France’s €5.1BN Canal to Germany 

You can take a barge from Paris to Peking via canals and rivers and have been able to for decades...of course the Iron Curtain stopped most traffic but that ended in 1989, not so sure how it goes now with the Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent war.....

Are you a carpenter

J'aimerai tout de même rajouter un peu de nuances à cette vidéo. Je suis étudiante à Compiègne en école d'ingénieur (qui a d'ailleurs un partenariat avec la société du canal) et la réalité est bien moins jolie qu'annoncée. D'abord sur le point de vue environnemental. Du coté réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre c'est très peu réaliste. En effet les marchandises transportées par voie fluviale et routière sont très différentes, donc seul 3% des marchandises transportées sur l'A1 seraient transposables sur l'eau, ce qui résulterait en une baisse très faible des émissions et un désengorgement très faible lui aussi. En revanche Il en résulterait une baisse de 15% du fret ferroviaire qui est pourtant moins polluant et déjà en difficulté à cause d'un manque de subventions. De plus ce serait un projet absolument catastrophique pour la biodiversité. On peut par exemple citer un bras complet de l'Oise qui sera complètement rebouché. Le canal va mener à la destruction des habitats de plus d'une centaine d'espèce menacées (je ne retrouve plus le chiffre exact, il me semble que c'est autour de 150), la destruction de zones Natura 2000. Quand à la compensation écologique, c'est une pratique extrêmement controversée dans le milieu scientifique, car on ne peut pas simplement recréer un écosystème efficace artificiellement (d'ailleurs il y a une corrélation entre ancienneté et efficacité). J'aurai encore bien d'autres choses à dire sur cet aspect là mais bon... La dimension économique est elle aussi très discutable. Tout d'abord, différentes instance gouvernementales (l'Autorité Environnementale et la Cour des Comptes Européenne) estiment que la rentabilité du canal est calculée à partir d'hypothèses de croissance largement surestimées. De plus ce projet est calculé pour être économiquement viable (selon les hypothèses précédentes) à partir de 3 étages de conteneurs, quand les liaisons qui encadrent ce canal sont dimensionnées pour seulement 2 étages (Projet MAGEO entre Creil et Compiegne, et le réseau Dunkerque Escaut). On voit donc à nouveau un problème dans la viabilité économique. Finalement, le projet est également critiquable sur le plan social et culturel. Par exemple, l'expulsion de toutes les personnes vivant sur des péniches amarrées sur le bord de l'Oise commence déjà. Ce canal est aussi une menace pour toute la petite batellerie, et globalement l'économie locale, qui va se faire écraser par des porte containers surdimensionnés au service de la mondialisation (ce qui dans un contexte de transition écologique n'est pas forcément appréciable). Enfin, il risque de transformer la région en véritable hub logistique qui est un secteur très connue pour la forte précarité des emplois. Sur ce sujet, nous sommes en lien avec un sociologue qui a beaucoup étudié ce sujet. Et finalement sur le coté culturel (rien que sur Compiègne), il va mener à l’arrêt d'une course traditionnelle existant depuis près de 50ans, le déménagement forcé du club d'aviron de Compiègne (club très important et influant), ou encore la dégradation des conditions de vies des Compiegnois à cause du passage bien plus fréquent de péniches, dans des lieux de détente. Bref, voici un petit panel non exhaustif de raisons pour lesquelles le canal Seine Nord Europe ne devrait pas voir le jour, même si il a l'air très intéressant au premier abord.

@@leonietzd6778Merci beaucoup pour cette synthèse !😊

I guess he wants to pull the German audience into watching the video 😅

I'd hazard a guess that it makes more sense to build a canal through the largely flat northern part of France, and linking up with the equally flat Belgium and especially the Netherlands, because of the size of the ships. Building a canal with all the associated lock through the mountains between France and Germany would be prohibitively expensive and present numerous challenges. So, it that sense, the connection with Germany, albeit via the detour that you mention, would definitely be a consideration. Yes, the video title could have been clearer, or less click-baity if we want to be unkind. But once you reach the Netherlands, any size considerations for your ships go pretty much out the window. You can sail up the (artificial) rivers and/or canals to the Rhine and Germany. My guess is that the canal is mostly intended to give ships a reason to go to northern France, and not just the Netherlands and Belgium.

