Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On June 02 2025 16:59 Gorsameth wrote: Its the criminal part I don't get most of all. Sure right wing voters vote for right wing candidates but who sees someone that steals from you and then thinking "I want this guy to be in a position to steal more from my taxes" is just something I cannot wrap my brain around.
And sure you can call it fake news but government official stealing shit is about the most easily believable thing in the world.
Almost every election these days has the scummiest thug imaginable as the 'traditional Christian values' candidate, it's not accidental.
I also asked myself why they don't pick an honest person with traditionalist views since they could easily do so. I think the answer is that they genuinely see their culture under siege from immigration, LGBT rights and secularism, and every time they elected a straight shooter conservative in the past what they got was at most a slowdown or a brief break, never an actual rollback.
Sleazebags not bound by silly concepts such as ethics or shame are their only hope to move the needle in the opposite direction. They want a dirty fighter on their side, someone who is defiant and aggressive rather than virtuous. The end of saving civilization justifies the means.
We're not getting out of this one just by having better opposing candidates, we need to de-escalate the culture war, make people stop blaming out-groups for all their problems. And that's a monumental task because scapegoating feels so damn good, it gives people meaning, identity, community. Good luck to political scientists and psychologists trying to figure this one out cause I've got nothing.
As usual I think it's important to not attribute power and agency to groups that don't really have those things. This guy was I believe handpicked by the leader of PiS, I'm pretty sure I read that? He wasn't chosen by christians as their champion. The cause and the consequence are flipped, it's the parties that represent conservatives that choose people like them, and then the voters follow along.
Why do they choose people like this? Well I don't know about Poland of course but I assume it's the same as anywhere else, namely that they pretend to be populists and that gives them an advantage over the honest conservatives that are open about their austerity plans.
Naw I think for Poland the economic explanation doesn't hold water. Looking at the economy, KO are more 'traditionally conservative' and PiS is closer aligned to social democrats - having provided some real, actual and helpful welfare policies. My understanding is that the 500zl program is their most popular piece of policy.
They're engaged in all sorts of bullshit culture wars, of course, and in terms of values, they seem to embody the usual hodgepodge of anti-woman anti-science anti-eu anti-lgbt pro-'old school masculine' (which I guess is why they're fine with a hooligan pimp), but if you placed them on a left-right economic spectrum, my understanding (polish wife who is very politically literate) is that PiS would be to the left and KO to the right.
Okay, thank you I don't know much about this. How do the wealthy/capitalists split up in terms of support, are they more on the side of KO, is it even?
Haven't seen data on wealth, but urban/rural divide, age and education all point towards wealthier = more likely to support KO. Anecdotally I heard of some wealthy jerks who went for Mentzen in round 1 who might have gone Nawrocki in round 2 but that's just anecdotes.
Anyway to be more specific: Urban/rural divide: Nawrocki also won a significant majority of votes from rural residents — 63.9 percent.
In addition, 48.4% of voters from cities with up to 50,000 inhabitants voted for him, 42.6% from cities with up to 200,000 inhabitants, 34.4% from cities with up to 500,000 inhabitants and 32.9% from cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants.
Education: Nawrocki was also supported by 72.8 percent of voters with (only) primary education, 69.5 percent with vocational education, 53.6 percent with secondary education and 38.7 percent with higher education.
Trzaskowski's best age groups are 40-49 and 50-59, and he fares poorly with younger voters.
All of these to me indicate, pretty strongly, that if there was a wealth column too, Trzakowski would definitely be favored by the wealthy - and by the capitalists. And I know quite a few polish leftists (who voted Zandberg round 1) who abstained from round 2 because fuck KO neolibs (and also fuck Nawrocki for all the obvious other reasons).
Hard to say from this imo, this seems to track somewhat well with US numbers with the exception of age, and we know that the ultrawealthy capitalists in the US are still showering republicans in money.
Don't republicans lower taxes for the rich each time they get a president? Increasing the deficit and slightly weakening the economy, thus being in line with what the rich want?
