Europe
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
- Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Posts that link to the following sources will be removed
- on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons), archive:is,ph,today (their JS DDoS websites)
- on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
- on Hungary: Euronews
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
Ban lengths, etc.
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
view the rest of the comments
Because radicalism is good for the economy?
I don't think so, they should rather kick out Marine Le Pen and Front National.
That could do a great deal to create better stability and progress. Even if extremists manage to improve the economy in the beginning, they always end up ruining it, just look at Hitler and Putin, and then there are the ones like Trump that ruin it right from the beginning.
This is only a valid argument if you still believe that anyone is able to improve the economic situation.
Without that believe everything becomes a fight for pieces of a decreasing pie.
Which explains increasing formation of tighter in- and outgroups and the increased support for the political ideology supporting this kind of thinking.
No it isn't, because the radicals will destroy the economy way worse, and that is what will make it a fight for scraps.
That argument only makes sense if you think the political centre would protect you from the fight for scraps that is already happening.
There is growing evidence that the political centre will throw even more parts of the population into poverty so that the rich can keep getting richer.
I am not saying the radical parties are necessarily the fix to that, certainly not the radical liberatarian and especially not the radical right.
I'm just saying the ~~radical~~ political centre is also not doing so great at making the economy work for everyone.
That's an oxymoron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
Nope, it's what many parties in western nations have become.
Edit: But if your point was, that I made a mistake there: Yes you are right, I meant the political centre not the radical centre.
This only means that you are hiding the problems under the rug, it is like outlawing AfD: you maybe remove an immediate problem but you don't remove the people who think that Le Pen or Front National have the solutions, and more importantly, you don't solve the (supposed) problems that causes their rise.
And these people will come back to bite you sooner or later, and it will be far worse than whatever could happen trying to solve the problem now.
That's like complaining that putting murderers in prison doesn't stop people's murderous thoughts.
I get what you are saying but to me this seems an oversimplification simply because voting is something act on, not only thoughts to do.
A more correct analogy would be "it is the same thing tha not putting murderes in jail and to pretend murderes do not exist and then complaining because the problem do not solve itself".
The fact is that Le Pen says something a certain quote of voters consider true (for whatever reasons and I am not judging it) and the only way to "remove" Le Pen is solve the problems she points out, it is the only real solution.
The issue is that far right propaganda is self-sustaining, as long as people are in that swamp they're not getting out of that. Banning far right parties is not enough by itself to drain that particular swamp, but it cannot be drained as long as these parties are legal.
I disagree with your "The issue is that far right propaganda is self-sustaining" It is not. Or better, it is not at this scale.
Extreme parties always existed, now they are simply on the rise because the other parties simply stopped to care.
If these parties were illegal, they would already have been disbanded.
So the mere fact that they are still there means that they are not illegal, or at least it is not that easy to demonstrate that they are illegal. You cannot disband a party just because you think it is illegal or you don't agree with it.
We want to send back the extremist parties ? Good, what about fighting the cause instead of curing the effects ? Instead of continually draining the swamp, what about to avoid it fills up ?
The assumption is always that this parties exist because people are extremist but nobody explain how can be possible that an extremist population never voted (or never built) an extremist party up until now.
Cannot be that these extremist parties are an answer to the fact that the traditional (Left) parties decide to not care anymore about people ?
I mean, if the first thing Merz said after the AfD won the local elections was "we will continue this way", it means that he don't even try to understand why they had lost.
To remain in your swamp analogy, they don't even try to understand why the swamp if filling up, they are just trying to drain it using the wrong tools.
I didn't say that it's one or the other, both are necessary.
True, but it better to start avoiding the swamp to fill up and then starting to drain it then draining it when it is still filling up.
Governments can do several things at the same time.
Oh yes, in the end there are only so much of them how many could they are? A couple million people ? Two hundred thousand ? Twenty thousand ? What's the number that make right the same thing AfD want supposely to do to people who has no right to be in German in the first place, with the difference that AfD removing them simply means sending them home ?
You are an hypocrite: you have no problem using the same methods you protest against simply because this time these methods fit your agenda. And because you have no better argument than violence.
No, these voters will see what you did and will vote for even more extremist parties. You are a fool if you are thinking that to win these votes you can simply ban a party and then remove (violently ?) who protest this act. Not to consider the fact that these voters vote for AfD exactly because in their opinion CDU e FDP sucks.
Just to say, Hitler begin his rise chatting in bars, so maybe it is not such good thing.
I think way more than you think. 10/15 years ago you could be right, now I am not that sure.
Ok, so you are ok with removing low thousands citizen in order to not solve a problem but only to hide it under the rug.
