 January 2026.
When negotiating to join, the politicians say "sure, we promise we'll adopt the Euro", knowing that they'll likely be retired by the time joining the Euro is a real possibility.
> Sweden was also long not in NATO. Now it is. Similar, support in polls for Euro introduction is rising.
Yes, but that doesn't change the point – an EU member state (present or future) cannot be forced to adopt the Euro, it will only happen if the member state's government is willing, and they'll likely only be willing if it is sufficiently popular with their people.
Only if they changed the rules to make ERM II membership mandatory and automatic, or if they changed the Euro convergence criteria to remove the need for it. I've heard no talk they are planning to do so.
The non-Euro EU members have a say in the enlargement negotiation process too, and they don’t want new members to be forced into Euro adoption - it might weaken their own ability to resist that pressure in the future, plus additional non-Euro EU members are a potential source of new internal allies
> They won't become EU members, without a clear will to adopt the policies which lead to the Euro.
The government that negotiates to join the EU may do all they can to convince the EU that they want to join the Euro – they might even really mean it. Then, after accession, that government loses an election and get replaced by a new government which is anti-Euro. What can the EU do to stop that? Nothing.
