European Politics

[____no5]

After a quick, 2 minutes search:

Ursula von der Leyen has not been prosecuted for any of her scandals.

• Pfizer Vaccine Deal: The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) opened an investigation into the vaccine contracts, but no formal charges have been brought against her. She has not provided the missing text messages related to the Pfizer negotiations.
• German Defense Ministry Scandal: A parliamentary inquiry investigated the irregular awarding of contracts, but von der Leyen was never formally accused of a crime. She testified in 2019 and distanced herself from wrongdoing, blaming poor oversight within the ministry.

While these scandals have raised ethical and transparency concerns, she has not faced prosecution or direct legal consequences.

.....

Christine Lagarde, currently the President of the European Central Bank (ECB ) and former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), has been involved in one major scandal:

• Bernard Tapie Arbitration Scandal (2008–2016): While serving as France’s Minister of Finance (2007–2011) under President Nicolas Sarkozy, Lagarde was involved in a controversial €403 million arbitration settlement to businessman Bernard Tapie. Tapie, a former politician and businessman, claimed that state-owned bank Crédit Lyonnais defrauded him during the sale of his stake in Adidas in the 1990s. Instead of letting the courts decide, Lagarde personally approved a private arbitration, which awarded Tapie a massive payout from French taxpayers. Critics alleged the settlement was politically motivated and unfairly favorable to Tapie, who had ties to Sarkozy.
• Conviction for Negligence (2016): In 2016, the Court of Justice of the Republic (CJR), which handles cases against French government officials, found Lagarde guilty of negligence for allowing the arbitration to proceed. However, the court did not impose any fine or jail sentence, citing her “good reputation” and “international responsibilities.” She did not appeal the ruling, but the case damaged her reputation.

Despite this conviction, Lagarde remained in high-profile international roles, later becoming IMF chief (2011–2019) and then ECB President (2019–present).

 

[Vaenyr]

Agree with you on everything in that post except for this. Being in a position of authority is something nobody should want. It should be the most unattractive thing in the world. It should be seen as a chore, not a privilege. It should be a burden that you should want to carry as briefly as possible. You should be treated with absolute mistrust on every step along your way. Everything you do and say should be scrutinised, you should be held accountable for everything and you should fear that any misstep will get you in trouble you can never recover from. And you should not be allowed to stay in this position for one second beyond a pre-determined time. The moment you start clinging to such a position, that moment you should be removed, by force if necessary.

This is the only way I can find moral justification for the necessary evil of giving one person power over another.

I know this is not realistic, but since we've moved the discussion to what we think things should be like, this is how I feel.

I absolutely agree with you! I should've phrased my point a bit differently.

What I was trying to emphasize was that many countries have certain criteria that need to be met to be eligible to run for the highest office. A simple example would be the requirement of being a natural born citizen to run for the (vice) presidency in the US. It is not an "attack on democracy" or the beginning of a constitutional crisis to bar someone from running for office, since as you phrased it perfectly, it is a privilege, not a right.

As for your overall point: It's the classic "those who want to rule shouldn't; those who don't want to rule are often those we need".

Edit: Kinda hilarious that the best examples you could find 5 were of someone who wasn't charged (and thus can't face consequences) and someone who was prosecuted but apparently you're unhappy with the results lol

 

[Perun]

You don’t see that by not following this logic it’s an open invitation to bar whoever system they don’t like from being elected?

I agree that this is always a risk. This is why the public eye is necessary. The problem is that the opposite slippery slope is also possible: That by not having to suffer consequences, politicians will do whatever they like. The examples you posted above make my point for me. The reason why people like von der Leyen get away with these things is that there is limited public awareness. The solution of this problem is raising public awareness, not playing the "they got away with it so my guy should too" game.

 

[____no5]

I agree that this is always a risk. This is why the public eye is necessary. The problem is that the opposite slippery slope is also possible: That by not having to suffer consequences, politicians will do whatever they like. The examples you posted above make my point for me. The reason why people like von der Leyen get away with these things is that there is limited public awareness. The solution of this problem is raising public awareness, not playing the "they got away with it so my guy should too" game.

And Christine Lagarde is even worse.
Absolutely they should suffer consequences but why not people be the ultimate judge in a democracy? Everything under the sun and let the people decide. If not, lawfare is guaranteed to happen and it will.