Yeah of course, they're fake populists who are to the right of Dems on economy. But apparently there is some level of non-fake populism when it comes to PiS, I'm just trying to track how it plays out.
On June 02 2025 16:59 Gorsameth wrote: Its the criminal part I don't get most of all. Sure right wing voters vote for right wing candidates but who sees someone that steals from you and then thinking "I want this guy to be in a position to steal more from my taxes" is just something I cannot wrap my brain around.
And sure you can call it fake news but government official stealing shit is about the most easily believable thing in the world.
Almost every election these days has the scummiest thug imaginable as the 'traditional Christian values' candidate, it's not accidental.
I also asked myself why they don't pick an honest person with traditionalist views since they could easily do so. I think the answer is that they genuinely see their culture under siege from immigration, LGBT rights and secularism, and every time they elected a straight shooter conservative in the past what they got was at most a slowdown or a brief break, never an actual rollback.
Sleazebags not bound by silly concepts such as ethics or shame are their only hope to move the needle in the opposite direction. They want a dirty fighter on their side, someone who is defiant and aggressive rather than virtuous. The end of saving civilization justifies the means.
We're not getting out of this one just by having better opposing candidates, we need to de-escalate the culture war, make people stop blaming out-groups for all their problems. And that's a monumental task because scapegoating feels so damn good, it gives people meaning, identity, community. Good luck to political scientists and psychologists trying to figure this one out cause I've got nothing.
As usual I think it's important to not attribute power and agency to groups that don't really have those things. This guy was I believe handpicked by the leader of PiS, I'm pretty sure I read that? He wasn't chosen by christians as their champion. The cause and the consequence are flipped, it's the parties that represent conservatives that choose people like them, and then the voters follow along.
Why do they choose people like this? Well I don't know about Poland of course but I assume it's the same as anywhere else, namely that they pretend to be populists and that gives them an advantage over the honest conservatives that are open about their austerity plans.
Naw I think for Poland the economic explanation doesn't hold water. Looking at the economy, KO are more 'traditionally conservative' and PiS is closer aligned to social democrats - having provided some real, actual and helpful welfare policies. My understanding is that the 500zl program is their most popular piece of policy.
They're engaged in all sorts of bullshit culture wars, of course, and in terms of values, they seem to embody the usual hodgepodge of anti-woman anti-science anti-eu anti-lgbt pro-'old school masculine' (which I guess is why they're fine with a hooligan pimp), but if you placed them on a left-right economic spectrum, my understanding (polish wife who is very politically literate) is that PiS would be to the left and KO to the right.
Okay, thank you I don't know much about this. How do the wealthy/capitalists split up in terms of support, are they more on the side of KO, is it even?
Haven't seen data on wealth, but urban/rural divide, age and education all point towards wealthier = more likely to support KO. Anecdotally I heard of some wealthy jerks who went for Mentzen in round 1 who might have gone Nawrocki in round 2 but that's just anecdotes.
Anyway to be more specific: Urban/rural divide: Nawrocki also won a significant majority of votes from rural residents — 63.9 percent.
In addition, 48.4% of voters from cities with up to 50,000 inhabitants voted for him, 42.6% from cities with up to 200,000 inhabitants, 34.4% from cities with up to 500,000 inhabitants and 32.9% from cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants.
Education: Nawrocki was also supported by 72.8 percent of voters with (only) primary education, 69.5 percent with vocational education, 53.6 percent with secondary education and 38.7 percent with higher education.
Trzaskowski's best age groups are 40-49 and 50-59, and he fares poorly with younger voters.
All of these to me indicate, pretty strongly, that if there was a wealth column too, Trzakowski would definitely be favored by the wealthy - and by the capitalists. And I know quite a few polish leftists (who voted Zandberg round 1) who abstained from round 2 because fuck KO neolibs (and also fuck Nawrocki for all the obvious other reasons).
Trzaskowski did get more support from small businessmen and the richest Poles but it wasn't a completely one sided split. I think the American giants might prefer Nawrocki because he's more likely to veto a digital services tax but the local and European business certainly prefer KO and whoever is their candidate.
