395
German AfD moves to expel young politician who fought Russians in Ukraine (euromaidanpress.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/europe@feddit.org
110 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A 22-year-old German politician who secretly served in Ukraine’s army now faces expulsion from the pro-Russian Alternative for Germany party after calling his own leadership “Russia-kissers.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -29 points 1 year ago (31 children)

We like democracy, F*** off

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

    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 girls growing up to see how far they can go in life which I am here for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    @plyth@feddit.org

    What would be a democratic role model for Europe? How would you improve Europe's democratic system?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Why would a scaleback to national states not be democratic? They were democratic in the past.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    you refer to the Heritage Foundation as an institution to develop democracy

    I didn't. I was talking about their suggestion. I hope you are not arguing in bad faith.

    Why would a scaleback to national states not be democratic?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    @plyth@feddit.org

    Read your own comment. You literally wrote:

    I would be happy with the limited role that the Heritage foundation suggests.

    You're are happy with the MAGA playbook.

    Why would a scaleback to national states not be democratic?

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    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 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.”

    The arguments:

    Why would a scaleback to national states not be democratic?

    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.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Too susceptible to outside influence. These would be American/Russian/corporate puppet states.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (16 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    In September 2018, Weber announced his candidacy (Spitzenkandidat) for the post of the President of the European Commission for the 2019 European election.[13] (Under the unofficial Spitzenkandidat system, the leader of the European party that commands the largest coalition in the European Parliament subsequent to an election to the European Parliament is likely to become the European Commission president.[5][6])

    Weber's European People's Party won a plurality of seats in the European Parliament in May 2019, thus making him the lead candidate to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission unless the Spitzenkandidat system was abandoned.[5] On 28 May, leaders of EU governments tasked European Council President Donald Tusk with leading the negotiations with members of the European Parliament and national leaders to pick a new European Commission President at an EU summit in late June 2019.[7] Tusk hinted that Weber was the "lead candidate."[7] This did not materialise with Ursula von der Leyen, a fellow member of the European People's Party, being appointed president.

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Can you name such a country please? I only know countries where the head of government is either elected directly or chosen by parliament.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The closest to the exact situation of the EU are Estonia, Germany, and Spain:

    The head of state nominates a candidate for prime minister who is then submitted to parliament for approval before appointment.

    Then you've got different, close enough nomination/appointment systems:

    Italy:

    The head of state appoints a prime minister who must gain a vote of confidence within a set time.

    Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, the UK, Denmark, Portugal:

    The head of state appoints a prime minister who will likely have majority support in parliament

    Sweden:

    A public officeholder (other than the head of state or their representative) nominates a candidate, who, if approved by parliament, is appointed as prime minister.

    Then you have some countries close to what you would like:

    Japan, Thailand, Ireland:

    Parliament nominates a candidate whom the head of state is constitutionally obliged to appoint as prime minister.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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:

    Der Bundeskanzler wird auf Vorschlag des Bundespräsidenten vom Bundestag gewählt, anschließend vom Bundespräsidenten ernannt und durch den Bundestagspräsidenten vereidigt.

    And per your Basic Law, Article 63:

    • (1) Der Bundeskanzler wird auf Vorschlag des Bundespräsidenten vom Bundestage ohne Aussprache gewählt.
    • (2) Gewählt ist, wer die Stimmen der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages auf sich vereinigt. Der Gewählte ist vom Bundespräsidenten zu ernennen.
    • (3) Wird der Vorgeschlagene nicht gewählt, so kann der Bundestag binnen vierzehn Tagen nach dem Wahlgange mit mehr als der Hälfte seiner Mitglieder einen Bundeskanzler wählen.

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent