Project 2025 authors are providing a closed-door workshop of discussion for right-wing groups in Europe to shape their united stand against the EU. We don’t know the invitation-list, but as Yorkshirebylines reports on this:
"It is known to have featured contributions from two prominent right-wing organisations: Hungary’s largest private educational institution with a Brussels-based thinktank, Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), and the Polish Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture.
All three groups present are highly connected to the political leadership of their respective countries, and they all have something in common: a firm belief in reducing the role of government, controlling the judiciary and installing a conservative religious approach in terms of access to reproductive healthcare for women, divorce and same-sex marriage."
Obtained invitation that goes over the proposals talked about:
VSquare mainly focus on preventing a rise in populism in Europe and report a lot on Turkey and Hungary, about Russian influence, and as we can see here, about American right’s attempt at influence. According to themselves, they are Polish, and operate as a collaborative non-profit investigative journalist center.
“the two Central European organizations reported connections to Russian influence add another layer of scrutiny. While Ordo Iuris leaders have denied pro-Russian affiliations, the organization has long engaged with networks that promote Kremlin-aligned narratives, including Agenda Europe and the World Congress of Families – a group linked to Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev. (VSquare has published multiple investigations into the international network-building of Ordo Iuris,” VSquare adds with links on the page leading to their investigations)
Are the suggestions bad on their own, or only because they are a tool to achieve other goals?
Personally I think that the EU should not become a unified country. The proposal is halting the process and setting boundaries so that the countries continue to exist.
What are the problematic parts?
I think that’s a pretty fair question, especially as I am kinda globalist (or at least see majority EU cooperation and correcting itself as a net-good)
if we take aside potential hoping-to-weaken-EU Russian involvement, and a lot of its de-legitimizing language, my very first concern would be making it harder to enforce common standards for instance to prevent democratic backsliding, as I see European democracy as being the best tool currently for results that both allow experts to weigh in and for the nuance of public concerns that spontaneously emerge, even if we all can argue that it will always need improvement to a lot of people.
Heightened unanimity requirements hold a lot of the union hostage, when it in general would be nice to be on the same page, but I understand it also shouldn’t be so low as 60%, I would argue that current standard or maybe a tinge less is fair in that it tells you that most everyone is on-board with a decision (simplifying a lot of how the people making the final decision got in power of course, where there are maybe half of their citizens who could still oppose whatever they voted for)
So far this has helped a lot in human rights protection within the EU, collective bargaining power with the outside, enforcing a climate policy which pretty much requires everybody to step up, and like, other things that in the short-term can make for instance authoritarians be very popular at the cost of the long-term.
making it harder to enforce common standards for instance to prevent democratic backsliding
After the election of Ursula von der Leyen as president of the commission, how can the EU be seen as a defender of democracy?
It’s the EU that needs to be more democratic before or if things should be further integrated.
For those who don’t know:
On 26 May 2019 Weber’s European People’s Party won the most seats in the European Parliament, thus making Weber the lead candidate to become the next President of the European Commission.[5][6] It was announced on 28 May that the new European Commission President would be picked at an EU summit in June; Weber was not nominated, with Ursula von der Leyen selected instead.
The Spitzenkandidat system is not part of EU law, but more of a political agreement that was hyper new and with no obligation, and saying that the European Parliamanet through the spitzenkandidat should be the only voice ironically weakens the voice of national governments, particularly for smaller and less powerful countries that we want to account for. (You voiced something akin to that too)
Most people also probably couldn’t tell you the process of the EP or focused much on how your vote would affect EP voting, so it’s hard to on its own justify to have a democratic mandate (not that you can’t take it into account. I like the idea, though I think I’m stuck between it either requires more teaching voters about bureaucratic processes that are going on, or is too much logistical tactical voting to take account for when voting). It also wasn’t a real majority result in the EP, which both undermines its practical use, but also more importantly the European Council proposed a compromising team of candidates, and the EP still has to confirm the commission president and carried through with doing so. Compromise is a huge part of being in a democracy.
