If the EU suspends Poland...? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14827950
One Degree wrote:Do you really believe it's members joined for moral reasons?
:?:

They joined for political, economic, and financial reasons. Do you think there are moral reasons all behind the Polish-Hungarian nonsense?
#14827952
Beren wrote:They joined for political, economic, and financial reasons. Do you think there are moral reasons all behind the Polish-Hungarian nonsense?


Absolutely, since the whole issue is the EU says what they want to do with their government goes against EU moral standards.
#14827955
All the power brokers in Western countries use economic blackmail to get what they want, and then they claim everyone wants this.


Making a deal with a country, economic trade for following the rules of the deal, is hardly blackmail. Unless you believe that every country has some sort of inherent right to the economic market of every other country.

Absolutely, since the whole issue is the EU says what they want to do with their government goes against EU moral standards.


EU membership is predicated on having a certain type of government. When they joined they knew this and they know it now. Would you say that a single person can break any contract with impunity and still expect the service the other party offered? Don't be ridiculous.
#14827956
Not at all, but everyone knows the reasons countries joined the EU were not to support their moral agenda. Yes, once they agree then they should be held accountable. This does not change the fact that the moral agenda is pursued through subterfuge. I guess I am just bitching because no one seems to be able to refuse caving in to moral demands for cash. :(
#14827957
This does not change the fact that the moral agenda is pursued through subterfuge.


The explicit purpose of the EU is subterfuge? It's truly a masterwork of hiding your secret agenda by telling everyone what your planning and then doing it.

I guess I am just bitching because no one seems to be able to refuse caving in to moral demands for cash.


Material goods have always been more important to the majority of humanity than vague principles and values. Morals are ephemeral luxuries that pale in importance when compared to food and shelter. The reason no one seems able to refuse is because when push comes to shove people and societies can change their values like the wind when necessary, but people must always eat.

The economy has always been the most important thing to human society, it's only recently that we in the west have had the luxury of pretending otherwise.
#14827959
I strongly disagree. I believe the 'baby boomers' were the first who were not willing to sacrifice for their morals and following generations have just gotten weaker. Earlier generations may have been misguided but they did not hesitate to lay down their lives for principle.
#14827960
Both Poland and Hungary were liberal democracies when they joined the EU, and being a liberal democracy has always been and still is a vital precondition for joining and being a member too. Just because liberal democracy ceased to be a fancy thing in Hungary and Poland the EU can't say it's fine not being a liberal democracy from now on. This conflict can only end with either Hungary and Poland accepting the rules or leaving sooner or later.
Last edited by Beren on 28 Jul 2017 22:42, edited 1 time in total.
#14827962
The baby boomers morality and principles were just coincidentally the exact principles to support the system that gave them all the material wealth they had as a generation.

It must be convenient when your moral values just so happen to align with your economic interests, makes it really easy to uphold your lofty principles.
#14827963
mikema63 wrote:The baby boomers morality and principles were just coincidentally the exact principles to support the system that gave them all the material wealth they had as a generation.

It must be convenient when your moral values just so happen to align with your economic interests, makes it really easy to uphold your lofty principles.

I believe you misread my post. I said baby boomers were the first not to be willing to sacrifice for their principles. Being loud is not a sacrifice.

Edit: We were the first to dismiss the idea of 'for God and country'.
#14827967
No they aren't, not for a long shot. People always justify their economic benefit morally. Slave owners used the same bible to support slavery that the abolishionists used to oppose it.

Humanity is only moral insofar as morality are social rules that develop and change over time to support the systems that society operates with. Morals are lies we tell ourselves and each other to make the economy move.
#14827972
@mikema63
No they aren't, not for a long shot. People always justify their economic benefit morally. Slave owners used the same bible to support slavery that the abolishionists used to oppose it.

And they were both willing to die for what they believed, even though it was obvious slavery would disappear without war. They fought for principle.
Humanity is only moral insofar as morality are social rules that develop and change over time to support the systems that society operates with. Morals are lies we tell ourselves and each other to make the economy move.

That is a modern view that is held by those who have too mamy material possessions to lose. Those without don't mind sacrificing. You are rationalizing why consumerism should be superior to morals. :?: I mean you are obviously correct in that is how people feel today, but is it how they should feel? Are your things really that important to you? Somehow I doubt that is true of you.
#14828118
Beren wrote:Both Poland and Hungary were liberal democracies when they joined the EU, and being a liberal democracy has always been and still is a vital precondition for joining and being a member too. Just because liberal democracy ceased to be a fancy thing in Hungary and Poland the EU can't say it's fine not being a liberal democracy from now on. This conflict can only end with either Hungary and Poland accepting the rules or leaving sooner or later.


Perhaps liberal democracy doesn't work everywhere. It's very tricky to get it working properly. Why else would people NOT want it? :)

For the economic backwardness of Hungary pre WW1 and immediately after you can only blame Hungarian aristocracy and Hungarian parliament as the other half was more successful.
#14828146
fokker wrote:Perhaps liberal democracy doesn't work everywhere. It's very tricky to get it working properly. Why else would people NOT want it? :)

For the economic backwardness of Hungary pre WW1 and immediately after you can only blame Hungarian aristocracy and Hungarian parliament as the other half was more successful.

It's not that simple that people don't want liberal democracy. They would want to live a Western life, that's why they joined the EU.

The other half was always more successful, they still didn't choose to keep the legacy of Dualism, the Habsburgs had less chance to stay in or return to power in Austria than Hungary after the collapse of Austria-Hungary. Unlike Hungary, which became an autocratic, corrupt and backward pseudo-monarchy, the Austrians established a republic and they're still a republic. So why would they join the Visegrad Loser Group?
#14828165
A lot of western economic power is holed up in patents and brands. Once those run out or lose their appeal, there won't be a lot of people bowing down to the EU for any reason because the degenerating state of "education" and so-on will really start being felt.
#14828273
Beren wrote:Unlike Hungary, which became an autocratic, corrupt and backward pseudo-monarchy, the Austrians established a republic and they're still a republic. So why would they join the Visegrad Loser Group?

Hungary actually vetoed an offer by the Czech president Milos Zeman to expand the Visegard group to include Austria and Slovenia in 2014. The workaround has been the establishment of the Austerlitz Format (German wiki, but there is also a Hungarian entry for this) between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria, supposedly a supplement, as opposed to competition, to the Visegard group.

Any idea why Hungary/Orban would be opposed?
#14828343
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Hungary actually vetoed an offer by the Czech president Milos Zeman to expand the Visegard group to include Austria and Slovenia in 2014.

Maybe Orban vetoed because Hungary would be less significant in such an extended (and attenuated) version of the group.
#14828352
Probably because relations with Hungary and not that good and Austria likes to criticize Orban. Which leads to conclusion if Austria wants any influence it needs to be more active and expand Austerlitz group with Slovenia and Croatia and Hungary should be the last country to join as they are trouble makers. I expect at least 10 years to elapse before this can happen as Austria seems to have little interest in political cooperation.
#14828362
Isn't it the FPÖ's idea that Austria should join the V4? Orban could agree with it perhaps if they were in power. However, Hungary is not interested in any expansion of the group. If Austria joined, it would become a leader, which Orban wouldn't like to happen obviously.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

You're not ordinary, Qatz. Stop pretending to d[…]

Another resource of degenerates who want to watch […]

There are many ways to approach a construction si[…]

The actual argument (that the definition is being[…]