[EU] New term top positions

[Slant]

If she does the same to Europe as she did to Germany's military, good night my friend.

As much as she deserves criticism, it wasn't her who ran it down. She inherited a shite military structure. The 90s and the idea of world peace killed it off. It started with Kohl and continued until we have now realised that... 2 Typhoons and two dozen tanks really, really do not deserve being called armed forces.

[Fuiking]

atleast you got more tanks then we have... dutch miliatairy can be taken down by a paranoid hamster.

[StayTuned]

As much as she deserves criticism, it wasn't her who ran it down. She inherited a shite military structure. The 90s and the idea of world peace killed it off. It started with Kohl and continued until we have now realised that... 2 Typhoons and two dozen tanks really, really do not deserve being called armed forces.

Are you actually saying VDL improved our army or are you implying that it's ok to be unable to change something that is dysfunctional? I mean, it's not like the EU is in pristine condition, you know?

[Noradin]

Ahm... that's not a rhetorical question. That's a suggestion phrased as a question.

Thank you for confirming that you were indeed calling for a lethal violence against a specific group of hundreds of people.
That would make you a supporter of terrorism.

[Slant]

Are you actually saying VDL improved our army or are you implying that it's ok to be unable to change something that is dysfunctional? I mean, it's not like the EU is in pristine condition, you know?

I'm saying she neither improved nor worsened the situation. She merely wasted everybody's time by accomplishing nothing. We'll see how she does in Europe, but there is a reason I'm not happy about her as a choice.

[Noradin]

I'm saying she neither improved nor worsened the situation. She merely wasted everybody's time by accomplishing nothing. We'll see how she does in Europe, but there is a reason I'm not happy about her as a choice.

She did accomplish something: She made the press lose interest despite there being more than enough stories to be had.

[Crispin]

i honestly do not know alot about her, but the fact that the far left and far right voted against her, is definately a plus in my book

[Slant]

She did accomplish something: She made the press lose interest despite there being more than enough stories to be had.

Well, she is solely responsible for letting the G36 bullshit begin in the first place. So thanks, now we're getting a new rifle that'll cost everyone time and money and won't be a bit better than the G36. We could've used that to buy duct tape to fix our NH90s...

- - - Updated - - -

i honestly do not know alot about her, but the fact that the far left and far right voted against her, is definately a plus in my book

She's a conservative party's wet dream... career woman, a small tribe of children while she looks like she'd never pressed one out and will say anything to get into power.

[Acidbaron]

From vote watch in my mail a correct assessment as always.

source


Key take-aways from the vote on von der Leyen - Tough times ahead



The extremely small majority by which Ursula von der Leyen passed in the Parliament confirms our forecasts on what we can expect in the next 5 years in EU politics. Here are our key take-aways:


- Every MEP will count! The vote to elect the President of the Commission is one of the most important votes that take place in the Parliament, hence you can expect the governments and the political group leadership to lobby backbenchers extensively. Even so, only 9 votes made the difference yesterday. Given the current fragmentation of the EP, we expect these kinds of occurrences to become more common, with important decisions on legislation being passed by / falling short of just a few votes.


- The grip of the political group / party leadership and that of rapporteurs over the backbenchers will be weaker. As the individual MEPs become aware that their votes can make a difference, they will be tempted to think for themselves and make the most out of it.


- The inter-institutional battles will be fiercer. As we have seen yesterday, the Council does not command the European Parliament. Despite von der Leyen coming out as the unanimously supported compromise candidate from the Council, she got only a little over half the votes in the Parliament. Many MEPs supported her because they were afraid of a full-blown institutional crisis or afraid of an even less convenient alternative candidate. However, after they had to swallow this, even some of the MEPs that voted in favour of Ursula will want to brush aside frustration and flex their muscles in the next episodes: the hearings of the commissioners, the scrutiny of the Commission’s work, the passing of legislation, trade agreements, etc.

- The outcomes of trialogues in particular will be a hard sell in the Parliament and we are likely to see a much closer scrutiny of inter-institutional negotiations by the committees and by the EP’s plenary.