Seriously. This is not the last time we are seeing this thing. The 5 year plan is militarisation of Europe, even in times of de-industrialisation. Where they will find the money? From welfare. People expected to react. So any leader who may pose a threat to this plan will be out. And it's not just ideological, there will be a huge grift involved. It just happens that most of them are on the far right of the spectrum, but not all, Sarah W. from Germany & Robert Fico they are on the left. By the way Fico was almost assassinated (5 bullets on the chest) last spring.

And it's not about parties either it's about people. Corbyn and Starmer belong supposedly to the same party, but no way the establishment would allow Corbyn be at the helm of UK, thus Starmer was used to undermine Corbyn and now he's a Prime Minister and a Blair wannabe.

Now it's just the start, but after one or two years you will have seen enough and maybe you will agree more often with me.

 

[Perun]

but why not people be the ultimate judge in a democracy? Everything under the sun and let the people decide.

Because this is not democracy, but mob rule. We came up with laws in out civilisation so everyone can be held by the same standards.

Sarah W. from Germany & Robert Fico they are on the left.

Do you mean Sahra Wagenknecht? Why not type her name out?
She's not on the left. Her only allegiance is to herself and to Vladimir Putin.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

I agree that this is always a risk. This is why the public eye is necessary. The problem is that the opposite slippery slope is also possible: That by not having to suffer consequences, politicians will do whatever they like.

That is why I for example explicitly differentiated between just punishment and exemption from the political process. Le Pen should go to jail for the crime and be fined to boot, but she still should be eligible to be a candidate, if people wished to vote for her anyway. Again, this:

If the majority of voters of a country would vote for someone currently sitting in prison, then there is a much deeper problem, either with the system that put such person in prison or with the majority of voters who would vote for a criminal, but you won't "save" this by cherrypicking and imprisoning potential candidates that the court deems reprehensible enough not to be allowed to run. Because where are the guidelines for this? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

(Besides that, I have expressed that were January 6 provably ascribable to Trump - not the place to argue about that here - I'd argue he should be exempted from the process as well. So I wonder if I am "concern trolling" as well, as V said in his post.)

------

Again, this is an issue as exempting from the political process for other reasons has been misused and abused repeatedly in history and is still done so today. Hence it is the ultima ratio, the means to which I'd recommend to go as rarely as possible.

I mean, imagine another thing - imagine a Pirate Party that would indeed want to deconstruct copyright as it is nowadays as it is inherently unjust, anti-social (it more or less serves the oligarchy of corporations), hinders legitimate fair use, creates fake scarcity and so on (not the point to argue here, but humour me).
If a political opponent brings up that their (probably left->far-left) candidate that was one of the favourites to win breaches copyright already and calls for investigation and the person is found guilty not only of civil liability against companies that have been hoarding data they do not even wish to use, but because of the extent, it is found to be a criminal offence as well and the candidate is barred from running, meaning the proposed change of the copyright legislation itself is never to be enforced, is that okay? It wouldn't be for me. It isn't for Le Pen. And not because I wish to see her as president, not even to "own the libs" (I haven't approached Trump in this way either).

-------

Also - no, it is not a privilege, it is a citizen right, a constitutional right - the primary aspect of modern democracy is not only to vote for someone, but to be voted for. There can be limits and conditions, but these are always weighted against the basic systemic right of the citizenship and as such, should be hindering such right as little as possible and in a justifiable and proportionate manner.
There are no privileges. We are all equally wicked.

-------

Spoiler: A bit of sidetracking, "public eye" and context to better understand my opinions and concerns

And also - as for the "public eye" - very soon my country will have the memorial day of the victims of the communist regime, with people persecuted in inhumane manner (women in prison giving birth and hearing through the wall as their child is slowly getting quiter and quieter still until the cries stop), as good as killed (working with uranium ore without any protection - having to wear the same clothes with uranium dust even to bed - and dying very soon from radiation poisoning) or downright hanged for reasons such as "was against collectivisation" and "had sister in Vienna", but most of those remembered are political oponents. Like Milada Horáková (she was not the only one in her group, but the only woman, with Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt and Winston Churchill unsuccessfully pleading for her life) who was hanged anyway and whose face we see on billboards every year.

Why am I saying this here - When the process with Horakova and others was being publically conducted (it was in the Stalinist style, with fake forced confessions, long winded rants from the prosecutor, verall circus), it was broadcast on the radio and there were thousands of letters from honest people that were up in rage, clamoring for the harshest punishments and preferably death, about how these wicked bastards are "dogs", "vicious criminals" and how death is hardly enough.

I'm not saying this is it (Le Pen is not a "victim" in any way), I just want to explain why I tend to be so sceptical/cynical. Both towards the French revolution (which had its own reign of terror) and any other public opinion.

