Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

EU Vows To Use New Powers To Block All Elected ‘Far Right’ Populists From Power Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    Where? Yahoo (with one quote) and Breitbart are the only accessible sources. Where else is it such that it's "all over the web"?



    I'm trying to suggest that people shouldn't just accept news because it fits into their political views, in this case leaving the EU, which is exactly what Breitbart (and the Daily Mail) do. What is a debate without two sides?
    If you can only find one source for the Juncker interference in the Austrian election speech on the whole web, then clearly you have a bit of a problem, I agree. Maybe ask someone who can do basic searches on Google to help you out?

    Your bolded comment is highly ironic because it is a product of your OWN political views. You disagree (it is pretty obvious) with the editorial stance of Beitbart and the Daily Mail and therefore seek to dismiss anything they report, out of hand. To close down debate..

    That is ridiculous, A speech is a speech, either it was correctly reported or not. The vehicle in which it arrives is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if the Juncker speech was published in the Islamic State's propaganda magazine. It is what he says that matters not WHERE the speech is reported.

    That is why it adds nothing to the debate.

    Nulli and I have been having an interesting discussion (I have found it so at least, he is clearly a very bright and well informed chap) ABOUT that speech and its ramifications.

    Join it is you wish, be my guest. What do you think?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    If you can only find one source for the Juncker interference in the Austrian election speech on the whole web, then clearly you have a bit of a problem, I agree. Maybe ask someone who can do basic searches on Google to help you out?
    If you could maybe suggest ONE source to me (other than the Yahoo previously discussed) that actively says that the EU is using powers to block the far right from power then I will admit that I have a problem. But as I asked for a source and you didn't provide me with one, I think your reading ability may be a much greater problem. The articles that primarily come up when I google his name are to do with Brexit, Boris Johnson etc.

    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Your bolded comment is highly ironic because it is a product of your OWN political views. You disagree (it is pretty obvious) with the editorial stance of Beitbart and the Daily Mail and therefore seek to dismiss anything they report, out of hand. To close down debate..
    I will assume anything that Breitbart writes is fake until it is proven by other sources, there is nothing proving that this 'news' is correct, hence I believe it is fake. I disagree with the stance of Breitbart, correct, which is why I'll happily search for other sources (which I haven't found) until I will believe something they have written.

    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    That is ridiculous, A speech is a speech, either it was correctly reported or not. The vehicle in which it arrives is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if the Juncker speech was published in the Islamic State's propaganda magazine. It is what he says that matters not WHERE the speech is reported.

    That is why it adds nothing to the debate.

    Nulli and I have been having an interesting discussion (I have found it so at least, he is clearly a very bright and well informed chap) ABOUT that speech and its ramifications.

    Join it is you wish, be my guest. What do you think?
    The point of me posting on this thread in the first place is because I believe that the story lacks source and is just used to persuade people to leave the EU (something I lack care about since I cant really vote in it). This just pushes people who are "right-wing" into voting against someone who is "left-wing" (like Juncker), which is just poor as any news about the EU referendum should be factual, not made up.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)

    The point of me posting on this thread in the first place is because I believe that the story lacks source and is just used to persuade people to leave the EU (something I lack care about since I cant really vote in it). This just pushes people who are "right-wing" into voting against someone who is "left-wing" (like Juncker), which is just poor as any news about the EU referendum should be factual, not made up.
    Sigh.

    The now notorious comments were made in an interview with Le Monde published on Friday. Just before the Austrian election, remember, the timing was not a coincidence. This was a calculated attempt by the EU Commission President to influence a democratic election of a member state.

    http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article...2934_3214.html

    Perhaps you can't read French? When I searched on Google News just now I got 2,760 references to it in English.

    As for Juncker being "left wing"... :rofl:

    Are you for real?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Sigh.

    The now notorious comments were made in an interview with Le Monde published on Friday. Just before the Austrian election, remember, the timing was not a coincidence. This was a calculated attempt by the EU Commission President to influence a democratic election of a member state.

    http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article...2934_3214.html

    Perhaps you can't read French? When I searched on Google News just now I got 2,760 references to it in English.

    As for Juncker being "left wing"... :rofl:

    Are you for real?
    I'm not going to respond to your comments anymore, since after the 2nd time of asking you haven't linked to a source saying the EU is going to do what this man has said they will do.