@Tom-Lahaye: Yes and no. The Marne-Rhine is not suitable for considerable freight ships neither is the Rhine-Rhône-Canal. In addition, the latter one connects Southern France to the Rhine and not Northern France like the project described in the video.

@@christofs1196 The second half of my previous reply does describe the possibilities for ships going from the north of France trough the new Canal du Nord to the Netherlands and from there on the Waal/Rhine to Germany. I wasn't possibly specific enough in describing this so some misconception on your side may be the result. The first part of that reply actually states that upgrading the Marne-Rhine canal for larger vessels isn't an option, this canal now can handle very small cargo boats only but is mainly used for tourism in the form of small yachts and pleasure boats.

Worked on me 😂 ​@@bluesky8334

hehehe "bussy"

Ja ,de vlamingetjes stoan assan gereed vo frangrik 😢

@@gerwindeforche4424 Maar ook voor Nederland!

Thanks! I tried my best to get them right :)

@@FuturologyChannel real good pronunciation for most of them. I have to tell that for "Oise" you mispronounced the "Oi" part. You should have used the same sound as in "toi" or "moi" (you - me) or like the sound oof "What" just without the final t The rest was clean, impressive ! thanks for the effort mate

@@FuturologyChannel you actually said it correctly at the end of the video ahaha

@@FuturologyChannel Just another thing, you don't pronounce the last e in Compiegne and other words that end with e. You only do so in the casse of an accented e "é". So "casse" is pronounced kass and "cassé" is pronounced kassay (word emphasized where I added ay) Great work on the video and fascinating subject! Have a good one :)

@@ohimats Americans always give French words that end with an "e" a Spanish pronunciation with an AY sound like in Olay

Yes, but what a big project that is; maybe it is good that they take their time with decisions. 🤔 And maybe another lesson is how disastrous war is for economic development. 😄

honnetement, présenté comme ca il a l'air génial, mais en réalité c'est un non sens economique écologique et social (je peux étayer mes arguments si besoin). D'ailleurs ca ne m'étonne pas que vous n'en ayez jamais entendu parler puisqu'il y a eu cet été une consultation publique pour le projet MAGEO entre Creil et Compiègne (qui est intrinsèquement lié au canal seine nord europe), avec seulement une centaine de réponses, dont 27 explicitement favorables....

Toutes les entreprises de TP dans le coin 😅 connaissent bien après les pubs sont franchement discrètes. J'ai beau être militante écolo pour la vie de tous les jours. Je pense que c'est un bon projet pour le futur. Oui l'investissement est lourd mais l'intérêt long terme est quand même énorme. Franchement je dois souvent prendre l'A1 et la RN2 pour le taff, c'est une file de camions continue

@@perrinerichard3488 Justement, le problème c'est que seulement 3% du transport routier serait transférable sur le fluvial, donc ça ne changerait franchement pas grand chose, par contre ça réduirait de 15% le ferroviaire, et on peut craindre un effet rebond. Et puis différents rapports de l'Autorité Environnementale et de la cour des Comptes européennes expliquent que les hypothèses de croissance et de rentabilité sont très discutables, et très peu réalistes donc j'ai du mal à croire à l'impact positif du canal.

@@leonietzd6778 c'est très compliqué de savoir quel part prendra le fluvial dans quelques années notamment avec la pression de la réduction des émissions de co2. wait and see

@@leonietzd6778 pour le coup j'ai discuté la personne de l'ICPE qui a analysé le dossier du tronçon 2. Pour eux la dernière version est largement mieux et cohérente. J'ai aussi vu des critiques sur l'étude des 3%. Car il est question du report de l'arrivée des marchandises à Anvers et Rotterdam. 2 ports en grande transformation et saturés en l'état. Les routes marchandes évoluent déjà en ce moment. Pour mon travail je suis souvent en contact avec l'ICPE et la DTT sur les demandes de transport exceptionnel par exemple. Et le canal permettrait vraiment de revoir l'arrivée de gros composants, très émissifs aussi. On parle de reindustrialisation et de besoin de construction dans le domaine de l'énergie qui ont besoin de ces accès malheureusement. J'ai bien conscience qu'il faut avant tout réduire notre consommation.

Netherlands and Belgium is not Northern Europe. It's Western Europe.

