Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- 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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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)
- 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. 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 primary mod account @EuroMod@feddit.org
view the rest of the comments
Trump hardliners want a power shift in the EU with the help of European allies. and this is one example.
Translation:
There are increasing indications that the Trump movement is actively interfering with the political future of the European Union. In March, the most influential conservative think tank in Washington, the Heritage Foundation, invited conservative thinkers from Vienna and Budapest to present their plans for the EU during a workshop.
“It is right for the United States to be involved in the future of Europe,” Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation told Nieuwsuur. According to the prominent conservative thinker, Donald Trump is America's first eurosceptic president. “The United States has protected Europe for so long that European governments should respect America’s views.”
Polish and Hungarian think tanks published an ambitious plan in March to fundamentally reform and dismantle the EU from within. A Hungarian investigative journalist uncovered the project, titled The Great Reset. The proposal was quickly adopted by the Heritage Foundation, the intellectual force behind Project 2025, the ideological blueprint for Trump’s agenda.
Power Back to Nation States
The now-public roadmap includes proposals to strip power from the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. It also calls for renaming the EU to the “European Community of Nations.” Power, according to the document, should return to the individual nation states of Europe.
“These proposals essentially amount to the complete dismantling of the European Commission, which would be reduced to handling only trivial matters,” explains Szabolcs Panyi, the journalist who obtained the document.
Nieuwsuur also spoke with one of the Polish authors of the plan, Zbigniew Przybyłowski of the conservative Ordo Iuris Institute: “We are calling for the restoration of democracy, freedom, and the sovereignty of nations. You could call that a power shift.”
U.S. Government Statement on Europe
In May of this year, a policy document appeared on the website of the U.S. State Department. In it, the American government raised alarm about the current state of Europe. The policy piece described Europe as having “degenerated into a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, and restrictions on religious freedom.” It criticized efforts to limit election participation, for example by labeling Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as “extremist.”
The document, titled The Need for Civilizational Allies in Europe, called for strengthening ties with far-right and ultraconservative allies in Europe, such as French politician Marine Le Pen, AfD leader Alice Weidel, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and Dutch PVV leader Geert Wilders. It is unclear whether the U.S. policy statement was influenced by the Polish-Hungarian Great Reset project.
“There has already been collaboration between the MAGA movement (Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign) and the European far-right,” says Danish lobby researcher Kenneth Haar. “But seeing such a document appear on the U.S. government’s official website is remarkable.”
“The Pro-European Candidate is a Disaster”
Haar points to the Conservative Political Action Conferences (CPAC) from the U.S., which have been held in Europe for the past three years. “These are very large conferences with hundreds of participants and prominent speakers, involving all major far-right parties in Europe.”
This also occurred recently during a tight race between two Polish presidential candidates. At a special CPAC conference in Poland, Trump’s former Homeland Security Secretary publicly called for a vote in favor of the eurosceptic candidate Karol Nawrocki. She labeled his pro-European opponent “a disaster.” Members of the Trump camp also expressed explicit support this year for Germany’s far-right AfD.
“The Heritage Foundation and the entire MAGA alliance appear to be succeeding in uniting Europe’s far-right parties in a way those parties haven’t been able to achieve on their own,” Haar adds.
Nile Gardiner, Director of European Policy at the Heritage Foundation, sees signs of a shift already: “A wind of change is blowing through Europe, including the Netherlands. There’s growing distrust of the concentration of power among unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.”
Brussels Silent
The European Commission has yet to respond to the ambitions coming from Washington. But according to Hungarian journalist Panyi, Brussels should be paying close attention to the far-reaching American involvement in European politics.
“We see that two EU member states—Hungary and Poland—are trying to shape the future of the EU outside of official decision-making procedures. They are enlisting the help of the U.S. in the hope that Trump will put pressure on the European Commission. That’s a threat.”
Gardiner, on the other hand, sees it as an opportunity. “Europe works best when it is a collaboration between sovereign nation states. The EU, by contrast, is about concentrating political power in Brussels. In 20 to 30 years, the EU will look very different than it does today.”
Disclosure
For this report, Nieuwsuur investigated the plans of European and American think tanks regarding the political future of Europe. Nieuwsuur spoke with experts, MEPs, and journalists from France, the Netherlands, Czechia, Hungary, the UK, Germany, and Poland. We interviewed the following sources:
Szabolcs Panyi, Hungarian investigative journalist, who uncovered The Great Reset project.
Kenneth Haar, Danish researcher with the Corporate Europe Observatory, an independent organization tracking U.S. lobbying efforts in the EU.