    I don't speak French, I placed the article in Google translate (not the best but it'll give me the grasp of what it says), and there isn't a link to the EU using a "power" like this. One line that sticks out is "I'm not tempted to give in to these primary reflexes. I'll mess me not to do that." (obviously not grammatically correct), which suggests he does not want to change anything, like the Breitbart source recommends.

    I'll also mention that I know Le monde is a respectable newspaper, and, as this is reported as an interview, I believe it to be much more reliable than a source which bases it's reporting off of what he has said regarding the Austrian election.

    Goodbye.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    That is absurd hyperbole. Juncker's comments were addressed specifically to the possibility of the Austrian Freedom Party winning the presidency of that country.

    The platform of the Austrian Freedom Party on stopping the access of asylum seekers to the country stops short not just of gas chambers but of this country's current policy.

    In fact I see little reason why Juncker is not calling for Britain's treaty rights to be suspended on grounds that our government's opposition to joining Schengen makes it an enemy of peace, justice, and furry animals everywhere. Other than that he wouldn't get away with it, whereas Austria is small enough to be bullied. Hofner's views simply do not differ significantly from Cameron's on these issues.
    No it isn't hyperbole.

    No UK government would have its voting rights suspended by the Council (not Juncker who doesn't have the power either unilaterally or with the support of the rest of the Commission) unless it did something outside all rational possibility.

    All Juncker has done is hand out a verbal kicking to a party that has fascist tendencies in an effort to influence an election in a country that has a tradition of dalliance with the far right.

    Te reason Juncker hasn't called for action against the UK in relation to Schengen is because he knows there is absolutely no change of delivering it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    It is not a poor point, it is THE point.

    British democracy may be imperfect, but we still have an elected parliament which
    represents the sovereign will of the people. We can argue about ways to improve it, fair enough, but it represents a "demos." The people of the United Kingdom. And we can decide to eject that Parliament through an election.

    "Kick the *******s out."

    You can't do that in the European Union, there is a democratic deficit. I suspect you accept this, in the deep still watches of the night, but can't publicly admit it.

    But if not, let me ask you another question. Where is Europe's demos?
    You argument is not an argument against being a member of the EU; it is an argument against membership of any social organisation.

    If I or we or the UK will only be a member of an organisation where I or we or the UK gets to do whatever I or we or the UK want.

    No golf club could be organised on that basis, let alone an international organisation.

    The people of the UK can't kick out the Commission but the peoples of all (or the appropriate majority) of the member states of the EU can do so.

    If you will only engage in social activity on the basis that you get your own way, then you had better go back to a cave and wait for extinction.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No it isn't hyperbole.
    You suggested that the FPÖ intended to carry out a second Holocaust, a claim you would never make for the Conservative Party, which advocates a harder line on this issue than the FPÖ. You do not believe that the FPÖ would carry out a second Holocaust.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    You suggested that the FPÖ intended to carry out a second Holocaust, a claim you would never make for the Conservative Party, which advocates a harder line on this issue than the FPÖ. You do not believe that the FPÖ would carry out a second Holocaust.
    No I didn't.

    I said that the UK would only be suspended from its EU voting rights if a UK government was planning something as extreme as a second holocaust.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Wrong, the right is split into two groups. You have the secular right and the religious right. The religious right are the stereotype, the secular right are what the left likes to believe it is. The secular right are the overwhelming majority and want to protect things like freedom of speech. The left wants to take away such freedoms.

    The secular right are people like UKIP, though the leftists have made them look like religious extremists. BNP are just over the border with the religious right and Britain first is firmly religious right.
    You're becoming one of my favourite people on TSR (it changes quite often over time, so you won't be on it forever.)

    I initially didn't like you, nor did I like some of your values (still don't), but despite that your posts have shown me you're otherwise quite a principled independent-thinker type of person.

    (Original post by ivybridge)
    Good.
    I don't like to be blunt here, but

    are you nuts!?!?

    Has Juncker even clarified what constituted "far right"?
    That can be manipulated to ban plenty of things, so much, even if it's not strictly far right at all!
    There's also the matter of just socially right or economically right (though I'm not experienced debating economics.)
    Also, the country about which is spoken is democratic, which is a lot more than I can say about the EU at the moment.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    "Democracy is bad when it gives results I don't like"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're also a person who is becoming a favourite of mine on TSR.
    (I don't deal these out often; I'm just making the acknowledgements.)

    You have experienced well-reasoned and principled politics which is refreshing.

    By the way, you're becoming one of my favourite people on TSR.

