3 ms·

I disagree. Why should only EU positive parties get funding? Seems highly undemocratic to me.

by Gud 2y ago

surgical_fire 2y ago
Because it makes no sense for an institution to use funds to help those that want to see that institution dismantled. Especially where the rhetoric for dismantling that institution already took Europe in a very dark path a century ago.
- Gud 2y ago
  Yes, but it is bad for democracy if only one specific viewpoint, the viewpoint of the people in charge no less, is actively sponsored via taxes. Sorry, but you are representing the “a dark path”, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > Yes, but it is bad for democracy if only one specific viewpoint, the viewpoint of the people in charge no less, is actively sponsored via taxes. And that is not what is happening. You can hold quite a lot of viewpoints, including opposing who is in charge. You just can't use EU funds to campaign for EU to be effectively abolished. Imagine someone running for presidency in the US campaigning for it to disintegrate. > Sorry, but you are representing the “a dark path”, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. Quite the opposite. EU fragments power so much that fucking Orban gets to block any initiative, even though Hungary is far from being one of the main countries in the block. Also, very cute of you to cry authoritarianism when we are talking about Le Pen of all people, someone who holds very authoritarian views herself. Quite telling, whenever such a politician faces consequences of their bullshit, a lot of people come out of the woods to make excuses for them. Fuck that noise.
    - Gud 2y ago
      And why shouldn’t you be able to use EU funds for that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a political organisation that is pro EU gets funding, the opponents should be funded as well. What is beneficial to the EU as a organisation shouldn’t be a parameter at all, that’s not how democracy works. I agree that Marie Le Pen holds authoritarian views. When it comes to politicians this seems to be the rule rather than an exception. But that doesn’t make EU a particularly democratic organisation. In my opinion, it is rare to find politicians who try to increase democracy. Regarding your USA example, I believe it is only a nominally democratic state. I don’t think what they do over there is particularly good and should not be wused as a positive example. I believe the best example of a functioning democracy is Switzerland.
      - surgical_fire 2y ago
        > And why shouldn’t you be able to use EU funds for that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a political organisation that is pro EU gets funding, the opponents should be funded as well. What is beneficial to the EU as a organisation shouldn’t be a parameter at all, that’s not how democracy works. I fundamentally disagree with that. It would be like using public funds to run for presidency in a country while campaigning for that country to cease to exist. Note that they didn't forbid her to campaign on a platform that is against the EU - which I think they should - they only forbid her to use public EU funds to do so. That you want to paint this as undemocratic is very bizarre. > But that doesn’t make EU a particularly democratic organisation. To the opposite, EU fragments power quite a lot. It is one of the main reasons why it is slow to act sometimes, many changes requires unanimous approval from all member countries (which is why Orban gets to veto any initiative while he is gurgling on Putin's balls). > In my opinion, it is rare to find politicians who try to increase democracy. I don't even know if we would agree what a perfectly functioning democracy even is.
        mike_hearn 2y ago
        > It would be like using public funds to run for presidency in a country while campaigning for that country to cease to exist. You seem to think this is an absurd scenario - I don't know how to tell you this, but it's not. It's allowed in healthy democracies. To give just three contemporary European examples: 1. In the UK the Scottish National Party gets public money for being in Parliament, yet has the stated goal that the UK should cease to exist. SNP MPs aren't thrown in prison or banned from politics. That's because the UK is a democracy. 2. Flanders has independence parties that poll highly and take part in regular politics without being banned from Belgian politics. 3. MEPs themselves are frequently arch Euro-nationalists. They get public money and then campaign to effectively abolish the countries they represent, demanding their national governments be replaced by the EU institutions. This is of course not considered illegal. Whilst there are regions that criminalize attempts to actually become independent (which they shouldn't), even they typically don't criminalize merely being in favor of it. > Note that they didn't forbid her to campaign on a platform that is against the EU - which I think they should - they only forbid her to use public EU funds to do so. She's been banned from politics entirely and given a prison sentence. That meets the threshold for something being forbidden. It honestly sounds like you'd have been happy with all the other attempts to unite Europe under a single government that happened in the 20th century. Not only are you delighted by this clearly despotic move, you think it should be illegal to even be against the EU at all: a purist argument for the EU as totalitarian dictatorship. You should really think about whether that's the place you want to be, philosophically. Especially as frustration over the EU's undemocratic approach was the primary reason the UK left.

