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)
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:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manfred_Weber
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.
I agree again.
There is one thing that I forgot. Von der Leyen deleted the messages with the Pfizer CEO about the vaccine delivery contracts. She left Germany with a scandal about consulting contracts.
The existing structure allowed the establishment of a corrupt politician. It suggests that there is deep seated corruption if she could be elected despite the scandal.
The extreme right shouldn't be the only platform that demands a change.
Honestly reading up on Von der Leyen apparently getting away with that, wtf. Hopefully New York Times lawsuit will follow with appropriate results this year. The very least they could do is replace her with what's likely a dime a dozen.
100%, it's just about balancing that with also a stable EU that allows influence that's pro citizens (or more ideally humanity)
I missed the lawsuit. That's bad because it means that no European news organization dared to do it.
Oh trust me, how pathetic the situation is wasn't lost on me lmao