Archive for January, 2018

Government shutdown deal: Democrats didnt cave on the …

Here are some thoughts on todays three-week deal in Congress to reopen the government, take a vote on an unspecified immigration bill, and fund the Childrens Health Insurance Program for six years:

1) Theres a rollicking debate on Twitter over whether Democrats caved. Ill confess that Im mystified by this argument. For the moment, this seems like a good deal but its impossible to say anything definitive without knowing what happens over the next three weeks.

2) Consider what we dont know about what comes next. We dont know which immigration bill, or bills, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will bring to the Senate floor. We dont know if any immigration compromise passes the Senate. We dont know if an immigration bill that passes the Senate will get a vote in the House. Even if it does get a vote in the House, we dont know if itll pass. And if it does pass, we dont know if Trump will sign it.

3) We also dont know what the implicit Democratic position is here. If Democrats get a fair vote in the House and Senate on an immigration deal and it doesnt pass, will they shut down the government again in three weeks? Put differently, is this a deal about a fair process or about a particular outcome? If Democrats dont get a deal and they shut the government back down in three weeks, its hard to see what was lost here.

4) Democratic opponents of the deal believe that an extended shutdown increases the likelihood of a DREAMer compromise. But does it? That is to say that an extended shutdown will cause Trump so much political or personal pain that he will accept one of the immigration compromises he has thus far rejected. Neither dynamic is obvious to me.

5) Politically, Trumps entire brand is anti-immigration politics, and if there is round-the-clock news coverage of a shutdown over immigration, hell think its good for his base. Personally, Trumps goal in life is to be seen as a winner, and to double down when attacked or under pressure, and so its hard to see how a high-stakes battle over a shutdown which would make a deal on immigration look like a cave to reopen the government by Trump helps.

6) Beyond that, shutting down the government should be a last resort in the most extreme situations (if that). And historically, shutting down the government usually doesnt end with the party that forced the shutdown getting the policy concessions it wants it often strengthens the presidents party. To the extent theres an open path in which an immigration deal can be negotiated and brought to a vote with the government still open, thats a good thing.

7) One counterargument: McConnells word hasnt been worth much this year. Just ask Sens. Susan Collins (ME) and Jeff Flake (AZ), fellow Republicans who were promised health and immigration policies in return for their tax votes. In this case, though, if McConnell reneges on the deal, Democrats simply shut down the government in three weeks. They havent lost that leverage.

8) And if Democrats do need to shut down the government in three weeks, theyll do so with the Childrens Health Insurance Program funded for six years, rather than seeing it weaponized against them. Thats a big deal, both substantively and politically.

9) Theres a broader political dynamic worth considering here too. Republicans pioneered a brand of politics in which creating crises in government operations became proof of sincerity, regardless of whether it led to good outcomes or who got hurt along the way. If you didnt employ every tactic in service of your promises to the base, you were a liar it wasnt acceptable to say, We dont have the votes; we need to win more elections.

10) At the time, Democrats angrily criticized that approach, arguing that all-out tactical war would be terrible for the country, that some boundaries and norms were worth preserving, that elections were the proper method of resolution. Now Im hearing a lot of the same arguments from Democrats: If they dont shut the government down, or keep it shut down, it will be a betrayal of their base.

11) Democrats also feel, understandably, that they cant unilaterally disarm. If Republicans are going to use the basic functioning of the government as leverage, then Democrats have to do so too.

12) The logic of that is inarguable, and the consequences disastrous. If hostage-taking becomes normalized in American politics, then theres really no end to the cycle of escalation, and its going to finish with a global economic crisis because we breached the debt ceiling, or worse.

13) The central political problem in American life, for years now, has been that the Republican Party is a dysfunctional institution that has abandoned principles of decent governance in order to please an ever more extreme base. I dont have an answer for fixing that. But it would be doubly bad if their outrageous behavior drives Democrats to use the same tactics in response. American politics is, hopefully, an infinite game, not a finite game, and that means doing everything possible to steer away from retaliatory loops that clearly lead to the system crumbling.