I agree. It was lawful, but shows that the system is not transparent and doesn’t reveal the real motivations. Before EU is integrated further, or gets more power like an army, the structure should be improved.
I can only concede to needing structural improvements, tho I wanna stress that I think it was fair decision-making overall in the moment as the EP did get final say, (when we’re saying that Weber was EPs choice, which again misses the nuance that he managed to come out on-top but lacking more than 50% to even have a majority of votes (182/376 when EP has 751 seats), with nobody wanting to coalition, which is what matters, just like with coalitions needing a majority of seats to form government in parliamentary systems)
An army would definitely also need a clear “fuck no, im out” option for every decision anyway, or a lot less resources than I’m currently comfortable looking at them being gung-ho about. My understanding is that the cooperation means a lot less collective money spent due to each country’s specializations, but that is probably something where each nation need absolute “yes/no” power in regards to committing actual bodies to a cause.
Can we please designate them as unconstitutional organisations and ban them from operating in the EU?
Anything connected to the Atlas network too, please, while we’re at it.
What in the hell is that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Network
It’s an umbrella organisation for neoliberal thinktanks coming up with such brilliant takes as the nanny-state rating where you’re getting freedom demerits for taxing tobacco. They’re also the ones (well, the UK branch is) behind Brexit, due to incoming EU regulations on tax havens.
can you designate them as terrorists?
On behalf of almost everyone almost everywhere, no thanks.
Europe as an American I’m telling you that this isn’t what you want. It’s bad over here. Seriously please stop the facists. This is seriously what our dear leader posted on Easter.
[…]who cheated in the 2020 Presidential Election[…]
he will never be able to let go, is he? Also I’m pretty sure that Trump is by far the worst of your presidents.
What began as a vision of free trade and peaceful coexistence has morphed into an institution shaping nearly all aspects of governance in Europe, centralizing power at the expense of national sovereignty.
The European Coal and Steel Community was the first step on what became the European Union, not the initial vision for its end state.
https://www.churchill-in-zurich.ch/site/assets/files/1807/rede_winston_churchill_englisch.pdf
I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the recreation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe.
I must now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organization. Under and within that world concept we must recreate the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. And the first practical step would be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny. In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia-for then indeed all would be well-must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine. Therefore I say to you: let Europe arise!»
---- Winston Churchill, Zurich, September 19, 1946
Churchill was talking about a federal system analogous to the United States of America back in 1946.
Did they honestly fucking call this paper “The Great Reset”?
I have a theory about all of this in the US and that they’re trying in Canada and Europe:
- In the US especially, our population growth is below replacement
- Minorities as a whole are taking over the population with Latinos leading the pack
- Racists in the Heritage Foundation, Republicans, Nazis, etc. don’t like that
- These Republican, Nazi, far-right, etc. take away abortion and contraception, so more US citizens have babies
- They then deport and/or cause fear for the Latinos so they leave or don’t come to America
TLDR: White assholes trying to make the US, Canada and Europe for “whites”* only.
*White definition may vary depending on if you have money or not
Why do they act now and not 20 years ago? The development was expected. Has the elite become more racist?
They’ve been working on it for 20 years and now have been successful in the US. They’ve been working on Europe and Canada for at least 10 years as well.
Yeah, I operate on this assumption entirely. I’m pretty sure there was a book published about this idea in the 80s and it was widely read among political leadership.
Anyone notice how the population of religious people globally is falling at a rapid rate, but the power being amassed by religious communities and officials continues to appear unassailable from within liberal-ish institutions?
It’s almost as though the promise of liberal democracy and secularization is being renegged upon as soon as it inconveniences old bourgeois institutions. Damn shame there’s no group of 19th century intellectuals and revolutionaries who could have warned us about this. Oh well… I’m sure this will be fine.
Enjoy another 30 Years War, Europe. You’ve earned it.
Look at the separation of the sactuary in churches. Religion has always been primarily for the elite.
How can this fricking happening!?
Read (or listen to) Autocracy Inc by Anne Applebaum.
Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein is also very good.