 

[Vaenyr]

Sahra Wagenknecht is notorious for being a Putin stooge. The official policies of her party align far more with the far right AFD than the Left party.

Also - no, it is not a privilege, it is a citizen right, a constitutional right - the primary aspect of modern democracy is not only to vote for someone, but to be voted for. There can be limits and conditions, but these are always weighted against the basic systemic right of the citizenship and as such, should be hindering such right as little as possible and in a justifiable and proportionate manner.
There are no privileges. We are all equally wicked.

No, it factually is a privilege, despite your subjective feelings on the matter. You need to fulfill certain criteria, otherwise you can't run for office. In other words: the default is that you aren't eligible and have to become eligible for elections. That's not how "rights" work. Can a 10 year old run for office? What if the voters reeeally really want to vote for the kid? Turns out that doesn't matter because if the criteria aren't met, you can't run.

If you want to talk about how you feel about those things and how you think those ought to be, feel free, but if we are talking about objective facts then we have to acknowledge that running for the highest office of a country is a privilege.

 

[Perun]

Again, this is an issue as exempting from the political process for other reasons has been misused and abused repeatedly in history and is still done so today. Hence it is the ultima ratio, the means to which I'd recommend to go as rarely as possible.

And this is exactly what's happening here. Her ineligibilty is limited to five years. It's not like she or RN have been permanently banned.

Why don't we look at it from a different perspective? Her five year ineligibility is a personal punishment. Not a statement about who should or should not be running for office. Le Pen is punished by being blocked from doing something that is important to her, because this is the fitting punishment for ber crime. She has to feel the weight of her misdemeanor. This is exactly the harsh justice the far right is usually pushing for.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

Sahra Wagenknecht is notorious for being a Putin stooge. The official policies of her party align far more with the far right AFD than the Left party.


No, it factually is a privilege, despite your subjective feelings on the matter. You need to fulfill certain criteria, otherwise you can't run for office. In other words: the default is that you aren't eligible and have to become eligible for elections. That's not how "rights" work. If you want to talk about how you feel about those things and how you think those ought to be, feel free, but if we are talking about objective facts then we have to acknowledge that running for the highest office of a country is a privilege.

Mate, all due respect, but I don't know what is your education and job, but if you went through a law school, I'd suggest revisiting the books a bit as well, especially regarding constitutional law and active and passive suffrage. And maybe just in general on the definition of "right", "conditional right", "priviledge" etc. Czechia and Germany are in the same cultural and legal region, the law and its understanding and theory shouldn't differ this much.

In that regard, I'd like to ask everyone to stop presenting their subjective feelings as "objective facts" and the opposing opinion you disagree with as "your subjective feelings" and "how you feel about things", especially if you're wrong - it's insufferable with Shapiro, it's insufferable with anyone. In the future I will completely ignore any such comments altogether.

And this is exactly what's happening here. Her ineligibilty is limited to five years. It's not like she or RN have been permanently banned.

Still, it is a part of a verdict touching a constitutional right that is curiously effective immediately despite the verdict itself not being final (i. e. - appealable). (Which also means that we may be wasting words for nothing, because it can be yet overturned). I am not seeing any misuse as of now, nor any conspiracy or anything, I just don't see it as a good precedent and I think if the embezzler in question was from a different party, it would be seen as much more controversial in the "public eye" and maybe more concerns would be raised.

Why don't we look at it from a different perspective? Her five year ineligibility is a personal punishment. Not a statement about who should or should not be running for office. Le Pen is punished by being blocked from doing something that is important to her, because this is the fitting punishment for ber crime. She has to feel the weight of her misdemeanor. This is exactly the harsh justice the far right is usually pushing for.

Because the law doesn't work that way. We don't "take what is most dear to you", otherwise I expect future punishments to be "having to watch your wife get gangbanged by the judge and several policemen" or something. Also, this particular punishment is both - not only a personal punishment, but also a factual statement who should (not) be running for office, because there is the public law aspect.


Anyway, let's leave it at the "agree to disagree" part, I won't be shedding no tears for Le Pen in particular, but as I said in the original post, I don't see much reason for celebration anyway. You take down Trump, a Vivek will appear. Cut down one dealer, two more will take his place. As I said in the original post

Do you think that suddenly the support for the far-right will disappear?
Cause unless we'll start taking this stuff seriously, maybe the next president won't be far-right, because of this court ruling, but the next one will definitely be.

That's what I'm genuinely scared about. I'd suggest reevaluating the attitude of patting the back, celebrating, saying "This is fine" along with the dog in the burning room and not going after the roots of the problem.