Read the rest here:
Government shutdown deal: Democrats didnt cave on the ...

Coulter Says New CA Policy Will Lead to Illegal Immigrants …

DOJ Threatens Subpoenas for 23 Jurisdictions in Sanctuary City Crackdown

Ann Coulter: How Is Trump's First Year Different From a Jeb Bush Presidency?

Ann Coulter slammed a new California policy that could open the door to illegal immigrants voting.

Starting April 1, California will automatically register to vote adults who obtain or renew a drivers license, including potentially large numbers of noncitizens in the state. Drivers who say they are legal will have their information sent to state voter rolls unless they opt out.

Critics say thisopens the door for widespread voter fraud, but defenders of the policy, like Democratic strategist Jose Aristomuno, say the state has made it clear that undocumented individuals are not allowed to vote.

"Yes, illegal aliens are big rules followers," Coulter remarked to him on "The Ingraham Angle" Tuesday night.

She said even before Californiapassed the law allowing automatic voter registration, leftist groups in the state have been stealing elections with illegal immigrant votes, arguing that this policy will only make it worse.

She pointed out that approximately 60 percent of ballots in California are sent in by mail.

"It's not even the illegal aliens who need to go and vote. Don't worry, they'll be voted for. You just need them registered to vote," Coulter said.

"This is all about voting. Illegal immigration, legal immigration, ... DACA, it is 100 percent about voting. At least California makes it clear."

Aristomuno accused Coulter of making "false" claims.

On Sunday, Coulter warned that the so-called DACA "fix" supported by Democrats and some Republicans will actually be "100 percent amnesty."

Watch more above.

Tucker Challenges Sanctuary City Mayor on DACA Disneyland Protest

'We Won't Let Him Sleep': DACA Supporters Protest Outside Schumer's Home

Dem Senator: A Wall Has Limited Value in Keeping Our Border Safe

'Terrorizing' Congress?! Ingraham Hits Back at Claims by Schumer, Reporter

Continued here:
Coulter Says New CA Policy Will Lead to Illegal Immigrants ...

Colin Flaherty: Blackness as Disability – YouTube

Colin Flaherty reviews a 19JAN18 article by The College Fix by Kyle Perisic and discusses the concept of "blackness as disability"

[Below is the article from The College Fix]A black law professor argues that African Americans should embrace the notion that being black in America is a disability as a new legal strategy toward enacting protections for the black community against unconscious bias, stereotyping and structural inequality.

Kimani Paul-Emile, an associate professor of law at Fordham University and associate director of its law schools Center on Race, Law & Justice, argues that while Africans Americans might initially spurn the blackness as disability label, it can actually be a wise courtroom plan.

Paul-Emile argues that being disabled does not have the same extreme negative connotation as it did in the past, and whats more, disability law does not force plaintiffs to show that the harm theyve suffered was intentional, that discriminatory effect is almost always enough.

Rather than focusing on malicious intent, disability law accepts the impact of even neutral actions, policies, and programs, directly confronting the ways in which social structures, institutions, and norms can substantially limit a persons ability to perform a major life activity. It thus requires that even discrimination based on unacknowledged bias be addressed, Paul-Emile wrote in her article, a forthcoming piece in Georgetown Law Review excerpted by Fordham Law News.

With that, black people can claim blackness as disability as a remedial legal effort, harnessing this new paradigm to use the courts to require some sort of structural reforms that benefit the black community against what Paul-Emile contends is the limited opportunity African Americans face today due to unconscious bias, stereotyping and structural inequality.

The College Fix reached out to Paul-Emile for comment several times via email to ask her whether Hispanics or other minorities could also be labeled disabled, and what her opinion would be if a white person made the claim that black people are disabled. She did not respond.

Blackness in the United States has an independent disabling effect distinct from the effects of socioeconomic status, the law professor wrote.

