AltStore for iPhone in EU Will Have Apps Backed By Patreon

[Nuno Lopes]

Is there any reason why comments here by the supporters have not mentioned any potential drawbacks? You all don’t think there will be any, or you all don’t think they are worth mentioning, or you are afraid it violates the narrative that customers are trapped in a walled prison by Apple and only government intervention can free them from themselves?

Well. The discussion in this forum as been steered to alternative App Stores as opposed to a single App Store environment. When the DMA regulation actually goes to the extent of requiring any business to be unconditionally able to self publish their apps to Gatekeepers platforms. In other words distribute apps by themselves without going though any middleman retailer.

I personally see many drawbacks in a system requiring by policy that service and software providers go through retailers of any kind to service their customers. One of the greatest revolution in the last two decades when it came to software and digital goods distribution was actually self publishing of software. Wether it takes the form of a game, a website, a lob app, a retal store such as Amazon, ... you name it. This was made possible due to the Internet and its open infrastructure and accompanying regulations for the digital market as well as OSs that were open to it. The Apple iOS App Store policies in that regard is a push back to the CD/DVD distribution model era ... without its benefits. For instance you actually owned a copy of the software, you could resell it back then and recoup some of your costs.

Anyway, the way I see it, from an iOS user stand point, the main drawback of this multi channel approach when compared to a single channel, the App Store, a single supplier, may be convenience.

One of most convenient things of the App Store is how easy it to access the inventory of my active subscriptions, as well Apps acquired and downloaded. But that could have been solved by Apple if they acted proactively for the benefit of iOS users, by creating a software artifact like say an App Wallet that developers would need to comply with the API in other to publish their App regardless of distribution channel and model. So that users could simply go to their App Wallet to check an inventory of items that they have bought or subscribed to. So it's not a natural inconvenience of a multi channel app hosting and distribution system. Its is mostly down to how it is implemented by the OS.

When I look for an App 99% I go to Google. Read the reviews, YouTube videos about the App and so on before deciding. Eventually click on a link that sends me to the App Store to download it and eventually pay for it. So the App Store search and Ads kind of pass by me mostly unnoticed.

I understand that you have been arguing security benefits of the App Store. Well in theory I would agree with you. But considering that in practice Apple core defense for the App Store has been that everyone but themselves is a security hazard for users, including well known companies trusted by the public much as Apple, say companies such Microsoft, Amazon, PayPal, Spotify and so many many many more local businesses, and in contrast it harbors companies that were at the center of great security scandals implying hundreds of millions of users, and not even at that time they were suspended because of their flagship App status. On top of this we can see certain predatory pricing tactics that are currently being legitimized by the App Store ... So the practice kind of throws the theory out of the window in my view.

Instead I believe that the DMA regulation may potentially bring more value to the Apple App Store seal of approval. In particular for companies that need such seal to grow in the market will for sure opt for the App Store. For instance, I don't see the AltAppStore has being an alternative for that measure. Maybe others can be ... who knows. But I do not see much interest for Microsoft or Google in bringing their generic App Stores to iOS. Time will tell.

Cheers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I disagree with the practice of fining companies based on revenues made outside its jurisdiction. So those x% should be in my view concerned only with EU based revenues. Excessive finingpractices look to me a a lot like a fi$hing ... and it solves nothing after a certain point.

Deferent modus operandi. Suspending sales is only a last resort, unless it’s a clear cut black and white case.

Well it’s essentially fining the company 10% of their revenue.

And I would say levying fines do absolutely solve things, and is less likely to do unjustified harm. If a company doesn’t want to comply they will likely leave. Just look at Google and facebook getting billions and billions in fines for violating privacy laws and regulations.

It would be worse if let’s say Apple was found to be breaking the law and a sales ban would be implemented untill the legal process was completed. That would be years of lost revenue. And if Apple is found not guilty, that would be irreparable damages done to them as they was forced to exist the market for 3 years or so while their competitors took it over.

Instead, there are other ways to deter. Such as suspension of iPhones and iPad sales in the region until compliance is reached in extrema cases on top of the fines. If judges can suspend product sales based on breaching copy right laws, or breach of contract between companies, why not breaching regulation? Much like Apple does with business that breach the App Store agreements.

Cheers.