Zbigniew Przybyłowski, one of the drafters of The Great Reset, from the Polish Ordo Iuris Institute (privately funded). The project was co-published with the Hungarian Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), which is largely state-funded by the Hungarian government.
Nile Gardiner, European Director of the Heritage Foundation, a major pillar of the Trump movement (financially independent). He also recently wrote about Trump’s euroscepticism.
The U.S. State Department declined to comment on Nieuwsuur's questions. The European Commission has not yet responded. Any future statements will be added here.
They should focus on their own political system... We like democracy, F*** off
Fuck you Donald! You are immigrants from Europe and therefore we are the Grandparents of your country.
Bitch.
FR !!!!!!!!!!! Amen brother
Why is this a comment on this post and not a post of its own? 🤔
There is a post of this... Somewhere.
When the fucking fascist and communist talk about protecting culture and traditions, I understand to a certain point, but those assholes always use those excuses to ignite violence. The 1930's and WW II are classic examples. F that shit and never again.
The communists? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I've not heard of that.
Would you say the EU is democratic? It's the one thing they got right, that the EU is undermining democracy. The European Commission are representatives of representatives. Van der Leyen was a backroom deal.
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what democracy is.
There is plenty of forms of democracy, and the appointment of the president of the European Commission is democratic.
It's a form of parliamentary democracy, where the European Council, a symbolic "head of state" of the EU made of heads of states/governments of EU members, nominates a candidate, which has to then be approved by the European Parliament.
This is a democratic system very close to what is adopted in many democratic countries.
So yes, this is democratic. There is no "backroom deal", this is just literally how a parliamentary democracy works. You elect representatives who make decisions for you, including appointing the executive.
Ah yes, is that why she also insisted in having a literal flat IN the commission's building, where she enjoy extraterritoriality and the belgian police cannot search there?
Very democratic lmao
I don't give a shit about Von der Leyen. I'm talking about the EU, not someone specific.
Do you remember that the parliament was supposed to select the candidate but they changed it back after everybody had voted? It was within the legal framework but against the spirit of democracy.
I actually don't, could you point me to sources so that I can read about it? Can't seem to find anything about it myself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Weber
Haven't found it mentioned on her page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen
Oh that! I thought you meant that when they decided of how the appointment should be done, they had a vote and ignored it.
I do see how that seems like it's a non-democratic move, but it's not. It is never up to the parliament to nominate the President of the Commission. The Parliament has a veto power, however. The Council nominates, "taking into account the result of the elections", a candidate. The Parliament then approves them or vetoes them.
Their is a lot of subtility to the "democraticness" of a system.
While systematically picking the leader of the biggest coalition may seem like the most obviously democratic choice... It is actually not always the case. Especially in the European Parliament, where majorities are rare. So, if the leader of the largest group (let's say, 30%) is impopular with the remaining 70%, who would all prefer another candidate, how is it democratic to go with the impopular candidate?
That's why the parliament has a right to veto. The Parliament voted with a majority to elect Von der Leyen, when they were all aware that Weber was the most likely candidate initially. That makes her election democratic.
Just because Weber was the likely candidate due to the election results does not mean the Parliament would have elected him in the end, and that is also a consideration when the Council nominates a candidate. As a matter of fact, he was indeed impopular with a lot of coalitions, and Von der Leyen reveived 60% of the votes, with an informal coalition supporting her that consisted of the majority of the Parliament.
There is a LOT of misinformation about how the EU works, all pushed by bad faith actors trying to undermine the EU because together we are a threat to their influence.
Bad actors like the DW?
https://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-ministry-illegally-wiped-phone-data-of-ursula-von-der-leyen/a-51764162
Do you remember that they put the focus on the candidates because from that election on they were supposed to be taken?
The point is not that the largest group has to be taken but that the parliament itself should choose the president. The current modus was acceptable when the EU had no power. Now the EU can create regulations that become law.
I disagree, I don't think it should be that way. And it doesn't make it any less democratic, what we have is literally how most parliamentary democracies work.
Can you name such a country please? I only know countries where the head of government is either elected directly or chosen by parliament.
The closest to the exact situation of the EU are Estonia, Germany, and Spain:
Then you've got different, close enough nomination/appointment systems:
Italy:
Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, the UK, Denmark, Portugal:
Sweden:
Then you have some countries close to what you would like:
Japan, Thailand, Ireland:
Source
Note that in the case of the EU, the President of the Commission plays the role of the head of government (aka, the equivalent of what most countries call Prime Minister), not head of state. As established in my previous comments, the head of state of the EU is the European Council.
This is exciting. Like foenkyfjutschah I didn't know. Thanks a lot for the detailed answer.
This makes the EU more acceptable but it also shows that Germany is less democratic than expected.