Paul-Emile listed many reasons for black peoples perceived disabilities, including facing increased likelihood, relative to Whites, of living in poverty, attending failing schools, experiencing discrimination in housing, being denied a job interview, being stopped by the police, being killed during a routine police encounter, receiving inferior medical care, living in substandard conditions and in dangerous and/or polluted environments, being un- or underemployed, receiving longer prison sentences, and having a lower life expectancy.

Paul-Emile argues that understanding Blackness as disabling brings to the fore a surprising new approach to addressing discrimination and systemic inequality that has been hiding in plain sight: disability law.

The Americans with Disabilities Act defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.

Blackness, of course, is not, by itself, an impairment, Paul-Emile writes.

However, disability law recognizes that many traits understood as disabling do not necessarily arise from a medical condition, but are instead simply traits that create disadvantage when combined with an inhospitable social or physical environment, Paul-Emile stated.

To recognize Blackness as a disability therefore requires us to acknowledge the ways in which racial hierarchies and White privilege persist and are embedded within these laws, policies, and practices such that they reify the very inequities they seek to eliminate.

View post:
Colin Flaherty: Blackness as Disability - YouTube

Enlargement of the European Union – Wikipedia

The European Union (EU) has expanded a number of times throughout its history by way of the accession of new member states to the Union. To join the EU, a state needs to fulfil economic and political conditions called the Copenhagen criteria (after the Copenhagen summit in June 1993), which require a stable democratic government that respects the rule of law, and its corresponding freedoms and institutions. According to the Maastricht Treaty, each current member state and the European Parliament must agree to any enlargement. The process of enlargement is sometimes referred to as European integration. This term is also used to refer to the intensification of co-operation between EU member states as national governments allow for the gradual harmonisation of national laws.

The EU's predecessor, the European Economic Community,[1] was founded with the Inner Six member states in 1958, when the Treaty of Rome came into force. Since then, the EU's membership has grown to twenty-eight, with the latest member state being Croatia, which joined in July 2013. The most recent territorial enlargement of the EU was the incorporation of Mayotte in 2014. The most notable territorial reductions of the EU, and its predecessors, were the exit of Algeria upon independence in 1962 and the exit of Greenland in 1985.

As of 2018, accession negotiations are under way with Serbia (since 2014), Montenegro (since 2012) and Turkey (since 2005). Serbia and Montenegro have been described by President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker as the front-runner candidates, and projected that they would join by 2025.[2][3] Negotiations with Turkey have also been ongoing at a slower pace, particularly since the 2016 Turkish coup d'tat attempt due to objections from the EU to the Turkish government's response.[4] Additionally, the United Kingdom is negotiating its withdrawal from the EU, following a referendum in which a majority voting in favour of leaving the EU.

According to the EU treaties, membership of the European Union is open to "any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them" (TEU Article 49). Those Article 2 values are "respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities." This is based on the 1993 "Copenhagen criteria" agreed as it became clear many former Eastern Bloc countries would apply to join;

In December 1995, the Madrid European Council revised the membership criteria to include conditions for member country integration through the appropriate adjustment of its administrative structures: since it is important that European Community legislation be reflected in national legislation, it is critical that the revised national legislation be implemented effectively through appropriate administrative and judicial structures.

Finally, and technically outside the Copenhagen criteria, comes the further requirement that all prospective members must enact legislation to bring their laws into line with the body of European law built up over the history of the Union, known as the acquis communautaire.

Today the accession process follows a series of formal steps, from a pre-accession agreement to the ratification of the final accession treaty. These steps are primarily presided over by the European Commission (Enlargement Commissioner and DG Enlargement), but the actual negotiations are technically conducted between the Union's Member States and the candidate country.

Before a country applies for membership it typically signs an association agreement to help prepare the country for candidacy and eventual membership. Most countries do not meet the criteria to even begin negotiations before they apply, so they need many years to prepare for the process. An association agreement helps prepare for this first step.

In the case of the Western Balkans, a special process, the Stabilisation and Association Process exists to deal with the special circumstances there.

