Irrespective of whether or not you have any time for this guy Haider who has made some rather disturbing remarks (such as admiring Adolf Hitler, although I don’t recall the exact context of the remarks), who the fuck are the EU to start dictating to member countries exactly which parties will, and which parties will not be tolerated in dealings with those countries. Do they think the Austrian people accidentally voted for this guy or what? The EU is a fucking disgrace, a bunch of would be dictators who I hope drown in the sea of corruption and absurd regulation they have created. The sooner countries withdraw from this discredited organisation, the better.
I might be wrong here, but how is it different than any other nation (or group of nations) determining their diplomatic and economic ties? The United States is quite happy severing ties with Cuba and Iraq until they change their governments. Regardless of the effects on the peoples of those antions, its well within the rights of the U.S. government to do this. Likewise, if the EU wants to cut ties with a nation who’s government they disapprove of, what’s the problem? Certainly if any member of the EU diliked the idea, they could object to it or refuse to cut ties.
Is there more to this story that I’m missing?
“I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
The U.S. appears to have jumped on the Anti-Austria bandwagon as well now.
I partially agree here, Andy. The E.U. had no business interfering with Austraia up to this stage. However, today it is announced that there is indeed going to be a coalition between the FPÖ and the ÖVP. NOW it is time to voice the concerns.
But it has to be done on an incidental basis. Austria invokes an anti-immigration law that contradicts European agreements? Punish them. But until they do, they have the right to elect whoever the fuck they want. Even if it IS just a Nazi in disguise, there is no room for knee-jerk reactions like this. Only when he starts ACTING like a Nazi can we do something. Stating that you admire Hitler (a statement he later retracted, I think) is not a crime in itself, as far as I know.
But why doesn’t it surprise me it’s another LIMEY that posted this Anti-European Propaganda
The Austrian people have every right to elect whoever they may want to, and of course the (rest of the) EU has the right to react to that in whatever matter we might feel appropriate. It’s not as if EU is going to exclude Austria from membership or prevent trading with Austria (no Helms-Burton laws here).
Austria will simply be put “on diplomatic hold” until they decide to elect a government that supports the fundamental ideas that EU is based upon. Of course, Austria has any right to leave the Union if they disapprove - not that I see THAT happening!
Nationalism is NOT a joke on this side of the Atlantic. By using terms coined by the Nazis in his election campaign mr. Haider has certainly caused a lot of unrest and made himself fair game for retribution.
As for the “undemocratic” aspect: If you vote for someone who aligns himself with the corporal, the neighbors might get a bit cranky.
And no, I don’t consider the EU to be a perfect solution, and there’s certainly plenty of room for improvement. I don’t consider it a bad idea, either - needs some work, though.
Norman.
Worrying is the thinking man’s form of meditation.
Oops, sorry folks, no idea what happened on that first post…it got totally screwed up. Anyway, on immigration, surely as long as any proposal doesn’t contravene whichever treaty governs the acceptance of refugees, then morally he’s OK…but then of course there will be a problem, particularly if expansion to the east occurs, with the freedom of movement of workers within the EU.
Broadly speaking, I get the impression that the EU is dealing with this guy (and therefore the Austrian people who voted for him) on the basis of media soundbites and their knee-jerk reactions. They should wait until they see policies, or at least concrete legislative proposals before they react.
The most disturbing aspect for me is the (semi) logical extension of this…imagine, on your next ballot paper, having EU-approved and EU non-approved candidates…the EU is overstepping it’s already (IMO) excessive powers.
Jophiel, in reply to your point about whether you’ve missed anything, probably not, but if you had to live under this monstrous organisation, maybe you’d feel differently. Perhaps nobody outside the EU understand the power of this organisation, and hence it’s power. Maybe an example would help. Would you find it acceptable for the US senate to decline to deal with a senator from, say, North Dakota or wherever just because they didn’t like his/her policies? That would be undemocratic.
