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 When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title.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), 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
The same can be said the other way round and is already the case. With the current veto power Hungary acts as a Russian proxy and blocks as many important desicions as possible.
I agree that it doesn't help the corruption issues we already have and I think a simple majority shouldn't be enough. But removing the veto power in favor of a supermajority of like 85-90% would make it feasible to stop dickheads like Orban without compromising too much. (Let's face it, if you bought 90% of the EU, the last 10% shouldn't be that big of an issue either).
The decisions are only important because some want to turn the EU into a country whereas the EU could keep going without the need for further decisions. All other countries could have ignored Hungary and do whatever they wanted since they are souvereign countries. There was no need to act as the EU.
Or they are and that's why we are going to change the rules.
The EU started as an American project.
Did the EU become independent or was de Gaulle wrong?
No, the decisions are important because this way you present EU as an unified block and it has way more bargaining power that every single state. Look at what happened with Brexit
Then there is no need for EU, if every country can go for itself.
The EU started because after WWII people in Europe decided that maybe, just maybe, to have a war that destroy the continent every 40 years is not a good idea, after all.
What happened that shows that the EU countries outside the EU structure don't have their united power if they choose to act together?
The opposite. There is no need for the EU if all countries just work together.
Please read the paragraph of the Wikipedia article around my quote.
In the case of Brexit nothing, there were (is) UK on one side that thought they can impose their conditions to EU. We all know how it ended.
BUT if every EU country had dealt with UK as single state, even if working with other countries, the result would have been very different.
So the point is ?
I don't understand what you are thinking, if every country go for itself there is no need for EU but if there is EU is useless because every country can go for itself and just work with the others...
The Élysée Treaty was signed after the founding of the first "release" of EU, which was CEE, and was formalized in 1957, 6 years before the Élysée Treaty. And in the Élysée Treaty US or any other country or organization and the US president was not happy about it for example.
Most likely, but they could have created a way to fully copperate.
The countries don't need the political structure of the EU. They could cooperate in other ways. Going for itself doesn't require to act in the most selfish way.
That's a strong argument. There is the desire within Europe to live peacefully together. Unfortunately it doesn't guarantee that the US haven't taken over the EU.
Some words are missing.
So they should have something like EU without having something like EU.
True, but a political structure like EU solves a lot of problems when you think about cooperating: without EU every cooperation agreement would be a bilateral agreement between two states, and every pair could (and would) be different.
I am old enough to remember how it was to do business before the current EU, not to talk about travelling.
You are right, sorry.
I was saying that in the Élysée Treaty, the US, NATO or any other country or organization were never mentioned and the US president at the time (Kennedy) was not happy about it.
Yes. We started with Hungary blocking the EU. The countries could just have continued their EU behaviour outside of the EU.
It does. Which makes blocking the EU inconvenient but it doesn't block the countries.
The question is why? Did he just want the best for Europe and Nato or was the US losing too much influence?
Which is why the unanimity rule is obsolete in my opinion. When EU was smaller, it made sense, now not anymore since there is no way that every decision is good for everyone.
Even a single state that had the unanimity rule would be problematic: no decision could be made since nothing will be good for everyone. Same for EU, if we must decide on something and it need to be good for everyone there are 2 cases: 1) your result would be useless since it would be watered down in many ways or 2) you don't decide.
They did, but they did not used the weight of EU, which is bigger than the sum of the single states.
Again, it is true, you are not blocking the countries. But they have not the same weight of EU.
Obviously because they lost influence.
If you had not noted it, after the Brexit charade (which, btw, demostrate why it is important that EU work as a single entity) EU started to move faster (not always in the correct direction in my opinion) exactly because the United States' Trojan horse in the EU, the UK, was out of the decision process and cannot block things anymore.
In a good faith situation, people make compromises. The EU is first of all a trade union. If it is maliciously blocked, just wait it out.
To protect against bad faith actors, only the rule has to be changed that one other complice country can block a voting power reduction. That should be part of the discussion.
If the US does control the EU, and China and Russia know whatever it is, then it is smaller.
Germany is also a Trojan horse, and I have read comments about other countries, too.
I don't know the inner workings, I can't even say anything about the speedup, but the UK preferred free markets whereas France prefers state companies. That must have been an endless source for conflicts. I wouldn't ascribe the entire slowdown to US influence.
I think the Hungary situation was milked to establish the need for a reform. As I wrote at the start, without veto powers, we get closer to the USE. For the USE, that means more power but for the citizens it means less power.
If you completely ignore the fact that Hungary was blocking the release of EU funds, and those don't just magically reappear in your national budget if the EU doesn't use them...
They do. If Hungary blocks the EU fund then the money is not spent and the countries can borrow more money because the risk for the lenders doesn't increase.