When a country formally applies for membership, the Council asks the Commission to prepare an opinion on the country's readiness to begin negotiations. The Council can then either accept or reject the Commission's opinion (The Council has only once rejected the Commission's opinion when the latter advised against opening negotiations with Greece).[6]

If the Council agrees to open negotiations the screening process then begins. The Commission and candidate country examine its laws and those of the EU and determine what differences exist. The Council then recommends opening negotiations on "chapters" of law that it feels there is sufficient common ground to have constructive negotiations. Negotiations are typically a matter of the candidate country convincing the EU that its laws and administrative capacity are sufficient to execute European law, which can be implemented as seen fit by the member states. Often this will involve time-lines before the Acquis Communautaire (European regulations, directives & standards) has to be fully implemented.

A chapter is said to be closed when both sides have agreed it has been implemented sufficiently, however it can still be re-opened if the Commission feels that the candidate has fallen out of compliance.

To assess progress achieved by countries in preparing for accession to the European Union, the European Commission submits regular reports (yearly) to the European Council. These serve as a basis for the Council to make decisions on negotiations or their extension to other candidates.

Once the negotiations are complete a treaty of accession will be signed, which must then be ratified by all of the member states of the Union, as well as the institutions of the Union, and the candidate country. Once this has been completed it will join the Union on the date specified in the treaty.

The entire process, from application for membership to membership has typically taken about a decade, although some countries, notably Sweden, Finland, and Austria have been faster, taking only a few years. The process from application for association agreement through accession has taken far longer, as much as several decades (Turkey for example first applied for association in the 1950s and has yet to conclude accession negotiations).

The following is an example of an accession process Estonia's path to membership from the 2004 enlargement. Ease of accession depends on the state: how integrated it is with the EU before hand, the state of its economy and public institutions, any outstanding political issues with the EU and (historically) how much law to date the EU has built up that the acceding state must adopt. This outline also includes integration steps taken by the accession country after it attains membership.

Enlargement has been one of the EU's most successful foreign policies,[9] yet has equally suffered from considerable opposition from the start. French President Charles de Gaulle opposed British membership[citation needed]. A later French President Franois Mitterrand opposed Greek, Spanish and Portuguese membership fearing that the former dictatorships were not ready and it would reduce the union to a free-trade area.[10]

The reasons for the first member states to apply, and for them to be accepted, were primarily economic while the second enlargement was more political. The southern Mediterranean countries had just emerged from dictatorships and wanted to secure their democratic systems through the EEC, while the EEC wanted to ensure the same thing and that their southern neighbours were stable and aligned to NATO.[11] These two principal forces, economic gain and political security, have been behind enlargements since. However, with the recent large enlargements in 2004, public opinion in Europe has turned against further expansion.[10]

It has also been acknowledged that enlargement has its limits; the EU cannot expand endlessly.[9] Former Commission President Romano Prodi favoured granting "everything but institutions" to the EU's neighbour states; allowing them to co-operate deeply while not adding strain on the EU's institutional framework.[9] This has in particular been pushed by France and Germany as a privileged partnership for Turkey, membership for which has faced considerable opposition on cultural and logistical grounds.[12][13]

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was proposed by Robert Schuman in his declaration on 9 May 1950 and involved the pooling of the coal and steel industries of France and West Germany.[33] Half of the project states, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, had already achieved a great degree of integration amongst themselves with the organs of Benelux and earlier bilateral agreements. These five countries were joined by Italy and they all signed the Treaty of Paris on 23 July 1952. These six members, dubbed the 'inner six' (as opposed to the 'outer seven' who formed the European Free Trade Association who were suspicious of such plans for integration) went on to sign the Treaties of Rome establishing two further communities, together known as the European Communities when they merged their executives in 1967.