- The vote to invest the Commission will not be a foregone conclusion. We can expect the appointed commissioners to go through tougher-than-usual hearings in which MEPs will aim to limit the margin of maneuver of the College.



NB: Juncker got almost the same amount of votes when coming before the EP with all the College in autumn than what he had got on his own in July (2014): 423 votes vs 422 votes. This signals that, if only a few of the supportive MEPs get frustrated during the hearings of the appointed Commissioners, the College as whole may simply not get the vote of investiture. MEPs know this and will aim to make the most out of this opportunity. Von der Leyen knows this too and will have to be extremely careful.



- In times of political trouble, conservative women seem to be the panacea. There seems to be a pattern that when center-right is the (main) force in government, but has a very difficult job ahead that requires wide-spread support, the resulting solution is a woman at the top executive job. This has been the case of Merkel (current CDU's leader, Kramp-Karrenbauer, is also a woman), Theresa May or the two Polish female prime-ministers, Kopacz and Szydlo (from two different centre-right parties). Also among the country's presidents we increasingly see the rise of conservative women, such as in case of the current Croatian President (Grabar-Kitarovic) and former Lithuanian one (Grybauskaite). If we look at the overall picture, in recent years in which we have experienced in Europe various types of crises, the force of things has pushed more conservative women in leading political positions than left-wing ones. The left, for its part, has the current Romanian PM (Dancila), the former and current Danish PMs (Thorning-Schmidt - who failed to take an EU top job - and current PM Frederiksen).



However, Ursula being a woman was not enough of an argument to convince part of the left in the European Parliament, despite von der Leyen taking up heavily some of the progressive discourse on civil liberties and economy to convince them. This signals that what the left wants is not a woman leader per se, but one of their own, a woman nurtured with progressive ideas. A look at the voting behavior in the European Parliament explains why: within the political groups, the women and men MEP vote roughly in the same way, ie. the center-right women vote as the center right men and the centre-left men as the centre-left women (in fact, it even happens sometimes that in the center-right groups some women vote more conservatively than their male colleagues).


- The German network at work? Despite official statements, it may be that some (decisive) votes for von der Leyen came from progressive German parties. Under the cover of the vote’s secrecy, these MEPs could discretely put their shoulder to a victory of one of their fellow nationals. This is suggested by the rather unusual behavior of the German MEPs from across the spectrum when the decision to keep this vote secret was made, ie. the German SPD, Greens and Die Linke all voted against their European political groups and in line with the CDU position to keep the vote on the election of the Commission President secret (the vote took place back in 2016 when the EP’s rules of procedure were revised).


If this is the case, this would already be a second occurrence in this new EP term when we are witnessing an attempt of “nationalization of EU politics from the center”, after Macron’s (so far not very successful) initiative to create a cross-party “Team France” in the European Parliament. Given that we are talking about the two most influential EU countries, if this trend is confirmed we may witness a (partial) breaking of the EP groups’ cohesion in the months and years to come.




Some obvious conclusions and some interesting ones, with Germany putting aside political ideals to simply vote to get one of their own in power. So the power blocks are now broken up a lot more and so anyone claiming still that the EU is undemocratic will look even a greater fool in the eyes of the educated and informed. Luckily they'll still find some support among the rest of the their easily influenced fools and populists.

[Skulltaker]

Thank you for confirming that you were indeed calling for a lethal violence against a specific group of hundreds of people.
That would make you a supporter of terrorism.

Thanks for demonstrating to the entire world that you're not capable of grasping the concept of quotatios.

[Noradin]

Thanks for demonstrating to the entire world that you're not capable of grasping the concept of quotatios.

Do you deny that you wrote this:

One could throw grenades into the EU parliament and only hit guilty people. This entire thing has become a shitshow without comparison.

Would you say it qualifies as question?

[Skulltaker]

Do you deny that you wrote this:


Would you say it qualifies as question?

Would you say you know the difference inbetween the words 'could' and 'should'? I'm sorry the subtle differences of the english language are lost on you. They are not hard to learn, I suggest you give it a try, I'm sure even you can manage.