On June 03 2025 03:02 Silvanel wrote: Yes, Nawrocki was handpicked by PiS leader Kaczyński. However, I think they were genuinely not aware how much dirt that guy had in his closet. The football hooligan thing should be his bane. He unashamedly admitted that he took part in illegal fights between organized football hooligan gangs, that should be it. Amazingly it wasn't.... It's difficult to wrap one's head around this.
I honestly can't understand why Nawrocki's opponents think this episode from his past should lower his chances let alone seal his defeat. His supporters either don't mind it or find it cool. Most of the people who have a problem with that kind of activity wouldn't vote for him anyway and there's also a decently sized group of people who consider this issue neutralised by the fact that Donald Tusk also hung out with hooligans at some point of his life.
Like really? Not only those fights are illegal in itself, they are also often used to settle differences between gangs about turfs and drug trade. Those hooligan gangs are considered organized crime groups and are often involved in racketeering, drugs and theft. A presidential candidate hanging out with gangsters (and not being ashamed about it) should be an end to his ambition.
Yes. Keep in mind there's no actual evidence of him being involved in organised crime so it should be easy for his supporters to choose to reject those accusations. Even if Nawrocki's supporters accept the fact that he used to meet up with other idiots to fight each other in some forest in the middle of nowhere, they probably consider it about as bad (or as cool/relatable) as smoking weed, drinking in public places or speeding. I have a hard time imagining a potential Nawrocki voter who would actually change their mind after learning he did participate in some forest battles years ago.
It's also worth mentioning that most of those facts and factoids about Nawrocki's questionable past were revealed shortly before election days by journalists who are considered friendly to KO. It's perfectly understandable why so many right wing voters decided to ignore those stories and focus on voting against Trzaskowski, which is another thing I have a hard time understanding by the way.
I don't get how PiS managed to mobilize so many people, especially those from the Eastern regions, to vote against Trzaskowski. They really seem to think he's some kind of a two-faced communist devil who wants to sell everything to Germans and invite a horde of violent black-gay-Ukrainians to burn down every church in Poland. I thought high turnout should benefit the moderates but this time it clearly didn't.
Well he DID ADMIT IT. And instead of taking an easy exit by saying it was wrong and now he knows better he proceed to defend it. I know one person (a policeman) who is a pretty stunch supporter of PiS for whom it was too much. And according too him the sentiment was the same across entire force. Police in Poland fucking hate football hooligans.
Anyway I guess You are right that black-gay-Ukrainian-church-burning-communists are much scarier than actual but very polish hooligans.
I really wonder what the politician - hooligan thing is in Poland. I have a polish father in law who was a reasonably prominent local politician a couple decades ago, and he also participated in some great hooligan-y event at some point.
I have absolutely never heard of such a thing in Norway.
On June 02 2025 16:18 Silvanel wrote: My two cents about why Poland choose to elect unashemed thug, football hooligan and even perhaps a drug addict over a liberal: -Like I have written earlier Trzaskowski really was a terrible candidate. He might be popular inside his own party, but Poland does not have two party system, You have to reach out to voters outside Your hard base to win. A he always have had a huge negative base. -Main selling point of Trzaskowski was: "I am not PiS" -Trzaskowski was seen as pro Immigration and LGBT rights etc. And especially immigration is a losing issue in Poland as a whole. It might win You big cities, gave some votes in parlimentary elections but as shown here it will lose You entire country. -His party leader (currently PM) Tusk didnt help. He should have just shut up. He has GIGANTIC negative electorate and every time he opens his mouth people just get riled up. He should hire a spokeperson and just hide in the shadow as Kaczyński does. -The hate for PiS might have carried KO last elections, but every day thats gone by since last time PiS ruled this effect diminishes. Some people already forgot how much they hate PiS. -KO had a much better candidates - Sikorski would have been a slam dunk. He has none of Trzaskowski flaws and a lot pluses and mertis. It is true he lost KO primaries but again in national election You have to win votes outside of Your party. Being more liked (or easier to control by Your own party) is not a merit in a country wide election.
