Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
Most of the NATO members are not the US, also in terms of population. If you propose leaving NATO without a realistic alternative of a kind of NATO without the US for example all you are doing is selling out Europe.
Um, but the "kind of NATO" is called EU already. The mutual defense wording in the EU treaties is by far stronger than the wording in the NATO contract. I mean, in the end it's all words on paper anyway, but there's that.
He is also against the EU though.
I am all for the EU as a meanginful defense union but capabilities need to exist and they don't yet. Blowing up the one thing while not having a working replacement at the same time means inviting hostile powers to carve up Europe.
No he's not, what the fuck. You're thinking of his main political opponent, Marine Le Pen, who wants to exit NATO and the EU.
FI's platform is explicitly against exiting the Union or the Euro Zone.
LFI's platform also states that:
This is all anti-EU and no better than the far right.
It is much better than the far right though, and the reason is in the context which you swiftly omitted. They don't want to exit the Union but to headbutt agressively against the far right anti-immigration packages that are being forced down our throats, as well as the industry deregulation push that would force us to reverse social protection and ecological regulations we, as a people, have voted for.
FI is indeed not ready to apply in France any European law that gives the workers fewer rights, or sabotages our ecosystems ("principe de non-régression écologique et sociale"), or makes us a part of bullying the global South. Please show me where those objectives are in MLP's platform cause i have a hard time finding them.
It doesn't sound all that stupid when you take the context into account (which FI knows well as we have a bunch of deputies in Bruxelles).
Firstly, as usual LFI's vision pretty much stops at the French border. They claim it's a viable and good idea to create a constitutional principle of non-regression, but they only propose adding it to the French Constitution, not to a European treaty.
Secondly, it doesn't really matter why they want to end the primacy of European law. If the precedent is set, it will almost certainly end up being used for things they don't want, in France and in other member states. It's also likely to result in a diplomatic crisis and possibly to the breakup of the EU.
The far right also has MEPs, it doesn't make them knowledgeable either.
No, I am not. Mekechon's opposition comes from a different, leftist, direction but it is opposition all the same. He is a staunch critic of the "neoloiberal European Union" and demands a fundamental renegotiation of the treaties. Are you seriously denying that?
Guess what, the far right in many member states is demanding the same. It is hard to keep track though with the far right, as the are oscilating between demanding leaving the EU, and "reforming", ie destroying it. To my understanding Le Pen is currently demanding to "reform", ie destroy the EU from within. As such a fundamental "reform" will fracture the Union or at least lead to a massive weakening of its political structure and its ability to act.
So your point is that any attempt at reforming the (grossly ultra-liberal) European Union would fracture the Union, and also that any criticism of its (grossly corrupt) operations is just playing the same team as the fascists ? How fucking convenient, especially for the fascists who actually spawned and bankrolled the whole Frexit movement.
How are you supposed to make something better when you're not allowed to formulate any criticism of it ?
No, I am claiming that it doesn't need any major treaty changes to change the political direction of the EU to a left leaning position. It would need however a left majority among voters, currently there is a clear right majority on EU level and most national capitals are right/conservative as well.
The EU's operations are not "grossly corrupt", corrrupt maybe but less so than most member states, certainly less corrupt than Germany or Austria, not sure about France but I would be surprised if things were different there. Most of the corruption is taking place on local level with EU funds. Fighting corruption on both levels is possible without any treaty change, as the creation of EPPO has shown. Great institution that has a mandate to fight corruption on both, European and national level, as long as it has something to do with EU institutions, policies or subsidies.
How do you know?
You can read the court of auditor reports and compare them to national ones, you can observe how when there are business lobby groups fighting for something, it is often some national governments who are already fully in line, copy pasting their positions and fighting for it in Brussels, while in Brussels the Commission is still on the fence and the European Parliament hosts meaningful opposition. Also on multiple occasions, where the national level was already completely in line, including national parliaments, initiatives still failed in the European Parliament, against massive lobbying campaigns because the public made a fuss about it
I also know from people, who are no business lobbyists that you can get heard by the Commission if you represent something of interest, eg open source initiatives. I also know from the business perspective that bribing agencies for getting some registration on EU level is not an option and that things that are not working as they should are rather issues of lack of resources or unclear legislation.