What can be go wrong ?
I don't think they meant to use violence anyway. And in your way you don't presenve anything, you impose it and it is very different.
Nope. I don't really think that an eventual AfD 2.0, which would learn from how and why the AfD was removed, could be automatically banned or that you would be able to ban them without streching the law because the first time you will get people like AfD, or the first generation of Le Pen or guys like Vannacci and Salvini.
The second round will have people more intelligent (like Marine Le Pen which politically speaking is an improvement over the first Le Pen) which would present the same program in a more suitable way. Honestly, speaking for Italian situation, if there would be some more presentable guy than Vannacci or Salvini who is able to present the same program in a better and less extreme way, it would win without any problem. Same for Le Pen and AfD.
You people still do not understand that AfD, Vannacci, Le Pen, Trump and Right extremism are not a cause, they are an effect. Solve the causes and the problem is gone, cure only the effects and the problems only become worse.
And as I said, you don't solve the problem simply hiding it under the rug.
So what's the problem of "removing" a few thousands illegal immigrants (for example) in order to avoid that the right far parties have "ammunitions" against the democracy ?
Or, better, what's the problem with "removing" all the criminals in the cities that make living the cities impossible in certain zones or after a given time, removing even more "ammunitions" to the far right ?
I am pretty sure that people in the cities would love to be able to walk around their city without the fear to be victim of a petty crime.
But again, you are focusing on the effects, not the causes.
And if it is needed to deport a bit of illegal immigrants every couple of years, well, I think the government can arrange that.
Still sounding good to you ?
So, AfD say that there are too many illegal immigrants, people see that it is true (come on, you just need to walk around the city) and they voted them.
You remove the illegal immigrants, AfD what can say now ?
If they say there are still illegal immigrants and people don't see them (or do not consider this a problem anymore) then they consider AfD good-for-nothings (ok, some will continue to vote for them, idiots are always present) Result: AfD has not anymore a way to weaponize illegal immigration, you remove an "ammunition" in their propagandistic "weapon".
Do this for almost every point AfD make and you end up with a society that is better and AfD gone back to the irrelevant group it was when born, like every extremist party.
Some problem would not be completely solved, it is not possible, but you just need to lower them below a threshold that make it bearable and you remove them anyway from the arsenal the far right parties can use in their propaganda.
Let me give you an example of what already happened in the same exact way: back then, in my city (Milan, Italy), every now and then there would be someone at an intersection offering to wash your windshield; people didn’t mind because it happened only occasionally—in fact, they often accepted the service in exchange for a few coins. When these people started showing up at every single intersection (sometimes even more than one person at a single intersection), becoming pushy, and causing minor damage to cars if you refused, people began to see them as an increasingly annoying problem.
Did you know what happened ?
What happened was that, after two elections, the candidate who promised to eliminate the problem was elected—after the other candidates had twice downplayed, if not outright denied, the problem. And he won because he was able to target these people and brand them as a problem (in part they truly were, but for the most part they were just desperate people), and the electorate identified with what he was saying—they had firsthand experience with exactly what the “extremist” candidate was describing.
If the ruling party had addressed the issue, this extremist candidate would never have won: what could he have latch onto? A few persons who occasionally wants to wash your windshield at an intersection? If he had used that as a campaign issue, he would have been ridiculed.
Basically the ruling parties decided to offer the extremist candidates ammunitions, the same errors the ruling parties in most of Europe are doing right now.
Although I agree that outlawing a party is not a good idea, this is a straw man argument, because I never claimed they should outlaw , but only that they should vote those fuckers way out of any influence.
But people are stupid, the average person is dumb, and 50% are even dumber. 🤷♀️
They already did it last time. And it failed for a simple reason: when you put together everyone with the sole common thread being that they don’t want someone specific to win, you will win in the immediate but then you fail big.
France should have learned what happen in Italy every two election cycle: the right win, then the left put together everyone to not let the right win, the left win and then they fail miserably exactly because there are too many people together that has not a common idea if not "[she/he/them] must not win", and with this and we end up with a new election cycle or a "technical" governement which in any case end with the right winning in the end.
Calling stupid all the people who don't think like you or that say they had a problem is the best way to gift them to the right.
No literally people are morons that don't think or care about what happens around them. It's not about disagreeing, it's also on simple facts of reality. Antivaxxers is an example. Fascists is another. But there are more than it is possible to state here. More than half the population are either ignorant or misguided about the simplest things.
I agree. But just calling an antivaxxer or a fascist stupid do not solve anything, if not make thing even worse.
Acknowledging the problem is the first step to solve it.
It doesn't help to call donkeys horses.