The EU has an inquisitorial legal system, it’s not like the adversarial system. In EU level it would be a complete import ban in all of EU, not individual countries.

The practical differences between the inquisitorial and adversarial legal systems have significant implications for the legal process, from the investigation stage to the final judgment.

Inquisitorial System (CJEU):

• Investigation: The judge plays an active role in investigating the case, often conducting or overseeing the collection of evidence.
• Trial: There is less emphasis on oral testimony, and written documents play a crucial role. Trials are often a series of hearings rather than a continuous process.
• Judges: They are more involved in the questioning of witnesses and have a greater responsibility for guiding the trial towards the truth.
• Legal Representation: Lawyers play a less combative role, focusing on assisting the judge’s inquiry rather than advocating for their client’s version of events.

EU Commission Procedure:

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Commission conducts an initial assessment based on its own investigations or complaints from citizens or businesses.
2. Formal Investigation: If there’s a suspected violation, a formal investigation is launched, and the company may be asked to provide information.
3. Statement of Objections: The Commission sends a Statement of Objections to the company, detailing the alleged violations.
4. Company’s Response: The company can respond in writing and request an oral hearing to present its defense.
5. Commission’s Decision: After reviewing the company’s defense, the Commission decides whether EU law has been violated and may impose fines.
6. Judicial Review: The company can appeal the decision to the General Court, which reviews the legality of the Commission’s decision

The General Court’s ruling process involves:

1. Written Phase: The parties submit written observations to the Court.
2. Oral Phase: A public hearing may be held where lawyers present their case, and judges may ask questions.
3. Deliberation: The judges deliberate based on the evidence and arguments presented.
4. Judgment: The Court issues its judgment, which can be appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

 

[Beautyspin]

With the caveat that certain apps may in time no longer be available in the iOS App Store because the developer decided to publish it elsewhere.

So my question to you (and everyone parroting the same refrain) is - you are right that people can still use the iOS App Store as it is, but can you guarantee that it will still enjoy the same broad selection of apps in the future compared to when it is the only choice now?

Otherwise, it's just another meaningless motherhood statement. Sounds good when you first hear it, but literally falls apart the moment someone attempts to poke holes into it.

We cannot guarantee it. Apple has to guarantee it by being fair to developers and being better than the Alt stores. When you offer better terms to the developers and are fair to them and treat them better then why would they leave an Appstore that is installed as a default on more than a billion devices and go to an Appstore that is yet to establish itself?

 

[Beautyspin]

I disagree with the practice of fining companies based on revenues made outside its jurisdiction. So those x% should be in my view concerned only with EU based revenues. Excessive finingpractices look to me a a lot like a fi$hing ... and it solves nothing after a certain point.

Instead, there are other ways to deter. Such as suspension of iPhones and iPad sales in the region until compliance is reached in extreme cases on top of the fines that may have been given. If judges can suspend product sales based on breaching copy right laws, or breach of contract between companies, why not breaching regulation? Much like Apple does with business that breach the App Store agreements.

Cheers.

Oh! Those are also not off the table and that includes breaking up the company and obliging a gatekeeper to sell a business or parts of it or banning the gatekeeper from acquisitions of additional services related to the systemic non-compliance.
This is the only language these corporations understand.

Press corner

Highlights, press releases and speeches

ec.europa.eu

 

[mymuyi]

I pay two thousand dollars for macbook and i can install apps from everywhere. I pay a thousand dollars for iphone and i cannot install apps from anywhere. Hmm maybe if we pay another thousand dollars for our phones then apple will let us do it?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Deferent modus operandi. Suspending sales is only a last resort, unless it’s a clear cut black and white case.

I understand that sales suspension is a different form of deterrent to fines.

Yet in a democracy fines need be proportional to the impact of the infraction. The way I see it if the infraction is committed in EU it is disproportional to include in its calculation financial assets acquired outside of the EU according to their local laws, case in case revenue achieved elsewhere.

If you make some calculation based on revenues last year, you will conclude that 10% max of the global revenue hides the fact that it is translates 40% of the revenue in the EU zone, give or take. Now ~40% is indeed extremely high, so much so that in my view is no longer a deterrent but a hefty punishment. Further more, as it allows the company to keep on conducting sales, it also means that governments keep on taxing the same subject, in other words knowingly receiving money out of an un-conformant conduct which in essence does not look to me a good practice.

