|
|
Post by finsobruce on Oct 19, 2017 19:09:47 GMT
Jean-Claude Juncker has written an open letter to Kurz congratulating him on his win, reminding him that Austria soon holds the Presidency of the EU and saying that he therefore wishes him success in forming a "stable and pro-European government" A not very subtle hint. No kisses though.....  |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 19, 2017 20:03:43 GMT
Jean-Claude Juncker has written an open letter to Kurz congratulating him on his win, reminding him that Austria soon holds the Presidency of the EU and saying that he therefore wishes him success in forming a "stable and pro-European government" A not very subtle hint. No kisses though..... He kissed him ... |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 19, 2017 20:26:14 GMT
Question for Georg Ebner- what are the three districts in Vienna with massive OeVP votes compared to the rest of the city, and what explains them given Vienna's generally lefty focus? Looks like Innere Stadt, Doebling and Hietzing but I'm not familiar with the latter two. "My" Hietzing in the SW is famous for Schloss Schönbrunn and has been home for higher CivilServants (before 1918 conservative GermanLiberals; the antisemitic ChristianSocials&GermanNationalists were those workmen living in the inner districts; the higher aristocracy preferred the surrounding of Hofburg and Belvedere [IV.Wieden]). Döbling (and Währing) in the NW is more homines novi. Before 1945 all 3 had been also semi-rural and nontheless rather red (due domestics, KarlMarxHof), since then ÖVP-run (Währing was lost to the GREENS last time). |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 20, 2017 9:56:50 GMT
The EU bullying Austria over the FPOe? Who'd have thought it.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,588
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 21, 2017 1:11:32 GMT
The EU bullying Austria over the FPOe? Who'd have thought it. you? Even as a remainer this was always my problem with the EU, it is a trade block. Nothing more and nothing less, the Austrian PM needs to politely tell them to F-off FTFY |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 21, 2017 8:08:04 GMT
The EU bullying Austria over the FPOe? Who'd have thought it. you? Even as a remainer this was always my problem with the EU, it is a trade block. Nothing more and nothing less, the Austrian PM needs to politely tell them to F-off No, it really isn't; if it were many, many Leavers would have no problem with it. Once you start allowing citizens of member states a high degree of access to each others countries, put in place cross-border economic development programmes and develop co-ordinated foreign policy responses (etc etc etc) then the internal politics of member states matter. For example, corruption in Italy matters to the EU as an institution and to other member states because EU funds go to Italy, migrants get into her Schengen area via Italy, (etc etc etc). Corruption and endemic misuse of public money in Greece mattered big time to the EU - especially the eurozone but also the rest of us due to trade with the eurozone. If the EU was solely a trading bloc having Turkey as a member would be OK. Austria is a bit of a problem to the EU since on all normal grounds - economic stability, rule of law, lack of border disputes, geography - it is a perfect fit - more so than Hungary, Slovakia or maybe even Poland. But it seems to have a unique penchant for electing leaders who, however you precisely define their politics, give rise to uncomfortable memories of a certain earlier Austrian politician. And that is a big deal because the EU and the whole European project is fundamentally not about trade at all, it is a response to Nazism and Stalinism, and more remotely to WW1 that gave birth to both of them; designed to make sure that the former never happens again without conceding in any way that the latter is a viable alternative. Trade is a means to an end - to make war and conflict inconceivable (and also to rebuild a content devastated by war - it was/is a win-win.) This fundamental point and the failure to either accept it or recognise the importance of it is at the heart of British eurosceptcism. It's not a coincidence that in every EU country (including Britain) the most outspoken opponents of the EU are found on the hard right and on the hard left (and yes, I am thinking of Tony Benn and his vicar on earth.) |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 21, 2017 8:57:09 GMT
The EU bullying Austria over the FPOe? Who'd have thought it. you? Even as a remainer this was always my problem with the EU, it is a trade block. Nothing more and nothing less, the Austrian PM needs to politely tell them to F-off Not quite sure what you're getting at there mate...but if I wasn't clear, I was referring to the EU's behaviour last time the OeVP and FPOe formed a government. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,765
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Oct 21, 2017 9:28:51 GMT
The EU was egged on as well. I remember a certain Diane Abbott going on TV and proclaiming that the EU should annul the Austrian election result because it was unacceptable. Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 21, 2017 9:48:03 GMT
The EU was egged on as well. I remember a certain Diane Abbott going on TV and proclaiming that the EU should annul the Austrian election result because it was unacceptable. Lol. Frightening isn't it? Both the ignorance and the idea that annulling elections is a good thing. And this is the big problem with Austria - that it is behaving in an impeccably law-abiding and democratic way, but it keeps giving the "wrong" result. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 21, 2017 10:23:56 GMT