-----

I think that's enough on the matter from me.

 

[Perun]

Anyway, let's leave it at the "agree to disagree" part

Yes, here I think this is appropriate, because the facts are clear but the angles from which we can view it are quite different.

That's what I'm genuinely scared about. I'd suggest reevaluating the attitude of patting the back, celebrating, saying "This is fine" along with the dog in the burning room and not going after the roots of the problem.

I don't think anyone is actually expecting this to diminish support for the far-right. All commentary I've read on it, from across the political spectrum, agrees that this does nothing to stop RN and, with the exception of one far-left opinion I've read, agrees that this shouldn't be the intention. This is why I think that wasn't the purpose of the verdict, because I simply can't believe the French court would be so naive. I think this is about punishing Le Pen for a crime, and it's a harsh punishment because she is a politician who should know better and who has not shown remorse or even acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

 

[____no5]

Because this is not democracy, but mob rule. We came up with laws in out civilisation so everyone can be held by the same standards.

I see where are you coming from. There is no perfect system.
But as I observe how different democracies function it feels that in US is the most solid of them all. And there you can be elected even being in prison. This is the glory of democracy. Power to the people.

Otherwise we will always end up in situations like Ursula or Lagrande are not prosecuted as parts of the clicque and Le Pen or Georgescu banned. Now it looks convenient for some, but it’s deeply corrosive and it will backfire.

And think about it. With what you propose there’s an underlying mistrust for the judgement of the people. We need to learn to live with that and accept people’s choice that sometimes may seem completely wrong, but that’s it. Otherwise we could always have an Elite to decide what’s good or bad for us. Democracy is sometimes wild and we need to embrace that. If we can’t we are not democrats, but something else.

Do you mean Sahra Wagenknecht? Why not type her name out?

Such a difficult name…

 

[Vaenyr]

Mate, all due respect, but I don't know what is your education and job, but if you went through a law school, I'd suggest revisiting the books a bit as well, especially regarding constitutional law and active and passive suffrage. And maybe just in general on the definition of "right", "conditional right", "priviledge" etc. Czechia and Germany are in the same cultural and legal region, the law and its understanding and theory shouldn't differ this much.

You don't have to be a lawyer or a legal scholar to know the basic definitions of your rights. In fact, it is your civid duty to be aware of them. Maybe Czechia is different, but most countries that I'm aware of have certain criteria that need to be met. That is a fact. This is not up for discussion. Feel free to ignore me from now on, because I'm not interested in repeating simple facts time and time again only for you to ignore them and go "nuh uh".

In that regard, I'd like to ask everyone to stop presenting their subjective feelings as "objective facts" and the opposing opinion you disagree with as "your subjective feelings" and "how you feel about things", especially if you're wrong - it's insufferable with Shapiro, it's insufferable with anyone. In the future I will completely ignore any such comments altogether.

This is pretty much exactly what you did in your comments by the way. The way you try to sidestep simple facts to move the goalposts and try to make your subjective assessment the one that is correct.

That's what I'm genuinely scared about. I'd suggest reevaluating the attitude of patting the back, celebrating, saying "This is fine" along with the dog in the burning room and not going after the roots of the problem.

I have not seen anyone suggest that they think going after Le Pen and her facing the consequences of her own illegal actions would "solve" the issue of the far right. The French have a history of holding their rulers accountable, which is refreshing when you look at the US for example, where the rule of law is currently blatantly disregarded. Should politicians be above the law? Personally I think they should face even more scrutiny in line with the power that they wield.

As for the "hydra" argument, I don't believe it is that black and white. The far right movement in multiple countries is often spearheaded by specific figures. Say Trump for example were to disappear tomorrow, MAGA obviously wouldn't fade away, but it would be naive thinking that Vance or another GOP figure would be able to drum up the same amount of loyal support over night. The face of a movement tends to be pretty important for the far right.

I feel it is pretty disingenuous to focus so much on the slippery slope of far right politicians seeing consequences for their crimes when they are the ones who tend to ignore democratic principles to push their agenda. Democracy is a contract that goes in both directions. Letting the far right do whatever it wants and always defending them (whether consciously or subconsciously) while always shooting against the left, does nothing but erode democracy and push the overton window to the right. If we want to argue that politicians from less "controversial" parties should face the same amount of scrutiny, as 5 has mentioned, sure go ahead. As I mentioned before, all politicians should be held to higher standards than regular citizens in my opinion. But I'm tired of people like Trump getting away with their blatantly illegal and unconstitutional actions.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

You don't have to be a lawyer or a legal scholar to know the basic definitions of your rights. In fact, it is your civid duty to be aware of them. Maybe Czechia is different, but most countries that I'm aware of have certain criteria that need to be met. That is a fact. This is not up for discussion. Feel free to ignore me from now on, because I'm not interested in repeating simple facts time and time again only for you to ignore them and go "nuh uh".