Now sales suspension or restriction in the area under jurisdiction is a temporary mechanism that can be applied to pressure the final resolution of issues. Is not the same as a ban. A ban is definite resolution.

Sales suspension can be declared I believe, not only for the time it takes to resolve an issues in court. But within a court final decision. Usually has the benefit speeding up greatly the resolution and not drag it endlessly like a fining based system, wasting judicial resources.

The EU has an inquisitorial legal system, it’s not like the adversarial system. In EU level it would be a complete import ban in all of EU, not individual countries.

I understand all that. My opinion on method of calculation of fines is tangent to this.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I understand that sales suspension is a different form of deterrent to fines.

Yet in a democracy fines need be proportional to the impact of the infraction. The way I see it if the infraction is committed in EU it is disproportional to include in its calculation financial assets acquired outside of the EU according to their local laws, case in case revenue achieved elsewhere.

If you make some calculation based on revenues last year, you will conclude that 10% max of the global revenue hides the fact that it is translates 40% of the revenue in the EU zone, give or take. Now ~40% is indeed extremely high, so much so that in my view is no longer a deterrent but a hefty punishment.

Well I would say it also depends on the purpose of the fine, and what purpose the legal system have.

Is it to punish infractions and wrong doers only? To have “justice”? Encourage legal behavior?

Or perhaps to discourage illegal behavior and perverse incentives?

We both know a temporary sales restriction can have the effect of a sales ban. Just take the EU commission v Apple Irish tax case that was active between 2016 and 2020. With an appeal to the court of justice to be finalized this year.

Imagine if Apple had a temporary sales suspension was enforced in EU between 2016-2024. That would be disastrous.

Further more, as it allows the company to keep on conducting sales, it also means that governments keep on taxing the same subject, in other words knowingly receiving money out of an un-conformant conduct which in essence does not look to me a good practice.

Well to that sense would say fining 10% of a company’s total revenue makes more sense as it removes the financial incentive to continue the infraction. It should essentially always be much more expensive to break the law instead of following it.

Now sales suspension or restriction in the area under jurisdiction is a temporary mechanism that can be applied to pressure the final resolution of issues. Is not the same as a ban. A ban is definite resolution.

Sales suspension can be declared I believe, not only for the time it takes to resolve an issues in court. But within a court final decision. Usually has the benefit speeding up greatly the resolution and not drag it endlessly like a fining based system, wasting judicial resources.



I understand all that. My opinion on method of calculation of fines is tangent to this.

Well it works a lot differently in EU.
The EU commission is the executive branch of EU with a lot more legal enforcement than the DOJ or other U.S. agencies.

EU Commission Procedure:

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Commission conducts an initial assessment based on its own investigations or complaints from citizens or businesses.
2. Formal Investigation: If there’s a suspected violation, a formal investigation is launched, and the company may be asked to provide information.
3. Statement of Objections: The Commission sends a Statement of Objections to the company, detailing the alleged violations.
4. Company’s Response: The company can respond in writing and request an oral hearing to present its defense.
5. Commission’s Decision: After reviewing the company’s defense, the Commission decides whether EU law has been violated and may impose fines.
6. Judicial Review: The company can appeal the decision to the General Court, which reviews the legality of the Commission’s decision

When the commission sends their statement of objection, that’s the last time to try to settle anything outside of court. After that the Eau commission will not have any talks of settlement.

The Story Behind Google's Secret Offer to Settle EU’s Android Probe

European Union Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager coolly hit Google with a 4.3 billion-euro ($5 billion) fine last week, the biggest penalty in the history of antitrust enforcement.

www.bloomberg.com

And litigation costs in EU is very cheap compared to UK or USA etc.

 

[NEPOBABY]

AltStore for iPhone in EU Will Have Apps Backed By Patron Kim Jung-un.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Well I would say it also depends on the purpose of the fine, and what purpose the legal system have.

Is it to punish infractions and wrong doers only? To have “justice”? Encourage legal behavior?

Or perhaps to discourage illegal behavior and perverse incentives?