My favourite example however is the former interior minister of Austria, who afterwards continued his career as MEP in Brussels/Strasbourg. It is pretty clear he did not change the way he was doing politics but within a short time, he was uncovered to be bribed. That alone never happened in Austria in his long career before and unlike in Austria, it did have severe consequences, he did not only lose his job, was subject to prosecution but was entirely shunned by the party, as this had become such a big deal (also something that rarely happens in Austria with any corrupt politician). Of course Austrian nationalists were talking about how corrupt Brussels is, when in fact the Austrian modus operandi lead in Brussels to the destruction of a politician's career.
EDIT: Things have improved further since the creation of the EPPO. A bribing case like the one above relied before purily on action from member state's institutions. Now, EPPO can get active on its own and launch investigations and inquire assistance when raiding someone for example.
Which Aubry is already doing as head of the Left euro-group. There is not one single mention of treaty changes in FI's platform. They just state that we may decline to apply some European laws if they lead to worse social or ecological outcomes for French workers. It's called "principe de non-régression écologique et sociale" and i don't see any great arguments against it.
Making EU legislation fully optional (after all national politicians could arbitrarily then go on to decide to not "apply" binding EU law of whatever kind they choose further down the line), means destroying the very legal basis the EU is built upon. That is indeed not a reform, that is straight going to "destroy the EU from within" without the detour of pretending to go for "reforming the treaties". Ironic or not, that is pretty much what the authoritarian far right was also trying to do in Poland and Hungary before being ousted by the people, albeit on other topics.
The only way to implement this is either by having cake and eat it for France (getting special privileges for France) or by changing that very aspect in the treaties for everyone. Both needs a treaty change and unanimous support by every member state which are almost entirely conservative or liberal.
So choose, this demand either means breaking the treaties or reforming the treaties.
This is the kind of fake dichotomy that makes it impossible to enact any real change in the current system. "Oh gosh we'd sure love to have a more just Europe but i guess that's incompatible with current European legislation so we might as well forget it and do nothing".
The point is to go head to head with the current state of the Union, then we can create a coalition of similarly-minded countries and introduce deep reforms. And if it means headbutting with the ECJ and tanking a few sanctions then so be it. The point is not to break the whole thing but to create a counter-force that is significant enough to have a say. I don't understand how you can even compare that to the far right project which is basically Brexit with more Trumpism on top.
There is no European country that has a better shot at that than good old France, and the historical window is closing fast. There's probably some hubris in there, but there's also, i believe, some courage. You can't live your life according to your adversaries rules, and you can't materialize a popular movement by coloring inside the lines drawn by the 1%, so at some point you have to break some laws to make better ones.
That is completely besides the point. What you described was the demand to make the primary law of the EU optional. That is as if saying that the constitution is just optional and local politicians can simply decide to opt out on whatever they don't like. It is no fake dichotomy to simply state the fact that this is blowing up the legal foundation of the EU. If you said, Melenchon is working towards treaty change to add safeguards to specific well defined areas it would be something different, but that's not what you described.
That said, there is absolutely no need to blow up the legal foundation of the EU. Much of what Melenchon appears to be complaining about is not even EU competence but largely national competence. Not all but and we can have a debate on concrete issues. But if law becomes optional to ignore its is not law anymore.
The problem here is not the ECJ, it is destroying the legal basis without which there is no EU, certainly none that has any EU of any political significance. How I can compare that left proposal for destroying the legal sphere of the EU with the one from the right in Poland in Hungary before the respective governments were ousted by the voter? Because it is functionally the same thing, an attack on the legal foundation of the EU by destroying the legal system (making law compliance optional). If you can't see that, I can't help you.
This isn't a 1% or adversary rule thing. Any law sphere that becomes optional is doomed to collapse. It is tragic if that is not self evident anymore.
I recognize your legalist perspective and have leaned that way most of my life, but I don't think it's strong enough against the lawless fascists and their moneyed allies. There are moments in history where you have to tug on the balance of power.