In 1962, Spain, ruled by the military dictator Francisco Franco, issued its first attempt to join the European Communities. Spanish Foreign Affairs minister Fernando Mara Castiella sent the request form to French Prime Minister Maurice Couve de Murville.[34] This request was rejected by all the member countries in 1964; Spain was not a democracy at the time, and thus unable to enter the EEC.[35]

The Community did see some loss of territory due to the decolonialisation occurring in their era. Algeria, which was an integral part of France, had a special relationship with the Community.[36] Algeria gained independence on 5 July 1962 and hence left the Community. There was no enlargement until the 1970s.

The United Kingdom, which had refused to join as a founding member, changed its policy following the Suez crisis and applied to be a member of the Communities. Other EEC members were also inclined to British membership on those grounds. French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed British membership.[11]

Once de Gaulle had left office, the door to enlargement was once again opened. The EEC economy had also slowed down and British membership was seen as a way to revitalise the community.[11] Only after a 12-hour talk between British Prime Minister Edward Heath and French President Georges Pompidou took place did Britain's third application succeed.[37] After Britain was accepted Prime Minister Edward Heath said:

"For my part, I have no doubt at all that the discussions which we have had will prove of real and lasting benefit, not only to Britain and France, but to Europe as a whole."[37]

As part of the deal for British entry, France agreed to allow the EEC its own monetary resources. However France made that concession only as Britain's small agriculture sector would ensure that Britain would be a net contributor to the Common Agricultural Policy dominated EEC budget.[11] Applying together with the UK, as on the previous occasions, were Denmark, Ireland, and Norway.[38] These countries were so economically linked to the UK that they considered it necessary to join the EEC if the UK did.[11] However the Norwegian government lost a national referendum on membership and hence did not accede with the others on 1 January 1973. Gibraltar joined the Community with the United Kingdom at this point, as can be seen in the long title of the UK European Communities Act 1972.

The next enlargement would occur for different reasons. The 1970s also saw Greece, Spain, and Portugal emerge from dictatorship. These countries desired to consolidate their new democratic systems by binding themselves into the EEC. Equally, the EEC was unsure about which way these countries were heading and wanted to ensure stability along its southern borders.[11] However Franois Mitterrand initially opposed their membership fearing they were not ready and it would water the community down to a free trade area.[10]

Greece joined the EU in 1981 followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986.

The year 1985, however, saw the first time a territory voted to leave the Community, when Greenland was granted home rule by Denmark and the territory used its new powers and voted to withdraw from the Community (See member state territories).

Morocco and Turkey applied for membership in 1987. Morocco's application was turned down as it was not considered European, while Turkey's application was considered eligible on the basis of the 1963 Ankara Association Agreement, but the opinion of the Commission on the possible candidate status was by then negative. Turkey received candidate status only in 1999 and began official membership negotiations in 2005, which are still in progress as of 2018.[39]

After the 1970s, Europe experienced a downturn which led to leaders launching of the Single European Act which set to create a single market by 1992. The effect of this was that EFTA states found it harder to export to the EEC and businesses (including large EFTA corporations such as Volvo) wished to relocate within the new single market making the downturn worse for EFTA. EFTA states began to discuss closer links with the EEC despite its domestic unpopularity.[40]

Austria, Finland and Sweden were neutral in the Cold War so membership of an organisation developing a common foreign and security policy would be incompatible with that. With the end of the Cold War in 1989, that obstacle was removed, and the desire to pursue membership grew stronger.[40] On 3 October 1990, the reunification of East and West Germany brought East Germany into the Community without increasing the number of member states.

The Community later became the European Union in 1993 by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty, and established standards for new entrants so their suitability could be judged. These Copenhagen criteria stated in 1993 that a country must be a democracy, operate a free market, and be willing to adopt the entire body of EU law already agreed upon. Also in 1993 the European Economic Area was established with the EFTA states except Switzerland. Most of the new EEA states pursued full EU membership as the EEA did not sufficiently satisfy the needs of their export based corporations. The EU has also preferred these states to integrate via the EEA rather than full membership as the EEC wished to pursue monetary integration and did not wish for another round of enlargement to occupy their attention. However, with the EEA's credibility dented following rejection by businesses and Switzerland, the EU agreed with full membership. This was more readily accepted with the prospect of poorer countries wishing to join; contributions from richer countries would help balance the EU budget.[40] On 1 January 1995 Austria, Finland, and Sweden acceded to the EU marking its fourth enlargement. The Norwegian government lost a second national referendum on membership.