you? Even as a remainer this was always my problem with the EU, it is a trade block. Nothing more and nothing less, the Austrian PM needs to politely tell them to F-off No, it really isn't; if it were many, many Leavers would have no problem with it. Once you start allowing citizens of member states a high degree of access to each others countries, put in place cross-border economic development programmes and develop co-ordinated foreign policy responses (etc etc etc) then the internal politics of member states matter. For example, corruption in Italy matters to the EU as an institution and to other member states because EU funds go to Italy, migrants get into her Schengen area via Italy, (etc etc etc). Corruption and endemic misuse of public money in Greece mattered big time to the EU - especially the eurozone but also the rest of us due to trade with the eurozone. If the EU was solely a trading bloc having Turkey as a member would be OK. Austria is a bit of a problem to the EU since on all normal grounds - economic stability, rule of law, lack of border disputes, geography - it is a perfect fit - more so than Hungary, Slovakia or maybe even Poland. But it seems to have a unique penchant for electing leaders who, however you precisely define their politics, give rise to uncomfortable memories of a certain earlier Austrian politician. And that is a big deal because the EU and the whole European project is fundamentally not about trade at all, it is a response to Nazism and Stalinism, and more remotely to WW1 that gave birth to both of them; designed to make sure that the former never happens again without conceding in any way that the latter is a viable alternative. Trade is a means to an end - to make war and conflict inconceivable (and also to rebuild a content devastated by war - it was/is a win-win.) This fundamental point and the failure to either accept it or recognise the importance of it is at the heart of British eurosceptcism. It's not a coincidence that in every EU country (including Britain) the most outspoken opponents of the EU are found on the hard right and on the hard left (and yes, I am thinking of Tony Benn and his vicar on earth.) Go the extra mile Adam and admit that in essence it is a Germano-French Protection Racket with a Benelux Protectorate add on. The main point being to protect and advance German industry and French Agriculture and originally to over-protect their coal and steel areas. Behind it was an enmity for Russia and the UK as power centres they feared and had historic dislike for and wished to harm. All else is ancillary and because of occasional euphoric vanity has caused major problems by admitting states with economies that do not and cannot be made to fit. We were only admitted as a potential milch cow to assist funding their schemes. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 21, 2017 15:49:35 GMT
The EU was egged on as well. I remember a certain Diane Abbott going on TV and proclaiming that the EU should annul the Austrian election result because it was unacceptable. Lol. Really? Haven't known that! Mrs.Abbott is great! |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 21, 2017 17:20:27 GMT
No, it really isn't; if it were many, many Leavers would have no problem with it. Once you start allowing citizens of member states a high degree of access to each others countries, put in place cross-border economic development programmes and develop co-ordinated foreign policy responses (etc etc etc) then the internal politics of member states matter. For example, corruption in Italy matters to the EU as an institution and to other member states because EU funds go to Italy, migrants get into her Schengen area via Italy, (etc etc etc). Corruption and endemic misuse of public money in Greece mattered big time to the EU - especially the eurozone but also the rest of us due to trade with the eurozone. If the EU was solely a trading bloc having Turkey as a member would be OK. Austria is a bit of a problem to the EU since on all normal grounds - economic stability, rule of law, lack of border disputes, geography - it is a perfect fit - more so than Hungary, Slovakia or maybe even Poland. But it seems to have a unique penchant for electing leaders who, however you precisely define their politics, give rise to uncomfortable memories of a certain earlier Austrian politician. And that is a big deal because the EU and the whole European project is fundamentally not about trade at all, it is a response to Nazism and Stalinism, and more remotely to WW1 that gave birth to both of them; designed to make sure that the former never happens again without conceding in any way that the latter is a viable alternative. Trade is a means to an end - to make war and conflict inconceivable (and also to rebuild a content devastated by war - it was/is a win-win.) This fundamental point and the failure to either accept it or recognise the importance of it is at the heart of British eurosceptcism. It's not a coincidence that in every EU country (including Britain) the most outspoken opponents of the EU are found on the hard right and on the hard left (and yes, I am thinking of Tony Benn and his vicar on earth.) Go the extra mile Adam and admit that in essence it is a Germano-French Protection Racket with a Benelux Protectorate add on. The main point being to protect and advance German industry and French Agriculture and originally to over-protect their coal and steel areas. Behind it was an enmity for Russia and the UK as power centres they feared and had historic dislike for and wished to harm. All else is ancillary and because of occasional euphoric vanity has caused major problems by admitting states with economies that do not and cannot be made to fit. We were only admitted as a potential milch cow to assist funding their schemes. I really don't see that, Carlton. Firstly, the original six were Benelux plus Germany, France and Italy - I don't see where Italy fits into your analysis (and de Gasperi was an important figure in the set-up, so they have