TLDR: Its a very similiar to how Trump was elected, especially first time. The pararels are obvious. For me choosing Trzaskowski over Sikorski was very much like choosing Hillary over Bernie. Might make sense from party point of view, but Your own party is NOT ENOUGH to win election.
On June 03 2025 03:02 Silvanel wrote: Yes, Nawrocki was handpicked by PiS leader Kaczyński. However, I think they were genuinely not aware how much dirt that guy had in his closet. The football hooligan thing should be his bane. He unashamedly admitted that he took part in illegal fights between organized football hooligan gangs, that should be it. Amazingly it wasn't.... It's difficult to wrap one's head around this.
I honestly can't understand why Nawrocki's opponents think this episode from his past should lower his chances let alone seal his defeat. His supporters either don't mind it or find it cool. Most of the people who have a problem with that kind of activity wouldn't vote for him anyway and there's also a decently sized group of people who consider this issue neutralised by the fact that Donald Tusk also hung out with hooligans at some point of his life.
I think this is also spot on. Would add that this may kinda paint him as some sort of "strong men" for some and given situation with Russia may have even been seen as beneficial for some.
On June 03 2025 03:02 Silvanel wrote: Yes, Nawrocki was handpicked by PiS leader Kaczyński. However, I think they were genuinely not aware how much dirt that guy had in his closet. The football hooligan thing should be his bane. He unashamedly admitted that he took part in illegal fights between organized football hooligan gangs, that should be it. Amazingly it wasn't.... It's difficult to wrap one's head around this.
I honestly can't understand why Nawrocki's opponents think this episode from his past should lower his chances let alone seal his defeat. His supporters either don't mind it or find it cool. Most of the people who have a problem with that kind of activity wouldn't vote for him anyway and there's also a decently sized group of people who consider this issue neutralised by the fact that Donald Tusk also hung out with hooligans at some point of his life.
Like really? Not only those fights are illegal in itself, they are also often used to settle differences between gangs about turfs and drug trade. Those hooligan gangs are considered organized crime groups and are often involved in racketeering, drugs and theft. A presidential candidate hanging out with gangsters (and not being ashamed about it) should be an end to his ambition.
That is not exactly how it worked. What happened there, was that there were groups of supporters for teams which engaged in fights with groups of supporters for other teams. Among those some people rose to prominence and some of them indeed engaged in some organized crime. That doesnt mean that all people who engaged in those sort of fights ended up criminals.
As for presidential candidate hanging out with gangsters, at this bracket age, given what was going on in Poland, if you lived in larger city pretty much everyone had some friends which ended up as gangsters.
Just providing some context here. Far as Polish political scene goes I believe it is beyond salvation anyway.
Edit:
On June 03 2025 18:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: I really wonder what the politician - hooligan thing is in Poland. I have a polish father in law who was a reasonably prominent local politician a couple decades ago, and he also participated in some great hooligan-y event at some point.
I have absolutely never heard of such a thing in Norway.
I think You are projecting Your own experiences on entiriety of polish population. I dont know anyone who ended up as gangster. I also dont know anyone who participated in those hooligan fights.
On June 03 2025 19:55 Silvanel wrote: I think You are projecting Your own experiences on entiriety of polish population. I dont know anyone who ended up as gangster. I also dont know anyone who participated in those hooligan fights.
I mentioned "bracket age" which I estimate somewhere between 1970 to maybe 1985. Judging from your posts I would guess you are below 40, maybe like 35/36 (just a guess, may be wrong), which would make sense as around 2000 situation in Poland started to stabilize, organized crime started to go down, and also somewhere around 2000 Poland introduced stricter rules for football supporters (not sure if I remember correctly, but it may have been required by FIFA). If I am correct about your age then that makes sense. Organized crime groups, werent appearing out of nowhere anymore, existing ones either joined, got absorbed, locked up, or went legit. On the other hands more and more activities (gyms, boxing/MA clubs, sports clubs, hobby clubs, whatever) were set up for young people (before 90s there were few compared to population of young people and mostly in big cities) and that actually gave them something to do, naturally diverting them from crime.