European Union 1 Jan. 1995 30 April 2004

Joined the EU on 1 May 2004

Joined the EU on 1 Jan. 2007

Joined the EU on 1 July 2013

As with the Mediterranean countries in the 1980s, the countries in Central and Eastern Europe had emerged from dictatorships and wanted to consolidate their democracies. They also wanted to join the project of European integration and ensure they did not fall back into the Russian sphere of influence. The EU and NATO offered a guarantee of this, and the EU was also seen as vital to ensuring the economic success of those countries. However, the EU's desire to accept these countries' membership applications was less than rapid. The collapse of communism came quickly and was not anticipated. The EU struggled to deal with the sudden reunification of Germany with the addition of its poorer 17 million people and, while keeping its monetary union project on track, it was still at that early stage pointing the EFTA countries in the direction of the EEA rather than full membership.[41]

States in Central and Eastern Europe persisted and eventually the above-mentioned issues were cleared. The US also pressured the EU to offer membership as a temporary guarantee; it feared expanding NATO too rapidly for fear of frightening Russia. Although eventually trying to limit the number of members, and after encouragement from the US, the EU pursued talks with ten countries and a change of mind[clarification needed] by Cyprus and Malta helped to offset slightly the influx of large poorer member states from Central and Eastern Europe.[41]

In the end, eight Central and Eastern European countries (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia), plus two Mediterranean countries (Malta and Cyprus) were able to join on 1 May 2004. This was the largest single enlargement in terms of people, and number of countries, though not in terms of GDP.[42] The less developed nature of these countries was of concern to some of the older member states. Some countries, such as the UK, immediately opened their job market to the accession states, whereas most others placed temporary restrictions on the rights of work of the citizens of these states to their countries. The movement westward of some of the labour force of the newly acceded countries that occurred in the aftermath of the enlargement initially spawned clichs among the public opinion and media of some western countries (such as the "Polish plumber"), despite the generally conceded benefit to the economies concerned.[43] The official EU media (the speeches of the European Commission) frequently referred to the enlargement to the CEE region as "an historical opportunity" and "morally imperative", which reflected the desire of the EU to admit these countries as members, even though they were less developed than the Western European countries.[44] Following this Romania and Bulgaria, though were deemed initially as not fully ready by the Commission to join in 2004, acceded nevertheless on 1 January 2007. These, like the countries joining in 2004, faced a series of restrictions as to their citizens not fully enjoying working rights on the territory of some of the older EU members. Bulgaria and Romania are not yet members of the Schengen area, however their citizens can travel visa-free to the other EU countries.

The socio-economic research on the attitudes towards the integration from both hosting and visiting countries has revealed divergent views.The analysis shows, there are a number of possible factors of the rationalization and understanding of the practices on what the enlargement has been and should be like. Attitudes of even skeptical citizens, do not discard the possibility on future sustainable enlargements. The years subsequent to the EU accession will lead to extensive dialogues between policy-makers, governments, and European citizens about the path for a constructive development.[45]

The 2003 European Council summit in Thessaloniki set integration of the Western Balkans as a priority of EU expansion. The EU's relations with the Western Balkans states were moved from the "External Relations" to the "Enlargement" policy segment in 2005. Those states which have not been recognised as candidate countries are considered "potential candidate countries".[46] The move to Enlargement directorate was a consequence of the advancement of the Stabilisation and Association process.

Croatia joined on 1 July 2013, following ratification of the 2011 Accession Treaty by all other EU countries. Albania and the several successor states of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have all adopted EU integration as an aim of foreign policy.