We both know a temporary sales restriction can have the effect of a sales ban. Just take the EU commission v Apple Irish tax case that was active between 2016 and 2020. With an appeal to the court of justice to be finalized this year.

Imagine if Apple had a temporary sales suspension was enforced in EU between 2016-2024. That would be disastrous.

Well to that sense would say fining 10% of a company’s total revenue makes more sense as it removes the financial incentive to continue the infraction. It should essentially always be much more expensive to break the law instead of following it.

Well it works a lot differently in EU.
The EU commission is the executive branch of EU with a lot more legal enforcement than the DOJ or other U.S. agencies.

EU Commission Procedure:

1. Preliminary Assessment: The Commission conducts an initial assessment based on its own investigations or complaints from citizens or businesses.
2. Formal Investigation: If there’s a suspected violation, a formal investigation is launched, and the company may be asked to provide information.
3. Statement of Objections: The Commission sends a Statement of Objections to the company, detailing the alleged violations.
4. Company’s Response: The company can respond in writing and request an oral hearing to present its defense.
5. Commission’s Decision: After reviewing the company’s defense, the Commission decides whether EU law has been violated and may impose fines.
6. Judicial Review: The company can appeal the decision to the General Court, which reviews the legality of the Commission’s decision

When the commission sends their statement of objection, that’s the last time to try to settle anything outside of court. After that the Eau commission will not have any talks of settlement.

The Story Behind Google's Secret Offer to Settle EU’s Android Probe

European Union Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager coolly hit Google with a 4.3 billion-euro ($5 billion) fine last week, the biggest penalty in the history of antitrust enforcement.

www.bloomberg.com

And litigation costs in EU is very cheap compared to UK or USA etc.

I think you maybe over complicating our differences of opinion on this matter by repeating yourself over and over and focusing on tangent issues. Irrespectively how the EU is structured, some entity can execute the sales suspension, fine or whatever. Some entity has the judicial power.

You agree with fining based on global revenue even though the infraction is local. I do not. I explained my reasons, you have explained yours.

You believe my reasons aren’t good enough, I believe the same for yours.

That is all there is to it. Do not think either will convince each other.

 

[NEPOBABY]

I think you maybe over complicating our differences of opinion on this matter by repeating yourself over and over and focusing on tangent issues. Irrespectively how the EU is structured, some entity can execute the sales suspension, fine or whatever. Some entity has the judicial power.

You agree with fining based on global revenue even though the infraction is local. I do not. I explained my reasons, you have explained yours.

You believe my reasons aren’t good enough, I believe the same for yours.

That is all there is to it. Do not think either will convince each other.

Those fines just get pocketed by the so called regulators anyway. While the population suffers from high inflation, illegal immigration and human trafficking, and farmers being threatened by over reaching rules the politicians just give themselves higher salaries.

The worse part is the traditional left has been made docile by the EU (which is a rightwing market organisation and not liberal at all) and all these issues are being hijacked by the far right. These are left wing issues.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I think you maybe over complicating our differences of opinion on this matter by repeating yourself over and over and focusing on tangent issues.

Well my apologies if I sound repetitive as I might have multiple conversations with others and mig miss some of you points.

But I would say I might overemphasize the importance of some points I press.

Irrespectively how the EU is structured, some entity can execute the sales suspension, fine or whatever. Some entity has the judicial power.

The European Commission, while not having judicial power, has the authority to enforce EU competition law and can impose fines or other sanctions on companies that violate these laws. The Commission’s enforcement powers include the ability to issue decisions, which can include ordering companies to cease anti-competitive practices and imposing fines. These decisions are binding and have immediate effect, including the imposition of a sales ban.

If a company disagrees with the Commission’s decision, it can appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The CJEU has the judicial power to hear appeals against decisions of the European Commission. It can uphold, modify, or annul the Commission’s decisions. However, until the CJEU makes a ruling on an appeal, the Commission’s decision stands and must be complied with.

In summary, the European Commission can enforce a sales ban or impose fines through its decision-making powers, which are part of its role in enforcing EU law. The CJEU’s role is to provide judicial oversight and hear appeals against the Commission’s decisions

You agree with fining based on global revenue even though the infraction is local. I do not. I explained my reasons, you have explained yours.

You believe my reasons aren’t good enough, I believe the same for yours.