To me it looks more like Northwestern Europe. Actually Portugal and Spain are more to the West. (Like Southwest)

From the French point of view Belgium is North. Anyway, it's the official name. @@brazzo975

J'aimerai tout de même rajouter un peu de nuances à cette vidéo. Je suis étudiante à Compiègne en école d'ingénieur (qui a d'ailleurs un partenariat avec la société du canal) et la réalité est bien moins jolie qu'annoncée. D'abord sur le point de vue environnemental. Du coté réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre c'est très peu réaliste. En effet les marchandises transportées par voie fluviale et routière sont très différentes, donc seul 3% des marchandises transportées sur l'A1 seraient transposables sur l'eau, ce qui résulterait en une baisse très faible des émissions et un désengorgement très faible lui aussi. En revanche Il en résulterait une baisse de 15% du fret ferroviaire qui est pourtant moins polluant et déjà en difficulté à cause d'un manque de subventions. De plus ce serait un projet absolument catastrophique pour la biodiversité. On peut par exemple citer un bras complet de l'Oise qui sera complètement rebouché. Le canal va mener à la destruction des habitats de plus d'une centaine d'espèce menacées (je ne retrouve plus le chiffre exact, il me semble que c'est autour de 150), la destruction de zones Natura 2000. Quand à la compensation écologique, c'est une pratique extrêmement controversée dans le milieu scientifique, car on ne peut pas simplement recréer un écosystème efficace artificiellement (d'ailleurs il y a une corrélation entre ancienneté et efficacité). J'aurai encore bien d'autres choses à dire sur cet aspect là mais bon... La dimension économique est elle aussi très discutable. Tout d'abord, différentes instance gouvernementales (l'Autorité Environnementale et la Cour des Comptes Européenne) estiment que la rentabilité du canal est calculée à partir d'hypothèses de croissance largement surestimées. De plus ce projet est calculé pour être économiquement viable (selon les hypothèses précédentes) à partir de 3 étages de conteneurs, quand les liaisons qui encadrent ce canal sont dimensionnées pour seulement 2 étages (Projet MAGEO entre Creil et Compiegne, et le réseau Dunkerque Escaut). On voit donc à nouveau un problème dans la viabilité économique. Finalement, le projet est également critiquable sur le plan social et culturel. Par exemple, l'expulsion de toutes les personnes vivant sur des péniches amarrées sur le bord de l'Oise commence déjà. Ce canal est aussi une menace pour toute la petite batellerie, et globalement l'économie locale, qui va se faire écraser par des porte containers surdimensionnés au service de la mondialisation (ce qui dans un contexte de transition écologique n'est pas forcément appréciable). Enfin, il risque de transformer la région en véritable hub logistique qui est un secteur très connue pour la forte précarité des emplois. Sur ce sujet, nous sommes en lien avec un sociologue qui a beaucoup étudié ce sujet. Et finalement sur le coté culturel (rien que sur Compiègne), il va mener à l’arrêt d'une course traditionnelle existant depuis près de 50ans, le déménagement forcé du club d'aviron de Compiègne (club très important et influant), ou encore la dégradation des conditions de vies des Compiegnois à cause du passage bien plus fréquent de péniches, dans des lieux de détente. Bref, voici un petit panel non exhaustif de raisons pour lesquelles le canal Seine Nord Europe ne devrait pas voir le jour, même si il a l'air très intéressant au premier abord.

@@leonietzd6778 Merci pour ce point-de-vue précieux. En regardant la video je me suis demandé s'ils ne s'étaient basé uniquement sur les dossiers de presse, tant c'était univoque et enthousiaste...

Ceuta, Melilla...

Well, trucks don't typically drive through large bodies of water.

The same year that the Swiss joined, obviously. Keep up. 😊

It has didly squat to do with Germany or the Rhine, he likely just put it into the title for clicks. This project allows for much bigger ships to cross from the Scheldt in Belgium to the Oise in France. The project doesn't just involve the new canal, it also includes widening of the Scheldt's Lys tributary in Belgium.

Paris

You mean from the ocean? Some (most?) barges are not ocean-worthy - even for coastal waters. The new canal extends an existing network, requiring fewer transfers and creating an efficient supply chain, connecting two large existing networks.