It's a tradeoff. It's still democratic, as the parliament can in all these instances reject a candidate, while bringing stability by not having endless debates in a potentially fractured parliament on who should be nominated.
Because the head of state doesn't pick someone randomly, they pick a candidate that will have the approval of the Parliament. So there is still talks, agreements, compromises with parties of the Parliament, so that the nominated candidate is a candidate that would have likely come out of weeks/months of debates and votes.
The vote that follows the nomination is a safeguard, to prevent a shitty stuborn head of state from imposing their government.
So the tradeoff is, slightly less democracy (no debate), faster government appointment (which is desirable for the good of everyone), while keeping a democratic safeguard. And it works, that's why failing votes following the nominations are extremely rare.
it's actually quiet different in Germany: the parliament elects the chancellor, which would be the equivalent to a prime minister.
what you proclaim in your post though once ended up very miserable for a lot of the world.
guten abend!
It's actually not. Yes, the Chancellor is elected by the Parliament, but after nomination by the President, your head of state.
Per the German wikipedia article on the Chancellor of Germany:
And per your Basic Law, Article 63:
The election of the Chancellor in Germany is just like the election of the President of the European Commission: There is one candidate, either they are voted in, or they are not. If the parliament disagrees with the nominated candidate, then they must elect one themselves, yes. But it has never happened since 1949, and the only close call was Merz.
You can actually have a look yourself at the list of chancellor elections, and you'll see that it's always been a Yes/No vote on the nominated candidate, just like for the Presidence of the European Commission.
And this Basic Law was ratified after the miserable passage of history you mention.
Do you know Von Der Leyen is working on a new independent satellite system Eutelstat en IRIS to replace starlink and help ukraine? It was her proposal. Ursula von der Leyen doing a lot of great things for Europe make no mistake. I honestly don't care about her pfizer gate, because thats how negotiations work in politics. It cant be all transparant because why show all your cards on first hand... Thats not how that business works. I think she handled it well. She's also working to make Europe less dependent on oil and gas, but to rely more on green energy sources. Plus we have multiple parties representing different groups in the EU. Instead of having only 2 or 4 like in the US. Plus we investing in science and universities, climate, or own independent software and satellites... So yes we doing good under Von Der Leyen imo.
Plus she is a woman on the top, which is such a good example for little girls to see how far they can go in life which I am here for.
Ah yes we were wrong all along. Corruption is actually good when a woman does it.
If you argue like that then we only need a king because there were kings who did great for their country.
It's a great mistake to ignore the lack of democracy just because the wrong people point it out.
You need an argument for why the commission is still democratic, not just a list of benefits, no matter how good. Otherwise you confirm that it is not democratic.
@plyth@feddit.org
What would be a democratic role model for Europe? How would you improve Europe's democratic system?
Totale Rückverdummung
With just having read the summary, I would be happy with the limited role that the Heritage foundation suggests.
The Europe of regions sounds also interesting.
I think we need a debate that is expected to last years to come up with a good system. There are reasons for the current structure that are still valid. We can keep going for a while, but we should keep in mind that the influence of the public was minimized.
A quick improvement could come from adopting the fediverse for the EU. It should be easy for citizens to participate in debates.
This is exactly what right-wingers in Europe (and China and Russia) are aiming at. This is backward-oriented and has nothing to do with democracy.
Why would a scaleback to national states not be democratic? They were democratic in the past.
Too susceptible to outside influence. These would be American/Russian/corporate puppet states.
America supposedly has become a Russian puppet state. Size is helpful but not essential. If people give up democratic power they will be ruled by whomever controls the European Commission. Having informed voters is much more important than size.
There are a lot of reasons, but as you refer to the Heritage Foundation as an institution to develop democracy, I'm afraid you either wouldn't understand or you are arguing in bad faith.
I didn't. I was talking about their suggestion. I hope you are not arguing in bad faith.
@plyth@feddit.org
Read your own comment. You literally wrote:
You're are happy with the MAGA playbook.
In short, exactly because - as you say yourself -it is a 'scaleback' and a 'limited role.'
We need to go forward as a larger EU would also be stronger as single national states.
You are apparently arguing in bad faith. Such a debate is,waste of time.
Can you distinguish between a message and a messenger? Of course they have further, dangerous plans. But the suggestion at first sounds good, which is to be expected. From the article:
The arguments:
Those are two things, power and democracy.
You are willing to get more power while not caring about democracy. If the EU moves forward as is, there will be less democracy.
It could even be false flag. What if the Heritage Foundation wants that concentration of power?
Why do we need it? The EU started as a project for a free market. Even if we need a strong military we can do that without all the other concentration of power.