If I had said 'One should throw grenades into the EU parliament, one would hit only guilty people!', that would indeed be calling for violence.

But I said one could, which isn't calling for anything. Thank you for playing, but sadly, you failed. Try again!

[Noradin]

Would you say you know the difference inbetween the words 'could' and 'should'? I'm sorry the subtle differences of the english language are lost on you. They are not hard to learn, I suggest you give it a try, I'm sure even you can manage.

If I had said 'One should throw grenades into the EU parliament, one would hit only guilty people!', that would indeed be calling for violence.

But I said one could, which isn't calling for anything. Thank you for playing, but sadly, you failed. Try again!

And with saying "could" "and would only hit guilty people" you are providing justification for anyone insane enough to go through with it.

Would you still stand by your claim if that happened? Would you excuse a terrorist bombing the European Parliament because "they only hit guilty people"?

[Acidbaron]

Would you say you know the difference inbetween the words 'could' and 'should'? I'm sorry the subtle differences of the english language are lost on you. They are not hard to learn, I suggest you give it a try, I'm sure even you can manage.

If I had said 'One should throw grenades into the EU parliament, one would hit only guilty people!', that would indeed be calling for violence.

But I said one could, which isn't calling for anything. Thank you for playing, but sadly, you failed. Try again!

The whole premise of your statement is dumb to begin with, claiming the EU parliament is full of "guilty people". Guilty of what exactly and compared to who are they innocent?
And yes making such a statement is creating an imagery of violence towards people you disagree and dislike with, regardless if it is a call of violence or not. It is deeply disturbing and even borderline fascist to believe violence is a solution of any kind.

Also playing on something like them not understanding the english language is toddler level of argumentation and shows you basically got nothing but petty insults.

If you dislike the mess that is democracy there are plenty of nations you can move to in Africa or the middle east. You'll be rid of any and all bureaucracy.

[Skulltaker]

And with saying "could" "and would only hit guilty people" you are providing justification for anyone insane enough to go through with it.

Would you still stand by your claim if that happened? Would you excuse a terrorist bombing the European Parliament because "they only hit guilty people"?

Anyone insane enough to do it doesn't need or look for justification. And I'd love to see 'someone on the internet whom I've never met said you could do it!' as a basis for defense, or justification, for that matter.

And, yeah, I probably would. The entire EU as an institution has become so bloated and riddled with corruption that I wouldn't shed a tear if it happened. Very few people would, actually. Look at whom they just elected, a woman throwing away funds that she was entrusted with, who ran every ministery she ever led into the ground with 0 experience in the job she is now entrusted with. Von der Leyen has been a running joke in Germany for decades now.

The whole premise of your statement is dumb to begin with, claiming the EU parliament is full of "guilty people". Guilty of what exactly and compared to who are they innocent?
And yes making such a statement is creating an imagery of violence towards people you disagree and dislike with, regardless if it is a call of violence or not. It is deeply disturbing and even borderline fascist to believe violence is a solution of any kind.

Also playing on something like them not understanding the english language is toddler level of argumentation and shows you basically got nothing but petty insults.

If you dislike the mess that is democracy there are plenty of nations you can move to in Africa or the middle east. You'll be rid of any and all bureaucracy.

Would you care to point out where I suggested violence was an option?

As to me playing on them not understanding English: Both of them have repeatedly tried to put words into my mouth. What else should I attribute it to? Malice? Stupidity? Would that make it better? One of them even tried to twist grammar in a way that suited his idiotic narrative.

As for this being democracy: It isn't. We have created a system in which the democratically elected parties are in no way held to honor the promises they made, and where people simply stopped to give a shit about that. The EU has a tremendous impact on the lives of its citizens. Do you feel you have any influence onto whom they put in charge? Because you don't, this election just being the newest instance in a long line of examples. Did you get to tell your representatives your opinion on articles 11 and 13? Do you feel as if they took your concerns into consideration? Whether or not you'd like your crops to still be dusted with Glyphosate, a substance linked to cancer in humans by the WHO? Do you think they'll ask your opinion on the formation of a European army, which is going to be funded by your money? So don't give me this 'if you don't like it, you may leave!' crap, it's beneath you.