    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Can I ask why it is good? Surely people should not be blocked from gaining power through elections just because they hold far-right views? If there is enough support for them to win an election, the wish of the voters should be respected and they should be given power. Banning anyone from standing for an elected position due to their views is incredibly undemocratic and discriminatory.
    Sorry, but why do you advocate "in" via your avatar then?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You argument is not an argument against being a member of the EU; it is an argument against membership of any social organisation.
    My "argument" is that the EU itself should not exist in its current form. If it were simply an organisation to facilitate free trade, that would be fine. But it isn't and that option isn't on offer. Clearly since I hold that position I do not wish my country to be part of it. And I don't.

    The European Union has been a failure. A complete, utter failure.

    The introduction of the Euro was a catastrophe which has never been admitted to let alone apologised for by the discredited European elite who rule us. (What were we saying, again, about the lack of democratic accountability, the non existence of a demos?)

    In a polity that had democratic oversight a disaster on such a monumental scale would have led to heads rolling, and the adoption of a course to correct the error.

    But not in the dysfunctional, arrogant, yet incompetent world of the "European Project." Greece is left to swing in the wind. Unable (or afraid) to leave its paymasters. Its economy unable to bear the burden of debt its membership of the Euro piled up.

    The decision to introduce a currency union without a concomitant political union was insane.

    If the European "ideal" was anything other than posturing brollocks, if the Germans were really "good Europeans" the debt would be forgiven, with the German taxpayer taking the hit. But no, the Greeks have to suffer, with unemployment at breathtaking levels, and the only chance of decent life for many people emigration. Years of economic stagnation and constrained public spending await that poor country.

    For what? Is Greece supposed to carry on like this, are the Greek people supposed to suffer like this forever?

    As for the unforgivable incompetence of the EU in dealing with the migrant crisis, don't get me started.

    ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .

    OK, you will say, the EU as currently extant has its faults, that is undeniable. But that means we must stay and help to reform it.

    Could you please tell me what that reform would look like? If we vote remain, what are we voting for? What will the European Union do to get better?

    Is this the plan?

    https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/publ...etary-union_en

    With the UK becoming a sort of North Dakota?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XcitingStuart)
    You're also a person who is becoming a favourite of mine on TSR.
    (I don't deal these out often; I'm just making the acknowledgements.)

    You have experienced well-reasoned and principled politics which is refreshing.

    By the way, you're becoming one of my favourite people on TSR.



    Sorry, but why do you advocate "in" via your avatar then?
    I think staying in the EU will be better for the financial services industry in London.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You argument is not an argument against being a member of the EU; it is an argument against membership of any social organisation.

    If I or we or the UK will only be a member of an organisation where I or we or the UK gets to do whatever I or we or the UK want.

    No golf club could be organised on that basis, let alone an international organisation.

    The people of the UK can't kick out the Commission but the peoples of all (or the appropriate majority) of the member states of the EU can do so.

    If you will only engage in social activity on the basis that you get your own way, then you had better go back to a cave and wait for extinction.
    False comparison.
    The scales are way different between the UK and Europe and you know it's disingenuous to claim the two are the same.
    Something could affect 100% of the population of the UK, and have 100% of the population of the UK disliking it, and the UK couldn't do anything about it inside the EU.
    With the UK, those affected and unable to change things are in a much much much smaller proportion.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    False comparison.
    The scales are way different between the UK and Europe and you know it's disingenuous to claim the two are the same.
    Something could affect 100% of the population of the UK, and have 100% of the population of the UK disliking it, and the UK couldn't do anything about it inside the EU.
    With the UK, those affected and unable to change things are in a much much much smaller proportion.
    Something could affect the population of Port Talbot and have 100% of the population of Port Talbot disliking it and Port Talbot couldn't do anything about it inside the UK.

    Something could affect the directors and shareholders of Glasgow Rangers and have 100% of the supporters of Glasgow Rangers disliking it, but Glasgow Rangers couldn't do anything about it inside the Scottish Football Association.

    The point I made was not a false comparison. It isn't that uncommon for a cohesive group of people to be resolutely and near unanimously opposed to something that a wider group of people of which the first group are part, support.

    The UK's population is about 13% of the whole EU population. Whilst I accept that the population of Port Talbot (who have a different view to the majority of the country over the steel industry) is much less than 13% of the UK population, I suspect more than 13% of Scottish football fans support Rangers yet Rangers were relegated 3 divisions for their financial dealings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Something could affect the population of Port Talbot and have 100% of the population of Port Talbot disliking it and Port Talbot couldn't do anything about it inside the UK.