I disagree. Why should only EU positive parties get funding? Seems highly undemocratic to me.

by Gud 2y ago

I disagree. Why should only EU positive parties get funding? Seems highly undemocratic to me.

Because it makes no sense for an institution to use funds to help those that want to see that institution dismantled. Especially where the rhetoric for dismantling that institution already took Europe in a very dark path a century ago.

Gud 2y ago
Yes, but it is bad for democracy if only one specific viewpoint, the viewpoint of the people in charge no less, is actively sponsored via taxes. Sorry, but you are representing the “a dark path”, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  > Yes, but it is bad for democracy if only one specific viewpoint, the viewpoint of the people in charge no less, is actively sponsored via taxes. And that is not what is happening. You can hold quite a lot of viewpoints, including opposing who is in charge. You just can't use EU funds to campaign for EU to be effectively abolished. Imagine someone running for presidency in the US campaigning for it to disintegrate. > Sorry, but you are representing the “a dark path”, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few. Quite the opposite. EU fragments power so much that fucking Orban gets to block any initiative, even though Hungary is far from being one of the main countries in the block. Also, very cute of you to cry authoritarianism when we are talking about Le Pen of all people, someone who holds very authoritarian views herself. Quite telling, whenever such a politician faces consequences of their bullshit, a lot of people come out of the woods to make excuses for them. Fuck that noise.
  - Gud 2y ago
    And why shouldn’t you be able to use EU funds for that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a political organisation that is pro EU gets funding, the opponents should be funded as well. What is beneficial to the EU as a organisation shouldn’t be a parameter at all, that’s not how democracy works. I agree that Marie Le Pen holds authoritarian views. When it comes to politicians this seems to be the rule rather than an exception. But that doesn’t make EU a particularly democratic organisation. In my opinion, it is rare to find politicians who try to increase democracy. Regarding your USA example, I believe it is only a nominally democratic state. I don’t think what they do over there is particularly good and should not be wused as a positive example. I believe the best example of a functioning democracy is Switzerland.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > And why shouldn’t you be able to use EU funds for that? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if a political organisation that is pro EU gets funding, the opponents should be funded as well. What is beneficial to the EU as a organisation shouldn’t be a parameter at all, that’s not how democracy works. I fundamentally disagree with that. It would be like using public funds to run for presidency in a country while campaigning for that country to cease to exist. Note that they didn't forbid her to campaign on a platform that is against the EU - which I think they should - they only forbid her to use public EU funds to do so. That you want to paint this as undemocratic is very bizarre. > But that doesn’t make EU a particularly democratic organisation. To the opposite, EU fragments power quite a lot. It is one of the main reasons why it is slow to act sometimes, many changes requires unanimous approval from all member countries (which is why Orban gets to veto any initiative while he is gurgling on Putin's balls). > In my opinion, it is rare to find politicians who try to increase democracy. I don't even know if we would agree what a perfectly functioning democracy even is.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        > It would be like using public funds to run for presidency in a country while campaigning for that country to cease to exist. You seem to think this is an absurd scenario - I don't know how to tell you this, but it's not. It's allowed in healthy democracies. To give just three contemporary European examples: 1. In the UK the Scottish National Party gets public money for being in Parliament, yet has the stated goal that the UK should cease to exist. SNP MPs aren't thrown in prison or banned from politics. That's because the UK is a democracy. 2. Flanders has independence parties that poll highly and take part in regular politics without being banned from Belgian politics. 3. MEPs themselves are frequently arch Euro-nationalists. They get public money and then campaign to effectively abolish the countries they represent, demanding their national governments be replaced by the EU institutions. This is of course not considered illegal. Whilst there are regions that criminalize attempts to actually become independent (which they shouldn't), even they typically don't criminalize merely being in favor of it. > Note that they didn't forbid her to campaign on a platform that is against the EU - which I think they should - they only forbid her to use public EU funds to do so. She's been banned from politics entirely and given a prison sentence. That meets the threshold for something being forbidden. It honestly sounds like you'd have been happy with all the other attempts to unite Europe under a single government that happened in the 20th century. Not only are you delighted by this clearly despotic move, you think it should be illegal to even be against the EU at all: a purist argument for the EU as totalitarian dictatorship. You should really think about whether that's the place you want to be, philosophically. Especially as frustration over the EU's undemocratic approach was the primary reason the UK left.