That is all there is to it. Do not think either will convince each other.

Well not quite I would say I agree with your points and sympathies with some of your arguments, but think they are to easy to exploit by having essentially little to no revenue in EU by their European subsidiary.

As well as the potential to cause enormous unintended harm to smaller companies.
So I see the 10% as maximum sealing to prevent a fine from being to high.

And a sales ban should just like a breakup be the absolutely last resort.

And to make perhaps a stronger case looking at the fines EU have levied have forced companies to change their behaviors without the need to fine them multiple time for the same actions. Looking at facebook, meta, and recently apple who was fined and now changed their actions

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Those fines just get pocketed by the so called regulators anyway. While the population suffers from high inflation, illegal immigration and human trafficking, and farmers being threatened by over reaching rules the politicians just give themselves higher salaries.

The worse part is the traditional left has been made docile by the EU (which is a rightwing market organisation and not liberal at all) and all these issues are being hijacked by the far right. These are left wing issues.

Or you should not make up stuff.
Fines payed to EU is provided as grants for the member states to do with as they wish

 

[Abazigal]

Random thought - since Apple is now (apparently) allowing apps to keep themselves running actively in the background via the location API where they can monitor your entire clipboard history (or in the very least, they are not allowed to not allow them), can Facebook also do the same with say, third-party versions of their own apps offered via an external App Store?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Random thought - since Apple is now (apparently) allowing apps to keep themselves running actively in the background via the location API where they can monitor your entire clipboard history (or in the very least, they are not allowed to not allow them), can Facebook also do the same with say, third-party versions of their own apps offered via an external App Store?

Are they? I still think apps in the AppStore aren’t allowed to do any of that still

 

[AppliedMicro]

The EU can’t mandate Apple give away access to competitors and other developers for free. The DMA doesn’t even state that they should and if it did, it wouldn’t hold up in litigation.

It can.
It does (the DMA does state that in various instances - though admittedly not explicitly with regards to sideloading).

You’re wrong.
And you’ll likely be wrong about your litigation (Litigating against the law - seriously?)

 

[AppliedMicro]

I disagree with the practice of fining companies based on revenues made outside its jurisdiction. So those x% should be in my view concerned only with EU based revenues. Excessive finingpractices look to me a a lot like a fi$hing ... and it solves nothing after a certain point.

Agree.

Though I’m failing to see how they‘ll solve nothing.
The more violators get fined, the more likely they’ll eventually adjust their non-compliant practices. Particularly if they are profit-seeking exchange-listed businesses.

Instead, there are other ways to deter. Such as suspension of iPhones and iPad sales in the region until compliance is reached in extreme cases on top of the fines that may have been given

They may occur in the same jurisdiction - but hardware/devices are a different market. The DMA applies to digital services and products - not physical devices (the distinction is more apparent on Android, where hardware manufacturer normally don make or control much of the software).

It would basically be “punishing” Apple for misconduct on another market. Not to mention how it would deny consumers and businesses (developers) replacement of their existing devices and ultimately access to the digital content (apps) they’ve purchased. Although you could argue that Apples iPhones/iPads are merely the “container” or medium on which Apple distributes their non-compliant software (OS).

 

[iOS Geek]

It can.
It does (the DMA does state that in various instances - though admittedly not explicitly with regards to sideloading).

And that...honestly...is ******* ridiculous. Who the heck are they to think they can dictate you give away your own work...to your competitors...for FREE? That is straight up egregious, FAR overreaching bs. Just like pretty much everything else the EU comes up with.

Hypothetically, why the heck would I want to put the time, effort, and money into something...especially now that the EU has set the precedence that they can take it and mandate you give it away to competitors for free? **** that. The EU is nothing but dangerous and hostile. Plain and simple. The EU is going to achieve nothing other than bringing forward movement to a grinding halt. They (the EU) are a textbook example of an entity that is very clearly drunk with power.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The EU is nothing but dangerous and hostile.

Nothing but dangerous and hostile?
Stop the hyperbole.

The EU has done many good things (among them creating a common market).
And so has its competition policy.

The EU is going to achieve nothing other than bringing forward movement to a grinding halt

Quite the contrary.
Apple’s anticompetitive and hostile policies are achieving nothing than bringing forward movement to such a halt.
(Such as operating a closed, proprietary messaging and video messaging system as a means of customer lock-in)

They (the EU) are a textbook example of an entity that is very clearly drunk with power.