I also chafe at the idea that EU law is comparable to a constitution. We already have a constitution thank you very much. What FI is proposing here is more like when Blue cities in the US "opted out" of helping with ICE enforcement.
It's not about breaking the rule of law it's about engaging with the old "rapport de force". Sure it would be more comfortable to go "oh well them's the laws after all" and I wish we were still at that stage but look where it got us.
Burning down law to defend it against fascists? All the while Putin watches pleased Europe setting itself on fire. He doesn't care if it is the left or the right. It doesn't matter if you consider EU primary law inferior to a constitution. Functionally it is primary law all the same and as such it relies just the same way on not being optional. Once it becomes optional it collapses on itself.
Which federal law did the blue cities declare null and void in their territory again?
That said, member states are not forced to oblige to the treaties. They are free to leave anytime. Hence the EU is not a state. No one is forced to stay and comply. One can leave if one finds the EU and its legal sphere unacceptable.
What is it really that justifies the destruction of the EU's legal sphere and as a consequence the EU? That you seem to call necessary here? Let's be concrete and say why it can't be resolved without destroying the EU.
The EU treaties are de facto a federal constitution, even though consolidating them into a single document called the European Constitution failed (partly because of Mélenchon).
Constitutions can be stacked on top of each other, there doesn't have to be only one.
No, it isn't. What LFI is proposing would be like putting, in the Constitution of California or that of another state, a provision incompatible with the Constitution of the United States.
It's against leaving, everyone's is. But they're very much eurosceptics.
That is a very strange position to take because LFI euro-députés engage very hard with the system. There are actual euroskeptics who barely show up, vote once a year and never bring anything to the table. But that's not LFI, I mean Aubry is leader of the European Left coalition ffs, and they don't bullshit around. Do you have any elements to the contrary ?
FYI the party's official line is : "we stay in the Union & Eurozone but we might disobey some treaties if they lead to worse social or ecological outcomes than our local laws". Happy to debate all day long but i don't see anything fundamentally wrong with this position.
It makes little difference if you demand exiting the EU or destroying it from within, maybe the latter being worse. Both serves Putin's agenda.
Yeah but we already have close diplomatic ties with most of those countries, including some active defense treaties. There's nothing complicated about expanding that, we have nuclear deterrence and a good-ish army it's not like countries are going to give us shit. We certainly don't need the US to achieve that, in fact we specifically need the US to not be involved in it if we want to keep it aligned with our interests.
That is the kind of narrow nationalist perspective Putin is counting on. Yeah, no one will try to attack France directly. Once the EU is functionally dead (either by "reform" to Melechon's liking or "reform" to Le Pen's liking), and NATO is gone the rest will fall in place and once Le Pen is elected, there will be no need to attack France, as it will be already under pro-Russian autocratic rule.
It is bizarre that in your comments, anything that is not abject submission to United States interests is seen as destructive nationalism that will bring about the end of everything. Come on man, the world is free to suck Donald Trump's dick if they like the taste of it but France is a big enough player to say fuck off and go our own way. We have amazing international relationships which we've been cultivating for centuries. We don't need the US payola system to intercede for us with other global powers.
You are completely misjudging my position, to absurd levels. I am actually supporting rapid emancipation from the US and strengthening of European sovereignty. I am against balkanisation of the EU, which incidentially is what both, Trump and Putin want to see and both Melenchon and Le Pen will facilitate.
I see that you are pretty much on that line as well. Congratulations, your position is more in line with what Trump wants than mine. Tragic, isn't it?
But doing or even saying anything to that effect is "balkanization" and "carrying water for Putin". How fucking convenient.
Oh yes i'm sure Trump would love if a country like France fell to a popular anti-american pro-socialist movement with enough parliamentary chops to rally other countries in Europe. Must be his wet dream.
Nothing convenient, emancipation needs the building of alternative capabilities first, then you can burn down bridges. As it happens, that is exactly what the EU is doing right now, even if one could argue that even more effort should be put into it. Doing it the other way round just means making it easier for enemies to take Europe apart and yes, that is doing Putin's job then.
If Trump could choose between a far-left nationalist France that blows up the EU and more Macron with an increasingly independent EU standing, yes Trump would choose the former. Are you really believing the opposite being the case?