On June 03 2025 19:55 Silvanel wrote: I think You are projecting Your own experiences on entiriety of polish population. I dont know anyone who ended up as gangster. I also dont know anyone who participated in those hooligan fights.
I mentioned "bracket age" which I estimate somewhere between 1970 to maybe 1985. Judging from your posts I would guess you are below 40, maybe like 35/36 (just a guess, may be wrong), which would make sense as around 2000 situation in Poland started to stabilize, organized crime started to go down, and also somewhere around 2000 Poland introduced stricter rules for football supporters (not sure if I remember correctly, but it may have been required by FIFA). If I am correct about your age then that makes sense. Organized crime groups, werent appearing out of nowhere anymore, existing ones either joined, got absorbed, locked up, or went legit. On the other hands more and more activities (gyms, boxing/MA clubs, sports clubs, hobby clubs, whatever) were set up for young people (before 90s there were few compared to population of young people and mostly in big cities) and that actually gave them something to do, naturally diverting them from crime.
As Silvanel said, ‘Well he DID ADMIT IT. And instead of taking an easy exit by saying it was wrong and now he knows better he proceed to defend it’.
I think the additional context makes a fair load of sense as well, but why not do the suggested as well?
There are more politicians with a history of violence or links to violent groups in Northern Ireland than most of Europe.
The vast majority disavow such things now, or for those now departed this mortal coil they had done so. Even those personally involved in political violence.
Depending on how it manifested, I can see an argument that hooligan activity isn’t that big a deal. Hooliganism in UK football is basically nout compared to its heyday, and what remains is effectively rival groups agreeing to fight each other somewhere, and the general public aren’t really affected at all.
I don’t know enough about historic Polish hooliganism to know if it’s as ‘benign’ as that, or indeed these specific individuals.
As an outsider who is relying on this thread for that little bit more context than an ‘Polish President elected’ news report from here, it does strike me as both odd, and not surprising at all at the same time.
It’s kinda like a law and order for thee but not for me kinda thing that rather characterises quite a lot of these kind of politics, something Dan touched on earlier
On June 03 2025 19:55 Silvanel wrote: I think You are projecting Your own experiences on entiriety of polish population. I dont know anyone who ended up as gangster. I also dont know anyone who participated in those hooligan fights.
I bet you do, you just met them in the elementary school. Chances are you had no protracted contact with poor urban working class afterwards.
On June 03 2025 19:55 Silvanel wrote: I think You are projecting Your own experiences on entiriety of polish population. I dont know anyone who ended up as gangster. I also dont know anyone who participated in those hooligan fights.
I mentioned "bracket age" which I estimate somewhere between 1970 to maybe 1985. Judging from your posts I would guess you are below 40, maybe like 35/36 (just a guess, may be wrong), which would make sense as around 2000 situation in Poland started to stabilize, organized crime started to go down, and also somewhere around 2000 Poland introduced stricter rules for football supporters (not sure if I remember correctly, but it may have been required by FIFA). If I am correct about your age then that makes sense. Organized crime groups, werent appearing out of nowhere anymore, existing ones either joined, got absorbed, locked up, or went legit. On the other hands more and more activities (gyms, boxing/MA clubs, sports clubs, hobby clubs, whatever) were set up for young people (before 90s there were few compared to population of young people and mostly in big cities) and that actually gave them something to do, naturally diverting them from crime.
As Silvanel said, ‘Well he DID ADMIT IT. And instead of taking an easy exit by saying it was wrong and now he knows better he proceed to defend it’.
I think the additional context makes a fair load of sense as well, but why not do the suggested as well?
There are more politicians with a history of violence or links to violent groups in Northern Ireland than most of Europe.
The vast majority disavow such things now, or for those now departed this mortal coil they had done so. Even those personally involved in political violence.
Depending on how it manifested, I can see an argument that hooligan activity isn’t that big a deal. Hooliganism in UK football is basically nout compared to its heyday, and what remains is effectively rival groups agreeing to fight each other somewhere, and the general public aren’t really affected at all.
I don’t know enough about historic Polish hooliganism to know if it’s as ‘benign’ as that, or indeed these specific individuals.