Member states

Candidates negotiating membership

Candidates

Potential candidates which have submitted a membership application

Potential candidates which have not submitted a membership application

Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty (as amended) says that any European state that respects the "principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law", may apply to join the Union. The Copenhagen European Council set out the conditions for EU membership in June 1993 in the so-called Copenhagen criteria (see Criteria and process above for details). The Western Balkan states had to sign Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAAs) before applying for membership.

Turkey applied for membership in 1987. The Western Balkans have been prioritised for membership since emerging from war during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Albania, Macedonia,[23] Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey are all recognized as official candidates, and the latter three are undergoing membership talks.[64] Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo*[65] are recognized as potential candidates for membership by the EU.[64] Bosnia has submitted an application for EU membership, while Bosnia and Kosovo have an SAA with the EU.

In July 2014, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker announced that the EU has no plans to expand in the next five years.[66] Junker has described Serbia and Montenegro as front-runner candidates, and projected that they would join by 2025.[67][68]

Not all enlargement negotiations have ended with the accession of a new member state. Norway completed membership negotiations twice, in 1972 and 1994, but both times membership was rejected in a referendum. Switzerland applied for membership in May 1992 but subsequently froze its application,[69][70] and formally withdrew it in 2016.[71][72] Iceland lodged its application following an economic collapse in 2008, but froze accession negotiations in 2013. In 2017 however, Iceland's newly elected government announced that it may seek to begin talks with the EU on possible future membership once again.[73]

Originally posted here:
Enlargement of the European Union - Wikipedia

M.2 – Wikipedia

M.2, formerly known as the Next Generation Form Factor (NGFF), is a specification for internally mounted computer expansion cards and associated connectors. It replaces the mSATA standard, which uses the PCI Express Mini Card physical card layout and connectors. M.2's more flexible physical specification allows different module widths and lengths, and, paired with the availability of more advanced interfacing features, makes the M.2 more suitable than mSATA for solid-state storage applications in general and particularly for the use in small devices such as ultrabooks or tablets.[1][2][3]

Computer bus interfaces provided through the M.2 connector are PCI Express3.0 (up to four lanes), Serial ATA3.0, and USB3.0 (a single logical port for each of the latter two). It is up to the manufacturer of the M.2 host or device to select which interfaces are to be supported, depending on the desired level of host support and device type. The M.2 connector has different keying notches that denote various purposes and capabilities of M.2 hosts and modules, preventing plugging of M.2 modules into feature-incompatible host connectors.[1][2][4]

In addition to supporting legacy Advanced Host Controller Interface (AHCI) at the logical interface level, M.2 specification also supports NVM Express (NVMe) as the logical device interface for M.2 PCI Express SSDs. While the support for AHCI ensures software-level backward compatibility with legacy SATA devices and legacy operating systems, NVM Express is designed to fully utilize the capability of high-speed PCI Express storage devices to perform many I/O operations in parallel.[1]:14[5]

Buses exposed through the M.2 connector are PCI Express3.0, Serial ATA (SATA)3.0 and USB3.0, which is backward compatible with USB2.0. As a result, M.2 modules can integrate multiple functions, including the following device classes: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, satellite navigation, near field communication (NFC), digital radio, Wireless Gigabit Alliance (WiGig), wireless WAN (WWAN), and solid-state drives (SSDs).[6] The SATA revision 3.2 specification, in its gold revision as of August2013[update], standardizes the M.2 as a new format for storage devices and specifies its hardware layout.[1]:12[7]

The M.2 specification provides up to four PCI Express lanes and one logical SATA3.0 (6Gbit/s) port, and exposes them through the same connector so both PCI Express and SATA storage devices may exist in the form of M.2 modules. Exposed PCI Express lanes provide a pure PCI Express connection between the host and storage device, with no additional layers of bus abstraction.[8]PCI-SIG M.2 specification, in its revision 1.0 as of December2013[update], provides detailed M.2 specifications.[1]:12[9]

There are three options available for the logical device interfaces and command sets used for interfacing with M.2 storage devices, which may be used depending on the type of M.2 storage device and available operating system support:[1]:14[5][8]