to somewhere) nor why Benelux would volunteer to become a protectorate. Secondly, you can add to the last point the fact that countless other countries have voluntarily joined, which is a bit odd if it is essentially a Franco-Germna protection racket. Furthermore, the essence of a protection racket is that someone strong forces smaller and weaker people to pay in order to avoid punishment, but in the EU Germany has always been a net payer whereas the poorer and weaker countries that join have been net beneficiaries. That is an odd way for a protection racket to work. Thirdly and above all, while there was and is a (quite justified) concern about Russia/the USSR I do not believe that the UK was (post-war) a significant power centre of a size to be feared by France or Germany; De Gaulle famously objected to our joining for fear of les Anglo-Saxons but you have to be pretty bloody stupid to think that the English-speaking nation he feared was on this side of the Atlantic. Nor do I see that we were or are the target of malice from most European countries - certainly not Benelux, Italy or the Scandinavians. There are historic grudges between us and the Germans, French, Spanish and Irish but equally strong ties of friendship. We did after all fight two world wars on the same side as the French and it isn't hard to find evidence of genuine gratitude for that if you visit the battlefields and war graves (more so a generation or so ago when the Common Market was being formed, I think.) Ireland and Germany have very often been our allies in European negotiations and not so long ago it wasn't hard to find tributes to the quality of British staffers in the Commission and to British pragmatism. Much less so since the rise of euroscepticism, I think. What I will agree is that part of the original deal was preservation of French rural life, with Germany picking up the bill as a sort of war reparation, and a desire to protect the respective coal and steel industries. (And bloody sensible too, given the policy of the USA regarding its steel industry and the future rise of India and China in those industries.) I don't see the fact that France and Germany had a half-way sensible and mutually beneficial industrial strategy that consistently outperformed the efforts of our own government in that sphere is exactly a cause for criticism. (We could have used the EU to protect jobs in British steel against Chinese dumping just a couple of years ago but chose not to do so for ideological reasons; which didn't stop the lying eurosceptic press from blaming the EU of course.) The UK government has been woefully incompetent at fighting for British interests in the EU - in our position the French would have simply vetoed Spain's application until the CFP was amended in such a way as to keep their boats out of our waters. But that is a sign of British incompetence and failure to really think about what Europe meant. I will also say that we never had quite the same issue regarding either Nazism and Communism nor as great a need to reconstruct post-war that the continentals had. IMO that led to a fatally blasé attitude when the thing was set up - all very well for the sad Europeans but not of any importance to the British Empire, even though we know full well the Empire was going. We should have revived the Entente Cordiale and have been in from the first, when our moral leadership was universally acknowledged and our military prestige was greater than all the rest put together (and de Gaulle was out of power!) Instead we put our trust in the Special Relationship with disastrous consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 21, 2017 17:26:15 GMT
No, it really isn't; if it were many, many Leavers would have no problem with it. Once you start allowing citizens of member states a high degree of access to each others countries, put in place cross-border economic development programmes and develop co-ordinated foreign policy responses (etc etc etc) then the internal politics of member states matter. For example, corruption in Italy matters to the EU as an institution and to other member states because EU funds go to Italy, migrants get into her Schengen area via Italy, (etc etc etc). Corruption and endemic misuse of public money in Greece mattered big time to the EU - especially the eurozone but also the rest of us due to trade with the eurozone. If the EU was solely a trading bloc having Turkey as a member would be OK. Austria is a bit of a problem to the EU since on all normal grounds - economic stability, rule of law, lack of border disputes, geography - it is a perfect fit - more so than Hungary, Slovakia or maybe even Poland. But it seems to have a unique penchant for electing leaders who, however you precisely define their politics, give rise to uncomfortable memories of a certain earlier Austrian politician. And that is a big deal because the EU and the whole European project is fundamentally not about trade at all, it is a response to Nazism and Stalinism, and more remotely to WW1 that gave birth to both of them; designed to make sure that the former never happens again without conceding in any way that the latter is a viable alternative. Trade is a means to an end - to make war and conflict inconceivable (and also to rebuild a content devastated by war - it was/is a win-win.) This fundamental point and the failure to either accept it or recognise the importance of it is at the heart of British eurosceptcism. It's not a coincidence that in every EU country (including Britain) the most outspoken opponents of the EU are found on the hard right and on the hard left (and yes, I am thinking of Tony Benn and his vicar on earth.) I should've been clear, the EU SHOULD be just a trade block. Unfortunately it isn't and all problems flow from that fact yes. Really? You don't think that ending hundreds of years of conflict is of any value? That in a world of Trump, Putin and Xi there might be some value in sticking together? That leading the western world on climate change can be safely left to the Americans? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 21, 2017 17:39:53 GMT