If only (sigh) the UK was in Austria’s position…i’d be on the streets in a flash (after flying home) chanting ‘KICK US OUT PLEASE’…
I’m not sure that this is something that the EU has done so much as something that the other 14 Member States, acting in concert but not under the auspices of the EU, have got together and decided to do. They just got Portugal to announce it to make it look like a quasi-official, EU-type thing.
AFAIK, there is no power for “the EU” (the Commission? the Council of Ministers?) to require individual Member States to cut diplomatic relations with anyone.
The statements made were by politicians acting as representatives of their own countries, not as representatives of the EU. Some have voiced concern at the chorus of disapproval, and Britain is conspicuous by its silence on the matter.
The EU is a political body made up of representatives from countries with their own aims. It suffers from the same faults as any other bureaucratic body, and is certainly in need of major reforms - but that’s not the same as it being some “monstrous organisation”.
Does one therefore assume that, in the absence of any specific comment from a national government of a member of the EU on some issue, that the holder of the presidency speaks for all the nations? Have we assumed a common foreign policy? I was not informed or asked my opinion if this is the case.
IMO mattk, a centralised, socialist, protectionist, anti free-trade, costly, ineffective, undemocratic and self-interested organisation counts as monstrous. In addition, it has yet to yield a single tangible benefit for me/my family/my friends (I don’t mean to sound self interested, but these are my only experiences) despite all the concessions my country has made. I do get fed up of reminding people that every time they see one of those lovely blue and yellow-starred flags adorning some new project, rather than cooing about how lucky we are to be receiving more EU money, perhaps they ought to reflect on the fact that the money was theirs in the first place. It’s simply been re-routed through the EU, minus their cut of course.
Just as an aside, the Belgian Foreign Minister (Louis Michel) today said “It’s too simplistic to say that we must keep Austria in europe at all costs. I think europe can very well do without Austria. We don’t need them.” Why can’t they adopt this attitude towards the British, just leave us alone, then we’ll stop dragging all the other europeans back and you can have your super state.
Okay, I suppose technically, with the PES being down to IIRC 180 seats, the european parliament is not governed by socialists, although there are a large number. As for the (unelected) commission, I don’t have time to check on all of their backgrounds, but certainly Prodi and his deputy, the welsh windbag, Kinnochio, are both socialists. All trade legislation (which the Germans propose, the French laugh at and the British implement) is designed primarily to be protectionist/socialist and not free market. Now, I only heard this on NPR and don’t have a source, so feel free to ignore this, but the EU, apparently, provides 85% of all the world trade subsidies. Only socialists would attempt a market distortion on this scale.
I don’t know much about the EU, but am curious about “the rotating presidency of the EU”. Does it rotate among the leaders of all the member countries? or just among some elite group? If the former, I can understand being a bit worried about who your neighbor elects.
The EU is a bad joke. There are far too many political, historical & cultural differences between the Member Nations to make this work.
The only serious supporters of the EU are a handful of government/elite types who don’t seem to notice that half the people in Europe hate/fear/mistrust the other half. Britain vs. Ireland; France vs Britain; Italy vs France; Germany and/or Austria vs–everybody.
It’ll never work. :rolleyes:
Maybe that idea Churchill had–a US/Canada/Great Britain unification scheme? It’s still a better idea than the European Union.
With magic, you can turn a frog into a prince. With science, you can turn a frog into a Ph.D, and you still have the frog you started with.
We don’t know what the person said. We know only what others said he said. I could say something complimentary about Hitler/Nazi Germany like “They produced some really innovative things,” or “They really had a sense of style with their uniforms.” Doesn’t mean that I’m a fan.
The EU didn’t just happen. “The people” voted for elected officials who made decisions to join. If they’re still in office after whatever elections, then that would seem to be a vote of confidence on those decisions.
Of course Mjollnir, when ‘the people’ of the UK decided to join the EEC in 1973/74 (I don’t recall the year of the referendum exactly, i was just a baby!), that is exactly what they chose to join, the European Economic Community, a free trade association. The EU has become so much more than that.