    Something could affect the directors and shareholders of Glasgow Rangers and have 100% of the supporters of Glasgow Rangers disliking it, but Glasgow Rangers couldn't do anything about it inside the Scottish Football Association.

    The point I made was not a false comparison. It isn't that uncommon for a cohesive group of people to be resolutely and near unanimously opposed to something that a wider group of people of which the first group are part, support.

    The UK's population is about 13% of the whole EU population. Whilst I accept that the population of Port Talbot (who have a different view to the majority of the country over the steel industry) is much less than 13% of the UK population, I suspect more than 13% of Scottish football fans support Rangers yet Rangers were relegated 3 divisions for their financial dealings.
    Right, and the population of Port Talbot is?
    It's much less than 60 million, isn't it?

    Also petty football stuff isn't really relevant at all here.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Right, and the population of Port Talbot is?
    It's much less than 60 million, isn't it?

    Also petty football stuff isn't really relevant at all here.
    The original point I made was that JezWeCan's argument wasn't an argument against EU membership but was an argument against any human social grouping at all. It amounted to saying that I, we or the UK should not be a member of anything unless I, we or the UK respectively always got its own way.

    So the point I make is relevant to cavemen banding together to hunt a mammoth, a football club, the Women's Institute, the CBI, the EU or the United Nations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The original point I made was that JezWeCan's argument wasn't an argument against EU membership but was an argument against any human social grouping at all. It amounted to saying that I, we or the UK should not be a member of anything unless I, we or the UK respectively always got its own way.

    So the point I make is relevant to cavemen banding together to hunt a mammoth, a football club, the Women's Institute, the CBI, the EU or the United Nations.
    You're reaching the reason we don't want to remain in the EU yourself.

    Cavemen hunting mammoth? Group working towards a combined goal with shared profits. Same goes for the WI, UN and most business ventures.

    The EU is a failed group. We've been invited into a night club, and it was great at first, but now we have to pay for everyone's rounds and we don't get a say in what banger the DJ's putting on next.

    And a group of random people who we've never met tell us how we're supposed to dance to the song we didnt choose.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    You're reaching the reason we don't want to remain in the EU yourself.

    Cavemen hunting mammoth? Group working towards a combined goal with shared profits. Same goes for the WI, UN and most business ventures.

    The EU is a failed group. We've been invited into a night club, and it was great at first, but now we have to pay for everyone's rounds and we don't get a say in what banger the DJ's putting on next.

    And a group of random people who we've never met tell us how we're supposed to dance to the song we didnt choose.
    You are making a different, and less fundamental, argument than JezWeCan. He doesn't really care about whether the EU makes what he regards as the right or wrong decision.

    In the terms of your analogy, he doesn't think nightclubs should exist unless the DJ is obliged to play what he wants (and sod the other people in the club). You seem to be content to let the DJ choose but will walk out if you don't like his choice.

    However the club is the only place of entertainment and alcohol in town. if you leave, it is only to go back to a miserable existence in a bedsit. You might try and convince me (a) that the bedsit is a Georgian mansion (b) very shortly there will be lots of other entertainment and even perhaps (c) the club will shortly go bust, but I don't believe you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You are making a different, and less fundamental, argument than JezWeCan. He doesn't really care about whether the EU makes what he regards as the right or wrong decision.

    In the terms of your analogy, he doesn't think nightclubs should exist unless the DJ is obliged to play what he wants (and sod the other people in the club). You seem to be content to let the DJ choose but will walk out if you don't like his choice.

    However the club is the only place of entertainment and alcohol in town. if you leave, it is only to go back to a miserable existence in a bedsit. You might try and convince me (a) that the bedsit is a Georgian mansion (b) very shortly there will be lots of other entertainment and even perhaps (c) the club will shortly go bust, but I don't believe you.
    It's just one club in one building. There's a handful of affiliated clubs in the immediate vicinity, and a whole world full of clubs elsewhere.

    Europe is a tiny continent.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    It's just one club in one building. There's a handful of affiliated clubs in the immediate vicinity, and a whole world full of clubs elsewhere.
    Actually their aren't. There is a literary society and a stamp collectors club and there are a couple of music making societies that won't let you join but whose music you can hear from your bedsit. You can of course hear the music from the club in your bedsit.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 2, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.