Apple is acting far more totalitarian and drunk with power than the EU and its limited regulation on gatekeepers.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And that...honestly...is ******* ridiculous. Who the heck are they to think they can dictate you give away your own work...to your competitors...for FREE? That is straight up egregious, FAR overreaching bs. Just like pretty much everything else the EU comes up with.

Hypothetically, why the heck would I want to put the time, effort, and money into something...especially now that the EU has set the precedence that they can take it and mandate you give it away to competitors for free? **** that. The EU is nothing but dangerous and hostile. Plain and simple. The EU is going to achieve nothing other than bringing forward movement to a grinding halt. They (the EU) are a textbook example of an entity that is very clearly drunk with power.

Let’s investigate that then shall we. What IP are you talking about? Is it IP that the customer already paid for? Is it something already payed for in the SDK?

Can you point to what this supposed IP that developers aren’t already paying for?

When I download Yesim or Airalo from the AppStore to purchase a digital sim card to activate on my phone. The developer pays 0% fee to Apple.

But if this app is provided outside the store. What IP is suddenly not payed for by the developer?

What fee is the 0.5€ going towards that is based on number of downloads instead of purchases?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

And that...honestly...is ******* ridiculous. Who the heck are they to think they can dictate you give away your own work...to your competitors...for FREE? That is straight up egregious, FAR overreaching bs. Just like pretty much everything else the EU comes up with.

Hypothetically, why the heck would I want to put the time, effort, and money into something...especially now that the EU has set the precedence that they can take it and mandate you give it away to competitors for free? **** that. The EU is nothing but dangerous and hostile. Plain and simple. The EU is going to achieve nothing other than bringing forward movement to a grinding halt. They (the EU) are a textbook example of an entity that is very clearly drunk with power.

What IP are they actually giving away for free? Can you actually substantiate this claim? Apple haven’t even claimed it, they only state they have a right to get payed for their services and IP.

Is it swift? Or Perhaps objective-c? Can’t be as they are royalty free to use. Perhaps the APIs in iOS, but that’s already been payed for and licensed by the customer who’s device the code will run on.

Is it perhaps the SDK? Well that is payed with the developer agreement to be allowed to use Xcode for commercial purposes. It could also be substituted by another SDK.

Or perhaps it could be for the privilege of being notarized by Apple? Well that seems plausible but then why can’t an independent third party company do that instead of Apple?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

They may occur in the same jurisdiction - but hardware/devices are a different market. The DMA applies to digital services and products - not physical devices (the distinction is more apparent on Android, where hardware manufacturer normally don make or control much of the software).

You can't buy a license for iOS, without buying a iOS device and vice versa. So to suspend the commercialization of one the other is also suspended by transition.

Cheers.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Who the heck are they to think they can dictate you give away your own work...to your competitors...for FREE?

The DMA is an EU regulation. EUA has its.

The regulation does not dictate that Apple or anyone else is required to give away their IP and work for free.

Apple have products and services already compliant with the DMA, take for instance the Mac and macOS. None of that work is being given away for free. The so called competitors also have products and services compliant with the DMA, none of that is being given away for free either.

Hence your line of argumentation is based on factoids rather than actual facts, as such a disrespect to any kind of rational exchange of opinions. If you care to stop using them, maybe we can move on to substantial yet maybe still conflicting points of view? It is evident that your argument is based on nothing but plain demagogy.

Cheers.

 

[rmariboe]

Those fines just get pocketed by the so called regulators anyway. While the population suffers from high inflation, illegal immigration and human trafficking, and farmers being threatened by over reaching rules the politicians just give themselves higher salaries.

The worse part is the traditional left has been made docile by the EU (which is a rightwing market organisation and not liberal at all) and all these issues are being hijacked by the far right. These are left wing issues.

1. No, that is not his that works.
2. EU inflation is currently low. US inflation is still struggling.
3. EU population doesn’t suffer from illegal immigration.
4. What farmers? What threats? You’re just making word salad at this point 😅
5. The EU is far more left than any of its individual states - of which the vast majority are far more left than eg US.