As already mentioned river barges aren't seaworthy and seaworthy ships get way too high, way too quick, requiring higher bridges. On top of that it is peant to boost all kinds of trade, not just between Paris and Antwerp and Rotterdam. It will connect to smaller places like Ghent, Kortrijk, Lille, Saint Quentin, Dunkirk and Cambrai. And even without changing ships the detour would likely be longer. Avoiding the mouths of ribers couod also ease congestion as most trade won't be land inwards

Ah c'mon, that's just in Seine! 😁

​@@ordinaryorca9334she meant that instead of using sea boats that discharge at Antwerp and the use of the canal, why not take the same sea boats to le Havre and use the Seine river from the top The answer is probably that goods arriving from le Havre could also be spread across Europe using that new canal

When it comes to trains, they put increasingly large strains on the rail-lines the more you load them. Doing this frequently enough to cover the frequency offered by canals and barges, you risk a lot of failure-points. Canals on the other hand are far more long-term and logistically easier, as they can be loaded in-port without making a rail-line transfer. What should also be added is that trains can't cover these weights everywhere they go.

@@jonaw.2153Also existing rail lines often go through cities and adding extra tracks is for that reason more expensive and transporting dangerous goods is limited through cities. The alternative is a whole new dedicated high speed freight rail line going around cities, high speed for freight that is. The Netherlands already did so, from the Port of Rotterdam to the German border, which is already 15 years in service, while at the German border the freight line has to connect to a busy double track passenger rail line. The Germans are planning a third rail track for freight from the Dutch border to the Ruhr Industrial Area, but I’m not sure when this will be completely finished. I looked it up and the Germans plan to have it ready in 2027, but I doubt it. The Germans are lacking behind immensely, with planning, money and construction and proved to be unreliable about this project. The canal option is a more national idea and therefore easier and quicker to realize, because the new canal connects to existing canals and rivers.

Also length. 750m is the max length so 100 containers is the realistic limit. These wouldn't be fully loaded as it would exceed the axle limit on the standard European container wagon cars. This is not to say it's technically impossible. But you would need to increase the length and the loading gauge ( height) well outside of European normal to something close to American scale 2km long and double height high cube. This issue is more complex in Europe as you need clearance for the ohle. So you are close to 9m for bridges.

I think they use canals due to less fuel being used by barges in comparison to trains? So its more green? Maybe?

I really think it would be a greaaat thing. Railway is in fact greener as fluvial transport ( especially those kinds with gigantic lock (more than 25m high for some of them) and mega basins (22 times the volume of an other one that was source of huuuge protests this year in France). And in that case it would make even more sense, cause that canal can only take away 3% of the road transport, for 15% of the railway transport (taken away too of course).

Yes. As the sea route by the Channel is really close, it would make no sense to accommodate larger ships.

This canal is only to be used by river boats and barges, transhipping from seagoing vessels into river boats and vice versa happens in the ports of Antwerp-Gent-Terneuzen-Rotterdam and Amsterdam which are the 5 main ports in Belgium and the Netherlands.

Yes, they are indeed very different. The Suez and Panama Canals are essentially shortcuts for sea-faring ships. Because of those connections, ships don’t have to travel around Africa or South America. These canals, as others in Europe, are only for river barges. They basically do the same thing as trucks, just more efficiently. For example a container ship would go from China to Antwerp, and then the containers for France are loaded on barges heading south. Those barges are more efficient than trucks. Now a lot of the goods imported and exported are done by trucks to major sea ports, but with more canals part of that traffic can be done by ship. I live in the Netherlands and I often see barges coming from Germany carrying raw materials to the port of Rotterdam, but also the other way round. Those river barges simply can carry a lot more than cargo trains or trucks, and they face less unexpected delays.

@@DanAndHoe Indeed much more efficient, a normal human can tow a 250 tonne barge albeit at a slow speed and if no river current works against it (was very common on canals in the old days before internal combustion engines came), try to get a 25 tonne truck started from standstil by pulling it yourself, al lot harder. It has a lot more static and dynamic friction from the tyres, gear box and wind resistance. I have done such pulls formerly competing in strongman contests so I had the chance to feel the difference in a very direct way. A train sits comfortably between those two.

