The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by JezWeCan!
x


Cant check how reliable this source is, seeing as I cant access it.
Original post by JezWeCan!
Ultimately, a country can be stripped of voting rights in the EU or have funding blocked.


But have you read who decides this? It isn't the Commission.

"The European Council [ie Heads of Government], acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2... Where a determination .. has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council."

That's a hell of a lot of checks and balances

(nb. there seems to be a drafting error in that unanimity seems to include the country complained about)

In a test run for the new EU constitutional powers, the commission has issued unprecedented orders to Poland, instructing the newly elected right-wing government to bow to Polish judges who have struck down laws passed by the parliament.


But that is what the Rule of Law means; that the Polish government must comply with the Polish Constitution.

What this discussion shows is the extent to which the Brexit debates becomes a forum for the extreme right. I want Cameron to have the right on our behalf not to have to play footsie with fascists and dictators and that is what this power gives.
Not that I care for the far right in any way, but it's funny hearing about the head of an unelected bureaucratic oligarchy talking big about fascism without an iota of irony or self-awareness.

It's tragic that these far right governments have more of a democratic mandate than Juncker and the Commission.
Original post by Craig1998
Cant check how reliable this source is, seeing as I cant access it.


It is all over the web if you want to check its veracity.

Just saying you disbelieve something with obvious provenance adds nothing to this conversation.
Original post by nulli tertius
But have you read who decides this? It isn't the Commission.

"The European Council [ie Heads of Government], acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2... Where a determination .. has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council."

That's a hell of a lot of checks and balances

(nb. there seems to be a drafting error in that unanimity seems to include the country complained about)



But that is what the Rule of Law means; that the Polish government must comply with the Polish Constitution.

What this discussion shows is the extent to which the Brexit debates becomes a forum for the extreme right. I want Cameron to have the right on our behalf not to have to play footsie with fascists and dictators and that is what this power gives.



Let's unpick what Juncker, the President of the European Commission actually said, before the people of Austria went to the polls.

He said that he hoped that the Green candidate, Van der Bellen would win, (and therefore, obviously that the Freedom Party candidate Hofer would lose) and that he could have "no debate or dialogue with the far right."

I put it to you that this was an attempt to influence that election. And will have been perceived as such in Austria. Jean Claude wasn't just offering his personal political preference as a prosperous Luxembourger, chatting to his mates in the global media in a private capacity.

He was speaking as Commission President, ex cathedra.

Maybe you don't accept that premise. If so, fine, we have nothing to discuss. But assuming you do, let me ask you a few questions, since you still seem pretty sanguine about all of this:

1. Is it appropriate for a President of the Commission to interfere in the domestic elections of member countries? Is that the sort of European Union you want? Will it be a growing trend if we remain?

2. Who elected Juncker himself to his post? Note I do not say "appointed", but elected by direct democratic mandate? How can this electorate throw him out?
Can we in Britain do so? If so how? (As I recall our democratically elected PM didn't want him in the first place but wasn't able to prevent it?)

3. On the assumption that the rise of the "Far Right" is in part a reaction to a perceived elite, regarded as out of touch and unelected (an assumption you may not share, but I predicate) do you think such an attempted intervention will have a positive or deleterious effect?

4. Would you be comfortable if the European Union (having gone through all its checks and balances, ya de ya) suspended some of the UK's Treaty Rights, if the British people elected a Government of which it did not approve?
Original post by JezWeCan!
Let's unpick what Juncker, the President of the European Commission actually said, before the people of Austria went to the polls.

He said that he hoped that the Green candidate, Van der Bellen would win, (and therefore, obviously that the Freedom Party candidate Hofer would lose) and that he could have "no debate or dialogue with the far right."

I put it to you that this was an attempt to influence that election. And will have been perceived as such in Austria. Jean Claude wasn't just offering his personal political preference as a prosperous Luxembourger, chatting to his mates in the global media in a private capacity.

He was speaking as Commission President, ex cathedra.

Maybe you don't accept that premise. If so, fine, we have nothing to discuss.


I do accept the premise and if it had been Roy Jenkins in the 1970s it may have carried weight but Juncker's position has been downgraded by the creation of numerous competing EU authorities. Juncker may have no truck with the far right but what about Tusk or Mogherini or Schultz or Stanishev? Or was he really articulating the view of the Council?