The M.2 standard has been designed as a revision and improvement to the mSATA standard, with the possibility of larger printed circuit boards (PCBs) as one of its primary incentives. While the mSATA took advantage of the existing PCI Express Mini Card (Mini PCIe) form factor and connector, M.2 has been designed from the ground up to maximize usage of the PCB space while minimizing the module footprint. As the result of the M.2 standard allowing longer modules and double-sided component population, M.2 SSD devices can provide larger storage capacities and can also double the storage capacity within the footprints of mSATA devices.[1]:20,2223[3][10]

M.2 modules are rectangular, with an edge connector on one side (75 positions with up to 67 pins, 0.5mm pitch, pins overlap on different sides of the PCB), and a semicircular mounting hole at the center of the opposite edge. Each pin on the connector is rated for up to 50V and 0.5A, while the connector itself is specified to endure up to 60 mating cycles.[citation needed] The M.2 standard allows module widths of 12, 16, 22 and 30mm, and lengths of 16, 26, 30, 38, 42, 60, 80 and 110mm. Initial line-up of the commercially available M.2 expansion cards is 22mm wide, with varying lengths of 30, 42, 60, 80 and 110mm.[2][4][11][12]

Example codes: 2242 22mm wide, 42mm long, 2280 22mm wide, 80mm long.

An M.2 module is installed into a mating connector provided by the host's circuit board, and a single mounting screw secures the module into place. Usually suitable screws are provided with the hardware component on which the M.2 module is mounted (circuit board, M.2 to PCI-E adapter, etc.). The screw specifications for thread, length, and head-type can vary depending on the hardware manufacturer. Most commonly M2x3 screws with flat-head are used for this purpose (Thread diameter 2.0mm, length 3.0mm, thread-pitch 0.4mm). Components may be mounted on either side of the module, with the actual module type limiting how thick the components can be; the maximum allowable thickness of components is 1.5mm per side. Different host-side connectors are used for single- and double-sided M.2 modules, providing different amounts of space between the M.2 expansion card and the host's PCB.[3][4][11] Circuit boards on the hosts are usually designed to accept multiple lengths of M.2 modules, which means that the sockets capable of accepting longer M.2 modules usually also accept shorter ones by providing different positions for the mounting screw.[13][14]

PCB of an M.2 module provides a 75-position edge connector; depending on the type of module, certain pin positions are removed to present one or more keying notches. Host-side M.2 connectors (sockets) may populate one or more mating key positions, determining the type of modules accepted by the host; as of April2014[update], host-side connectors are available with only one mating key position populated (either B or M).[4][11][16] Furthermore, M.2 sockets keyed for SATA or two PCI Express lanes (PCIe2) are referred to as "socket2 configuration" or "socket2", while the sockets keyed for four PCI Express lanes (PCIe4) are referred to as "socket3 configuration" or "socket3".[1]:15[17]

For example, M.2 modules with two notches in B and M positions use up to two PCI Express lanes and provide broader compatibility at the same time, while the M.2 modules with only one notch in the M position use up to four PCI Express lanes; both examples may also provide SATA storage devices. Similar keying applies to M.2 modules that utilize provided USB3.0 connectivity.[4][16][18]

Various types of M.2 devices are denoted using the "WWLL-HH-K-K" or "WWLL-HH-K" naming schemes, in which "WW" and "LL" specify the module width and length in millimeters, respectively. The "HH" part specifies, in an encoded form, whether a module is single- or double-sided, and the maximum allowed thickness of mounted components; possible values are listed in the right table above. Module keying is specified by the "K-K" part, in an encoded form using the key IDs from the left table above; it can also be specified as "K" only, if a module has only one keying notch.[4][11]

Beside socketed modules, the M.2 standard also includes the option for having permanently soldered single-sided modules.[11]

M.2 sockets with an "E" slot support Dual-Band Wireless LAN/Bluetooth cards (2230 or 1216).[19]

Link:
M.2 - Wikipedia