"The best is no transport at all" wtf? No transport means no goods being delivered means empty store shelves means the demands by the people aren't met means loss of general wealth and quality of life. You spend way to much time in circles with no understanding of the real world out there. 🤦‍♂️

@@c0d3warrior I made myself not clear (English is my second language): Ket me give same examples to better explain what I was trying to say that we have far to much transport done 1. Take for example the Volkswagen engine plant in Kariega, South Africa, which produces engines not only for the assembly plants in South Africa but also for plants in Europe. These engines have been engineered in Europe and the majority of the plants are delivered by suppliers from Europe. So many parts are shipped to SA where there are manufactured into Engines that are then shipped to other continents. 2. I know the case that steering wheels and their leather covers were shipped from Germany to Tunisia just to do the stitching to save labor costs. 3. In order to obtain the meat of North Sea crabs, the majority of the catch landed in northern Germany has so far been transported to Morocco for hand-pulping. The main reason for this is the labor costs. 4. Same-day shipment in E-Commerce leads to much more transport for last mile logistics since you don't have so much shipment that can be used to optimize loads and transport routes. We did this in the past because we subsidized transport. A considerable share of transport costs (building and maintaining infrastructure; pollution) are paid by the society as a whole and not the shipper/customer. What I would like to say, that it is better to optimize the needs for transport before doing the shipment. Is really all that we transport around the world necessary? I hope I made myself clearer.

I will try to provide you with more information but I don't know if it is satisfying. In addition to the report that you cited, we can add one from the french Environmental Autorithies in 2022 saying "The balance sheet is based on a purely supply-side model, and relies on a clearly overestimated growth forecast." (hope that the translation is alright). We can also say that the canal is suppose to be economically viable for 3 level of containers while the others calas surrounding it (MAGEO project in the south, and Dunkerque-Escault network in the north) are only dimensioned for 2 levels of containers sooo.... I hope that helps, if you want I can also provide information on the ecological, social, and cultural impacts of the project (spoiler alert, they are not great).

@@leonietzd6778 Thanks a lot.👍 These infrastructure projects are tough. And is not only the building but the permanent maintenance that has to be budgeted (this is of course true for roads and railways as well). In my regiion (ruhr area) we have a dense canal network build more than 100 years ago that was highly used to transport ore, coal and coke. But that has changed so now the canals and ports are more used for container transport. And here the levels you can stack containers come into place. It does not help so much that you can stack containers 4 levels up on the Rhine if you want to go to Dortmund and can not pass under the bridges of the canals (maximal two levels). Changing that requires huge investments in new bridges and ramps. Please don't get me wrong. I'm much in favor for building waterways but maybe instead of building new canals it might be more useful to maintain/upgrade existing infrastructure. I know, that maintenance does not sound so "futurological" and is harder to sell to RU-vid viewers. Thanks to the channel for posting this video!👍

sure "you" do! well .... at least the upper 5-10% who got the very few braincells needed to participate in politics and to vote for representation of their own interests like any normal person would do ... seems you are just part of the 90ish % too dim and/or too lazy for politics, the fools who willingly hand their nation over to a few upper class elderly who love to invest your money in themself. Would be pretty silly to invest in those who just cry about politics but dont get their arse up for it.

Rubbish. America spent 200 billion last year alone building battery factories, chip factories and ev infrastructure. Not to mention it's the second largest producer of solar and wind power

@@millevenon5853 lol, if only you would talk about actual infrastructure investments, but its just more of the same idiotic trickle-down scam which never managed to improve the lifes of US citizens in a noteworthy way. 200 billion of taxdollars directly invested into the profit margins of rich peoples enterprises, which rarely pay their taxes. Hilarious how you still fall for this scam and try to convince the real first world that this nonsense works in favor of the common people. Wonder when you learn that there is a difference between spending billions on private enterprises in the hopes that they create something worthwhile for a couple of years and spending billions on public infrastructure which lasts a lifetime, enabling your entire economy to advance.

Good question for the sponsor of this video! :-)

We called it "pont canal" here in France. There is a exemple here in Normandy at Carentan for small boat. Look at it on googlemap.

Taxpayers.

@@markvanderknoop131 That's exactly the problem. If the taxpayers have to cover this, there is no incentive to stay within the budget..

@@afborchert that is the problem in France the ones responsible never held accountable.

Yes!