But assuming you do, let me ask you a few questions, since you still seem pretty sanguine about all of this:

1. Is it appropriate for a President of the Commission to interfere in the domestic elections of member countries? Is that the sort of European Union you want? Will it be a growing trend if we remain?


I feel uneasy about this but noticeably Prime Ministers have not slapped him down.

2. Who elected Juncker himself to his post? Note I do not say "appointed", but elected by direct democratic mandate? How can this electorate throw him out?
Can we in Britain do so? If so how? (As I recall our democratically elected PM didn't want him in the first place but wasn't able to prevent it?)


That is a poor point. Tell me about the direct democratic mandate of Callaghan and Brown. British PM's have an indirect mandate and Juncker was approved by the EU Parliament and can be removed by it.

3. On the assumption that the rise of the "Far Right" is in part a reaction to a perceived elite, regarded as out of touch and unelected (an assumption you may not share, but I predicate) do you think such an attempted intervention will have a positive or deleterious effect?


I don't know. The substantial majority in Europe who are very pro-EU and demonstrated that at the last EU election may well be cheering Juncker's comments to the rafters.

4. Would you be comfortable if the European Union (having gone through all its checks and balances, ya de ya) suspended some of the UK's Treaty Rights, if the British people elected a Government of which it did not approve?


Probably yes, because the sort of government we would be talking about would be building gas chambers in Hyde Park. Remember this isn't about getting the approval of a power crazed bureaucrat, this is about persuading the heads of governments of countries like us, that the British government was barking. Almost certainly, Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be trying simultaneously to have our Commonwealth membership suspended.
Original post by nulli tertius







That is a poor point. Tell me about the direct democratic mandate of Callaghan and Brown. British PM's have an indirect mandate and Juncker was approved by the EU Parliament and can be removed by it.

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 bastards 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?
Original post by nulli tertius

I don't know. The substantial majority in Europe who are very pro-EU and demonstrated that at the last EU election may well be cheering Juncker's comments to the rafters.

Do you really think that the "substantial majority" in Europe are cheering Juncker to the rafters for this attempt to meddle?? Seriously?
Original post by nulli tertius

Probably yes, because the sort of government we would be talking about would be building gas chambers in Hyde Park. Remember this isn't about getting the approval of a power crazed bureaucrat, this is about persuading the heads of governments of countries like us, that the British government was barking. Almost certainly, Canada, New Zealand and Australia would be trying simultaneously to have our Commonwealth membership suspended.

I suppose it is possible that had there been a victory for Hofer on Sunday the Austrian Government would be scouring the world for new sources of Zyklon B as I write this. But it seems unlikely.

Whatever. The key point is that we don't need Jean Claude Juncker and the Eurocrats to keep us on the straight and narrow, away from fascism. We the British people are quite capable of that.

Why do you, on your side of the argument have such a problem with the British people deciding what should happen in our own country?

I get that the Eurocracy doesn't trust us to take decisions, thinks it knows best, but why don't you as an Englishman? (I guess)
This is pure disgusting. and honestly is more like what Hitler did banning commies and eventually all other parties.

Shame on the EU
Good.
Original post by ivybridge
Good.


"Democracy is bad when it gives results I don't like"

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by JezWeCan!
It is all over the web if you want to check its veracity.


Where? Yahoo (with one quote) and Breitbart are the only accessible sources. Where else is it such that it's "all over the web"?

Original post by JezWeCan!
Just saying you disbelieve something with obvious provenance adds nothing to this conversation.


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?
Original post by Jammy Duel
"Democracy is bad when it gives results I don't like"

Posted from TSR Mobile


indeed. No one should be blocked from power because of beliefs they hold. If they receive enough votes, they should be allowed to rule. The people, not organisations like the EU, know what is best.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ivybridge
Good.


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.
Original post by nulli tertius
Probably yes, because the sort of government we would be talking about would be building gas chambers in Hyde Park.


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.
(edited 7 years ago)
Isn't this a textbook definition of ideological bigotry
Original post by ivybridge
Good.


Fascist.
Don't complain about how the left apparently "categorises" the right wing then do the same yourself with the left wing and say that all leftists want to take away such freedoms. I firmly believe that free speech is important and I'm pretty left.
Original post by KimKallstrom
Fascist.


"A person who is very right-wing."

The irony.
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?
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.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending