Hacker News Reader

Comment by mark_l_watson | Hacker News Reader

+1 I was also shocked to hear in a news conference the EU president Ursula von der Leyen threaten the Italian voters right before the election. Seriously, I was shocked. So much for believing in democracy.

I am very liberal politically, but I 100% support people on the right wing who run into trouble with the Neoliberal overlords.

We need to have respect for all people's opinions (that are non-violent, etc.) and support all people's rights to vote as they wish. I think the Neoliberals must envy China's authoritarian control of their population, because that is what I think the Neoliberals want also.

BTW, I joined the World Economic Forum for a while just to read directly what they were up to.

View on HN

Likewise, left leaning and i find it shocking. And as much as i want to not criticise the eu and its politics i simply can’t. Always sanctions and threats what happened to cooperation and mutual understanding?

Another problem is the term Fascism that's been thrown around willy-nilly. I think next time one uses the term, it is probably worth looking up what Fascism really looks like.

To be fair Meloni belonged to a neo fascist group when she was young, and has publicly expressed admiration for Mussolini.

The term fascism is often misused, but I’d say not this time.

yeah she is an actual Fascist.

> +1 I was also shocked to hear in a news conference the EU president Ursula von der Leyen threaten the Italian voters right before the election.

This is the very first time I've heard such a thing. Do you have a source showcasing what you claim to be threats?

During a conference on Thursday at Princeton University, an attendant pointed out to von der Leyen that “figures close to Putin” were among candidates for the upcoming legislative election on Sunday. “We’ll see,” she replied. “If things go in a difficult direction — and I’ve spoken about Hungary and Poland — we have the tools.” - https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-election-candidate-war...

> “If things go in a difficult direction — and I’ve spoken about Hungary and Poland — we have the tools.”

Please explain what led you to interpret this as a threat of any form. The Orban reference was pretty clear.

From the article:

> "This is a clear reference to the ability of the European Commission to cut funds allocated to member countries when they are deemed to be violating the rule of law."

Cutting funds allocated to member countries for not voting the way you want seems like a pretty clear threat to me!

They can't cut funding for "not voting the way they want". Funding can be held back if governments violate treaty obligations, after a lengthy process. (I.e. the other referenced examples have clear reasons why the process is running, and it's not because who the voters voted for ...)

And maybe von der Leyen will lobby for a stricter reading of those treaties if the wrong party gets elected, which is the subtext of her words, obvious to all but the most willfully obtuse.

So some lawyers will spend some extra years fighting over some edge cases, with very unclear results if its not something serious but a fishing operation as you suggest. Or some actual legal issues will have to be resolved. Scary.

Love that you finally admit they were threats, and now are just trying to minimize them. Go ask the Germans how empty Biden’s threats to end the gas pipelines they depended on were.

No, I merely argue that if you read them to be threats in that sense, they are pretty pointless threats. And it thus makes little sense to read them as such, because they would be such unimpressive threats.

Your US/Germany comparison doesn't work, since that's an entirely different situation. For starters, a state like the US can actually apply pressure or use force, because there isn't an established strong framework saying it can't nor anything directly enforcing what little there is. US enforced sanctions over the pipeline construction because it didn't like the pipeline, nothing Germany can do directly. (And if you want to assume the recent sabotage was the US, pretty much the same applies)

The commission is just not an independent state-level actor in that way. It's actually constrained by a state-like legal framework around it, granting it limited powers for specific purposes. Outside of those, it can and will be reigned in very quickly.

But who oversees the rule of law within the eu commission? Ursula is infamously corrupt, incompetent and rejected by germans, who sanctions the eu commission when it itself violates the “rule of law”? Dont get me wrong, i agree with the principle, but the eu needs reform. Each time anyone dares raise such desire they are either immediately pushed back or threatened with sanctions.

> But who oversees the rule of law within the eu commission

EU courts are the judical oversight, and the EU parliament can remove the commission at any time (legislative oversight).

I know the theory but my question was more philosophical.

Corruption isnt just taking bribes. Urusula’s comments are akin to coercing voters into voting against their preference and are a clear violation of treaties whereby the eu has no right to intervene in the sovereign voting process of member states. Its not like italians were bribed or forced into voting a certain way. That means ursula is abusing a position of power in favour of certain political parties with the threat of cutting funding if their new leader isnt docile enough. That is corruption and the perfectly fine eu courts will never sanction her for it.

I think that's interpreting too much into the comment, especially with the reference to Poland and Hungary: It's saying that if the governments cause problems with EU law, the commission has tools to handle that. The commission does not have the power to just cut funding without a reason, and if it ever attempts to do so the EU courts will put a stop to it. The treaty violation processes are slow, intentionally. (And the majority of member states is quite happy with that, since most of them run into that occasionally, and also has all the reasons to not stand for that)

"We'll pay close attention if you stick to the laws" is pretty much the worst the commission can really threaten a government, which isn't really all that much if there is nothing serious to punish.

You could be right, lets see how things develop. But cornering the leader of a country from the get go can have the effect of rallying people around said leader and galvanising their position. You know, national pride and all. Instead ursula should have shown a bit more diplomacy and tact. The british have been rallied around brexiteers precisely because of a lack of diplomacy and tact on eu’s part. They basically said nein to any attempt of negotiation, voters put up their two fingers because of sovereign pride and all and here we are.

I found this article to cover the quote in her recent speech about "tools." [0]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eus-von-der-leyen-deliv...

Here's the quote from the article.

> My approach is that whatever democratic government is willing to work with us, we're working together," von der Leyen said at Princeton University in the United States on Thursday, responding to a question on whether there were any concerns with regard to the upcoming elections in Italy.

> "If things go in a difficult direction, I've spoken about Hungary and Poland, we have tools," she added.

So a liberal democratic organization is prepared to protect itself from sabotage from fascist organizations that are actively manipulated by external actors to undermine them. That's your threat.

I assumed that you were using "liberal democratic organization" in jest, but now I am not sure. Would you like to elaborate on your "actively maniuplated by external actors" statement? Is this something like the Russiagate hoax? Are you suggesting Italian voters aren't capable of voting in their own interests?

It’s probably more related to the fact that 70% of the country didn’t actually vote for them, it’s hardly the will of the people.

More then half of the country voted for her coalition.

That’s not actually true either but good try.

Which actually is worse for Draghi and the rest of the EU puppets— meaning the voters are so disaffected they couldn’t be bothered to even come out and vote for them.

A corrupt liberal democratic organisation that has no right to intervene in the democratic processes of sovereign member states that have formed an alliance to create the said organisation. I dont agree with polands or hungarys politics but that is not my business. The us is not sanctioning texas or florida for its politics and looney governors. Why is the eu which is not even a federal government daring make such interventions? Who gave them the right? Who voted ursula in in this so called “democracy”?

> A corrupt liberal democratic organisation (...)

The European Union is a federation of liberal democracies. It's not a Bond-like villain organization.

The bulk of EU's member states value human rights, including women's rights and individual rights and freedom.

You're putting up absurd strawmen to try to rationalize nonsense.

As much as i’d like the eu to be a federation it’s not quite there yet. At the moment it’s just a mechanism for europeans to dominate each other without starting wars.

> manipulated by external actors

The irony of this comment!

Well op does have a point. A certain country is very active in supporting nationalist movements in europe and isolationist policies in the us. The age old divide and conquer. It is a real threat and not a right vs left issue. This is a matter of collective security as the motives behind division have been repeatedly stated: expansion and domination. But i do agree with your sentiment assumed from previous comments, neither right or left leaders have an effective solution to the bigger issue.

Von der Leyen did not refer to "sabotage", "fascist organizations", "external actors". There's a reason that she talks in vague terms about "things going in a difficult direction" and that is that there's nothing more concrete.

> There's a reason that she talks in vague terms (...)

She did not. You're trying to pass off a conspiracy theory by omitting context and taking quotes out of context, including erasing parts of the quote.

If you're still confused just go learn about Victor Orban and Hungary's recent regression into an totalitarian dictatorship that's profoundly illiberal and outright a sock puppet of external actors such as Putin's Russian federation. Go learn about it's destruction of Hungary's independent judiciary and attacks on fundamental human rights, which go against fundamental principles of the European Union, and learn about how the EU has been reacting to this sort of illiberal drift.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com