Belgium connects to the Rhine river

@@Cotswolds1913 Well, that's not quite true, but not totally false either. In Belgium there actually is no direct connection to the Rhine per se. But the Meuse (Maas in Dutch and German,) that does cross eastern Belgium joins the Rhine in a common delta in the Netherlands north of the Belgian border. This common delta is also connected a bit further south, towards the Dutch-Belgian border, to the delta of the Schelde (Escaut in French) that crosses western Belgium. This three-river delta is called the "Rijn-Maas-Schelde Delta". The Belgian port/city of Antwerp is where the Schelde joins the delta.

@@jfrancobelge There is literally a Rijn-Schelde canal running from the port of Rotterdam to the port of Antwerp aka a direct connection to the Rhine river.

@@jfrancobelge that’s the one.

​@@Cotswolds1913 Belgium does indeed connect to the Rhine river but not due to the infrastructure project mentioned in this video. France is not building the canal that connects Belgium to the Rhine or Germany

you want really long trains huh

it is less a canal and more or less a big devolpment, plus it cost a lot to move all that mass

It might be deep. It takes a lot of moving dirt you know.

It's not just a big hole filled with water, it's a big hole filled with water integrated with the surrounding ecosystemS (which is VERY expensive to do properly) through a former warzone which might still contain remains and unexploded bombs.

As with any such great infrastructure projects, by the time it is finished it will have cost twice as much.

The line exist for freight and passengers. I used to work in the area a great high speed train will bring me in 3h45 from ouest coast of France to Perronne Monday mornings. There are a lot of investments for passenger rail. For freight unfortunately it is still decreasing, some update on tracks will be needed

Wikipedia says 7 billions, at least, as the project was under estimated... Also it is a shitty project, railway is a better solution. Due to earthwarming there's a lack of water to sustain all the pre existing canals. Also it will destruct a lot of biodiversity in an already damaged region.

Yeah, that thumbnail looked like the french were coming to dig up Belgian and Dutch soil.

Simple answer. YES.

yes, it's called the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal.

It's not pointless

Well pointless would be if it wasnt already a congested route and way to narrow for modern barges

Yes, you can get from Rotterdam to Constanța via the Rhine-Main-Danube canal.

How look, an entitled american who think that France is not a major economy but just a theme park...

I would also say its more a belgian/netherlandic connection :D

Wallonia should become a french region

@@swann67000 the catholic church made sure that walloons or belgians in general don't feel close to the revolutionnary and secular France. It still ingrained in the heads and I'm actually a part of a minority of wallons that would want a "rattachement" to France. This minority is even smaller today due to the massive immigration of Italiaans...

​@@swann67000yes and Flanders will be finally free from the underdeveloped wallonia

@@kenpe1455 why Flanders wouldn t like to be part of netherlands? They are rich

@@swann67000 i think because flanders still has some of its former pride they where not always apart of the netherlands they used to be a powerfull state on their own

yup, probably

yes, of course

Maybe. The EU does help with funding infrastructure projects etc. However it likely wouldn't be as much as with this project, since here you connect European nations more, whereas this wouldn't be the case with the UK's highspeed railway. Something similar to the Eurotunnel would likely have been well supported (if investigations proved it was needed/beneficial enough ofcourse).

@@MDP1702 very true

France is a net contributor to the EU budget and so was the UK. So basically any EU funds going to these projects is just your own money that the EU spits back at you.

A lot of political and legal considerations have delayed the project. Same for the Rhine-Rhone canal. All the impact and technical studies have been completed decades ago. The land had already been built.. but ecologist politicians have stopped the project.

Anime pfp and instantly brings up ww2 Yep thats a classic.

🤔Maybe they flow through settlements which would make expropriation of house owners necessary. This would be expensive and would lead to severe political resistance by the inhabitants.

thats a very american way of thinking XD. Just another lane, i am sure it will fix it this time

@@gargoyle7863 I don't really know what would happen to widen the exitent canals, but hey are still soo much expropriation with this one, and honestly we're relly trying to build resistance for so many reasons, it's just that they did everything very secretely, and not much people know its existence...

I can't say anything for sure about the budget, but what I CAN say is that, indeed, only 3% of the road transport of the A1 is transposable on river transport, whereas it should reduce from 15% railway transport....

Rubbish.

No, Luxembourg is left out.

Once they were :D

Internal distributions of goods between cities and countries.

Also Malta, Cyprus and all the other islands. Wording would have been better. Like Mainland EU or continental EU.

@@dantetre didn't even notice. True