This has nothing to do with disliking or disagreeing with anyone. Not in the slightest.

[Fuiking]

The whole premise of your statement is dumb to begin with, claiming the EU parliament is full of "guilty people". Guilty of what exactly and compared to who are they innocent?
And yes making such a statement is creating an imagery of violence towards people you disagree and dislike with, regardless if it is a call of violence or not. It is deeply disturbing and even borderline fascist to believe violence is a solution of any kind.

Also playing on something like them not understanding the english language is toddler level of argumentation and shows you basically got nothing but petty insults.

If you dislike the mess that is democracy there are plenty of nations you can move to in Africa or the middle east. You'll be rid of any and all bureaucracy.

Guilty of being a politician.....

Wierdly enough, there was a dutch writer who's main character jokingly said he hated politicians.. not because they were persons, or what they represented... but there cutthroat, backstabbing, secretive, and 180 degrees turns.

[Slant]

Would you say you know the difference inbetween the words 'could' and 'should'? I'm sorry the subtle differences of the english language are lost on you. They are not hard to learn, I suggest you give it a try, I'm sure even you can manage.

If I had said 'One should throw grenades into the EU parliament, one would hit only guilty people!', that would indeed be calling for violence.

But I said one could, which isn't calling for anything. Thank you for playing, but sadly, you failed. Try again!

Semantics is a really weak defense, tbh. Basically you're supporting terrorism by implying that any such victim would deserve what they get. Could or should aside. That's what you said. And it's definitely what you meant.

[Skulltaker]

Semantics is a really weak defense, tbh. Basically you're supporting terrorism by implying that any such victim would deserve what they get. Could or should aside. That's what you said. And it's definitely what you meant.

It's not semantics if exchanging a word completely changes the meaning of what was said.

I'm getting really tired of people trying to tell me what I mean, or trying to put words into my mouth, you know. It's really obnoxious. What's great fun is asking these people to point out where I said what they accuse me, and never getting an answer.

So, would you please point out where I implied that they would 'deserve what they get'?

If you'd like further proof that what you claim I meant isn't what I meant at all: exchange 'grenades' with 'gummy bears'. The meaning of the sentence stays exactly the same. I used somewhat radical rhetoric to imply that they are all guilty, not to imply that they should be bombed.
So again, please don't tell me what I meant. I get that people these days are oversensitive, with all the violence from the left and the right, so when they hear grenades or bombs or whatever, that's the part they focus on.

Am I an asshole saying what I said the way I said it? Sure. I'll not dispute that. Does that mean I support terrorism? No. And I'll fight everyone tooth and nail who says I do.

[Slant]

Am I an asshole saying what I said the way I said it? Sure. I'll not dispute that. Does that mean I support terrorism? No. And I'll fight everyone tooth and nail who says I do.

So, maybe you'd like to look up what terrorism does? Throwing a grenade into a room full of people, indisciminantly injuring or killing anyone inside based on "they're all guilty"... that's what terrorists do. And you seem to be okay with that. According to you, they're all guilty. I'm done debating semantics with you. You won't be convinced that you think anything's wrong with what you said. You've had plenty of opportunity to tone down what you said, instead you double down on it. Fair enough.

[Skulltaker]

So, maybe you'd like to look up what terrorism does? Throwing a grenade into a room full of people, indisciminantly injuring or killing anyone inside based on "they're all guilty"... that's what terrorists do. And you seem to be okay with that. According to you, they're all guilty. I'm done debating semantics with you. You won't be convinced that you think anything's wrong with what you said. You've had plenty of opportunity to tone down what you said, instead you double down on it. Fair enough.

Because there is nothing wrong with what I said. Which I laid out for you in ample detail. Instead of the meaning of the original post I made, you focus on the rhetoric. This is a 'you' issue and nothing else, and you're twisting what I said so that you can feel offended.