As an outsider who is relying on this thread for that little bit more context than an ‘Polish President elected’ news report from here, it does strike me as both odd, and not surprising at all at the same time.
It’s kinda like a law and order for thee but not for me kinda thing that rather characterises quite a lot of these kind of politics, something Dan touched on earlier
As Silvanel said, ‘Well he DID ADMIT IT. And instead of taking an easy exit by saying it was wrong and now he knows better he proceed to defend it’. I think you misunderstood, I am not trying to defend him as I simply dont care about Polish politics (admittedly thats a lie, I do care I just lost hope ages ago, and havent seen anything able to restore even part of it). What I was trying to explain is why it may have not been such a deal breaker, as it would may have been in other countries.
As for " but why not do the suggested as well?" you would have to ask him. If I were to guess I would have 2 guesses: 1 - he may have thought apologies will make him look weak, and didnt want to come as such with Vlad next door. 2 - he may have thought it will give more ammo to his opponents
My guess here however is as good as yours.
"t’s kinda like a law and order for thee but not for me kinda thing that rather characterises quite a lot of these kind of politics, something Dan touched on earlier" I would say "all" rather than "quite a lot".
On June 03 2025 19:55 Silvanel wrote: I think You are projecting Your own experiences on entiriety of polish population. I dont know anyone who ended up as gangster. I also dont know anyone who participated in those hooligan fights.
I bet you do, you just met them in the elementary school. Chances are you had no protracted contact with poor urban working class afterwards.
Well, most of my life I have lived close to the graffiti "Morda nie szklanka - ŁKS Limanka" - so in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Poland (at least in years past) and I am over 40.
I am not denying that some people from my school ended up as hooligans or gangsters. Most likely some did. But not my friends, not people I grow up with, people I keep in touch with. Thats why I say - noone I know". Some people from my neighboorhood certainly ended up in jail - I saw grafitti supporting them. But I never could match the nickname to the face. Those people were around - but I didnt interact with them.
Anybody think we will get more EU countries before we federalize? With current Veto rights it seems unlikely to me.
An example video statement from Thomas Waitz that was responsible to write the most recent country report for North Macedonia where he accuses Bulgaria of trying to sabotage the process. Where he says he got death threats for trying to do a neutral report.
Similar issues due to national tensions seems likely on the border for most new nations to me.
Is federalization something you think will happen soon? Or just no matter how long it takes no new counries will be able to join due to the veto rights?
I don't think federalization is happening any time soon, countries will not give up that level of independence and sovereignty. For the same reason the voting system will not change. The reason it can work is exactly because its so cumbersome and dysfunctional, countries would not join it if they do not have some level of control and ability to negotiate in exchange for their vote to support a measure.
The moment you try to turn the EU into the US it will crumble, because we as a species are not ready to give up the concept of nations and we probably won't ever be ready until an outside force, be it cosmic or extraterrestrial, forces us to truly band together.
A lot of conflict in the Balkans is still reasonably fresh and was never resolved, instead it was supressed by the USSR's boot on their neck, there is a lot still boiling under the surface. Its why there has been a series of conflicts in the region after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. North Macedonia itself didn't exist until 1991.
Time will blunt a lot of the competing nationalism but it will take multiple decades more until the generations that lives through the formation of the current states phase out.
On August 02 2025 02:38 Just_a_Moth wrote: Is federalization something you think will happen soon? Or just no matter how long it takes no new counries will be able to join due to the veto rights?
Federalization is unlikely to happen soon without external pressure. The current soft pressure from Russia over Ukraine isn't enough. Not even US currently changing stance is enough pressure.
Probably need to have a generation growing up with the EU from childhood in retirement age to have enough of a change in national mentality to make it feasible. Removing the veto right of most member states might happen before that though.
Until then I highly doubt any country apart from the UK would be able to get the votes required to join. Too many entrenched interests against it. I might be wrong and some of them just requiring a large incentive and they started their posturing in advance to maximize it.
Not many countries would even consider federalization at the moment and many of those would oppose limiting the veto rights on the basis of a slippery slope argument. I think we might see people on Mars before federalization becomes a serious topic.