Really? You don't think that ending hundreds of years of conflict is of any value? That in a world of Trump, Putin and Xi there might be some value in sticking together? That leading the western world on climate change can be safely left to the Americans? I didn't really say that though did I. It is the necessary corollary of the EU being a trading bloc and nothing more. European peace didn't just happen, it had to be built. And the European project was central to that. A mere trading bloc doesn't answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 21, 2017 17:59:53 GMT
It is the necessary corollary of the EU being a trading bloc and nothing more. European peace didn't just happen, it had to be built. And the European project was central to that. A mere trading bloc doesn't answer. War in Europe was ended by tying the major powers together through trade & therefore creating interdependence. I don't see how advocating that the EU should be a trading organisation and nothing more jepodises this? No, it is much more than just trade. It required first of all a willingness to accept the desirability of interdependence. And once you have started to do that all sorts of other things follow, such as movement of individuals, regional development and so on. EDIT: getting slightly back on topic, it is why issues such as respect for the rule of law are considered a pillar of the EU - you need to know that the other members are the sort of country that you want to be interdependent on. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 21, 2017 22:57:18 GMT
The USE will be a caricature of the USA and the end of european pluralism.
The EC/EU has - contrary to the NATO - neverever done anything for peace.
And if anyone doubts, that the EU is a collectivistic prison (its courts having played the worst part): Have a look at the continental media, which are agitating against Britain&Brexit as the DDR-media did against those, who left the Socialistic HeavenOnEarth ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Oct 22, 2017 0:10:42 GMT
The USE will be a caricature of the USA and the end of european pluralism. The EC/EU has - contrary to the NATO - neverever done anything for peace. And if anyone doubts, that the EU is a collectivistic prison (its courts having played the worst part): Have a look at the continental media, which are agitating against Britain&Brexit as the DDR-media did against those, who left the Socialistic HeavenOnEarth ... That is complete and utter bollocks, Georg. NATO is a military alliance. The military does not bring peace, it brings victory in war and security in peacetime. But it cannot bring peace - ask an Afghan, where NATO tried. Or even, to a lesser extent, a Bosnian - who got the victory and the security, but not much of a peace. For that you need people to develop peace in their hearts toward former adversaries, and that is what the EU and its forerunners did and does. "Collectivist prison" is drivel. It's a lot nicer inside the EU than outside it and if you walk out you'll no longer be able to use the facilities, but you can walk out any time you like. That's the exact opposite of a prison. I'll point out yet again the fundamental difference between the EU and the socialist heaven - every country in the Warsaw Pact came into it as a result of military occupation and troops were sent in if they tried to leave. Every country in the EU joined of its own free will; several others have tried to join and been turned away. If the continental press think Brexit is a stupid idea then they are in line with half the British population (and growing.) There is absolutely no comparison between the media in a free Europe and that of a communist dictatorship. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 22, 2017 0:38:29 GMT
It is the necessary corollary of the EU being a trading bloc and nothing more. European peace didn't just happen, it had to be built. And the European project was central to that. A mere trading bloc doesn't answer. War in Europe was ended by tying the major powers together through trade & therefore creating interdependence. I don't see how advocating that the EU should be a trading organisation and nothing more jepodises this? The problem here is that you are looking at this backwards. Trade and interdependence now makes war between European powers extremely unlikely but in the post WW2 era there was a disinclination to put trust in such a hypothetical scenario as interdependence. There was widespread agreement that Germany needed to be able to re-industrialise, both for its own benefit and that of its neighbours, but after two devastating wars there was understandably a reluctance to allow Germany to once again reach a position where it could pose a military threat. This conundrum was exploited brilliantly by Monnet and his allies who provided the solution; supranational control of coal and steel. This allowed Germany to re-industrialise without being a military threat because a higher authority would control the resources it needed to make war. Thus the precursor to the EEC was born on a supranational basis rather than an intergovernmental one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2017 1:14:46 GMT
The EU was egged on as well. I remember a certain Diane Abbott going on TV and proclaiming that the EU should annul the Austrian election result because it was unacceptable. Lol. Really? Haven't known that! Mrs.Abbott is great! NeinNeinNein |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,846
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 22, 2017 11:56:24 GMT
Really? Haven't known that! Mrs.Abbott is great! NeinNeinNein I meant: Mrs.Abbott is great ... fun |
|