"I'm not a lawyer, but..." is actually a Facebook group in my country, it's very popular. It is full of these examples of things you don't need to be a lawyer or a legal scholar to do or know.

I think you should be a lawyer or a legal scholar to try to school an actual lawyer on what is the definition of legal terms, how legal system works, how law works etc. Let alone the difference between "right", "privilege" etc.
Well, you don't have to, but it's rather embarrassing.

I find it hilarious that Perun just yesterday was frustratedly complaining about this specific thing - someone less knowledgeable arguing with someone who actually is educated in the matter.

This is pretty much exactly what you did in your comments by the way. The way you try to sidestep simple facts to move the goalposts and try to make your subjective assessment the one that is correct.

I am not moving any goalposts, I keep saying the very same thing since the original post. I haven't even expanded my argument or modified it significantly.

I was merely telling you that for once, you are objectively wrong (and you just proved it, possibly inadvertently) and yet you talk about "facts" (like what a "right" is and how most Western law works - in your opinion) and when I actually use the terms in their correct context you are condescendingly referring to that as "my opinions and feelings".

Besides, I rarely enter into the "facts" vs. "feelings" narrative. I have met two other people like this, both were from the far sides of the political spectrum, one left, one right. Since then, every time someone is verbally obsessed with "truth" or "facts", it's a red flag. Usually such person is not only often completely wrong in various matters, but is absolutely unable to see it or correct themselves. Not only they don't see their Vorverständnis and their limits - they simply refuse to acknowledge that there could be such thing.

A friend of mine (who is more into Wittgenstein and more knowledgeable than me about people, as he daily works in pastoral care) has told me that the concept of mind I recently mentioned in the other thread (especially the understanding that others' beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts may be different from one's own) is completely lacking in about a third of the population. I had a hard time believing it, but then again, I'm an idealist, always have been.

With this in mind, I will refrain from the expletive that I first wrote and deleted, though it's really hard for me, but there really is nothing to talk about or discuss with you.

Feel free to ignore me from now on

Indeed.
I've had enough, I really tried, but I'm indeed putting you into ignore list, because I just don't see why should I be putting up with this.

 

[____no5]

Some great points from Judas. The first bolded one seems particularly unfair and stinky.

Still, it is a part of a verdict touching a constitutional right that is curiously effective immediately despite the verdict itself not being final (i. e. - appealable). (Which also means that we may be wasting words for nothing, because it can be yet overturned). I am not seeing any misuse as of now, nor any conspiracy or anything, I just don't see it as a good precedent and I think if the embezzler in question was from a different party, it would be seen as much more controversial in the "public eye" and maybe more concerns would be raised.

Because the law doesn't work that way. We don't "take what is most dear to you", otherwise I expect future punishments to be "having to watch your wife get gangbanged by the judge and several policemen" or something. Also, this particular punishment is both - not only a personal punishment, but also a factual statement who should (not) be running for office, because there is the public law aspect.

 

[Vaenyr]

Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. I might not be a lawyer, but I have friends who are (and one who's a judge) and my view on this matter is based upon what they have told me. I've also read what other lawyers and legal scholars have said about the matter. I'd rather take their word on it than yours, especially when you've repeatedly ignored that running for the highest office requires certain criteria to be met and isn't a constitutional right in many countries. I can't be an expert in every single topic, so I base my opinions on those who are more knowledgeable than me. I've seen your perspective and opinions on a variety or matters and I'm afraid I can't trust anything you say without second guessing and double checking everything.
Again, maybe it's different in the Czech Republic, but I'm not making a case for every single country out there. I've specified that I'm not talking about a "universal" definition that applies to every country. Your posts are written as if you were talking about such a universal definition, without specifying which country in particular you're discussing.

Of course someone who cares about facts is a red flag, when you repeatedly ignore blatant facts to go on an overly verbose diatribe. Sometimes brevity is more valuable than talking in circles while deflecting. Not once have you acknowledged that running for the highest office comes with prerequisites. You'd rather ignore that and go on the offensive. We'll never agree on most sociopolitical things, so your putting me on the ignore list is definitely for the better and will save both of us time and energy better spent elsewhere.