It's possible we'll see Macedonia and Albania join the EU in the next 10-15 years, as long as those countries manage to clear up whatever conflicts they have with their neighbors, just like Macedonia managed to solve their dispute with Greece (making them change their name to North Macedonia was such a petty move btw).
I don't know much about the Bulgaria-Macedonia relationship so I'm not going to say who's right or wrong, but I doubt the dispute is so severe it can't be resolved in the foreseeable future. Poland has some historical disputes with Ukraine and I can imagine those could lead to delaying Ukrainian accession by multiple years, but it's not something that can't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time.
Both Macedonia and Albania are too small to be able to cause issues as big as those created by Hungary or the former Polish government. Even if things go wrong there it's possible to just pressure them to respect the commonly accepted rules just like it's possible to pressure Malta or Slovakia to do that.
There's a big but though. Politicians like Orban are very dangerous for the future of the European Union and they may be able to sabotage its development if other member states don't find a way to neutralize them.
If we get even one full election cycle without a present day Hungary, inviting Albania or Macedonia shouldn't be an issue in the next 10 years. Europeans might start to believe the short term problems were fixed and we can finally start thinking about reforming the union.
If the number of Hungaries rises above one again, then we might as well forget about serious attempts of reforming the union in the next 15 years. I bet most of the old member states would rather see Hungary kicked out than see someone else join. I think a populist government in Sweden, Italy or even France would find a way to coexist with the "evil Brussels bureaucrats", but eastern populists are way more dangerous and I understand why many Europeans might think we have more than enough unstable democracies in the union at the moment and there's no need to invite even more potential troublemakers.
Albania and Macedonia are probably also the only real candidates at the moment. Bosnia, Serbia or Montenegro would a be big headache nobody wants to have. Moldova and Ukraine are too vulnerable to corruption and Russian meddling. Other candidacies are xd
I dont think EU will be able to federalise, I am pretty sure they will try their best, but it will fail in the end. In a way EU is much more diverse than US. Differences between countries like Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Greece are much bigger than between states in US and deeply rooted.
EU doesn't need to federalize, we don't need federal army or police, we have institutions that are trans-European and that work.
EU needs to start being a functional organization by exorcising the anti-EU elements from it's governing. The fact that Orban and Fico can block a bunch of very important reforms and actions while they are actively campaigning inside their countries against our allies (Ukraine) and against EU itself is absolutely absurd.
At the minimum, and this has been shouted from the rooftops for decades now the veto needs to be abolished because it makes EU extremely vulnerable to outside malicious influence. It's a very small investment for China, US or even Russia to steer the politics of just one of the 27 members enough to have 5 years of completely blocked legislature and action that might be in EU's interest but not in theirs.
Arguably, with very, very small investment into propaganda and a few politicians Russia (and other aligned actors) was able to get rid of UK, in the process hurting both EU and UK, and unfortunately it doesn't seem like EU learned anything from it.
In a world where hybrid warfare is just as important as real war veto is a poison pill that cannot be allowed to continue.
Right-wing nationalist will not allow their countries to give away their belief in their own speciality and the powers derived from it. They just believe so strongly in having their own ethnic state. The left-wing will not want to give more power to corporations, which would gladly lobby only one place, while unions and other organisations are strongest when their members see that they are defending their locals. I think the left would be more ready to support federalisation if human rights, worker rights, the environment, etc., could be adequately protected. It is just so much easier to say from afar that French workers need to adapt and stop being lazy, or say that remote Lapland needs to be ready to open polluting mines. Also, there are plenty of examples of more liberal right-wing supporting more conservative and nationalistic policies to gain power and push economic policies. So trusting people like Macron and Merz in the federalisation process would be very risky.
Without a unifying crisis, Europeans are not that likely to see themselves and especially others, as Europeans first. That would be the first step in believing that others are not just trying to make the best play for themselves. However, I think that people should also try to see others having valid reasons, other than greed, for their demands in any cooperation. Constantly blaming others makes any criticism look like political play for power instead of an attempt to make things better.
EPT
