PVV eist excuses Barroso na populisme-uitspraak

25-05-2011
De PVV Europa is woest dat voorzitter José Manuel Barroso van de Europese Commissie eurocritici, die vinden dat er minder geld naar Europa moet, tot populisten bestempelt. De partij eist excuses van Barroso

PVV'er Laurence Stassen: Uitspraken Barroso ontoelaatbaar
De PVV spreekt dinsdag in een verklaring over schandalige, belachelijke, absurde en vooral onaanvaardbare uitspraken.

Populisten
Barroso had maandag de regeringen van de EU-lidstaten opgeroepen niet toe te geven aan populisten die vinden dat er minder geld naar Europa moet. Hij vindt dat zij juist de discussie moeten aangaan over de toegevoegde waarde die de EU voor de lidstaten heeft.

De PVV stelde vragen aan de Europese Commissie over de uitlatingen van haar voorzitter. De partij beschouwt de woorden van Barroso als een regelrechte persoonlijke aanval op PVV'ers en in strijd met gangbare omgangsnormen.

Malmström
De Zweedse Eurocommissaris Cecilia Malmström doet deze week in Elsevier soortgelijke uitspraken als Barroso. Zij doelt met name op zaken als asiel en immigratie, die zij in haar portefeuille heeft.

'Sommige politici zeggen: laten we de grenzen sluiten, laten we de immigranten wegsturen en hadden we maar geen moslims. Dat is populisme.'
More info:

http://Elsevier

Comments (3)

Thanks for your post Maja!Freedom, as I understand it, has conventionally been conceived of by liberals as the starting point: one is free to do what one likes, unless the exercise of that freedom (substantially) harms the interests of others around them. This fairly empty stricture is something most of us can agree upon (although, see ethics-of-care theorists, some might consider this a rather meager idea of morality), but the big question has always been, who or what counts as having interests that might stand in the way of our freedom? The answer to this question can, I think, be found by reference to the power relations in a given society – the socially powerless are often fair game; their interests are generally considered less important and easily sacrificed to the exercise of others’ freedoms.Applied to this case, it seems that according to Richard de Mos and his ilk, animals are simply not considered to be subjects with interests we should concern ourselves with. If you agree with this, then his statement makes perfect sense. Why restrict an activity that doesn’t harm anyone (important)? If, however, you see animals as subjects with interests, his statement comes to look like an exercise of power, cloaked in the ever convenient language of rights. As you noted, “freedom” is a word with a great ring to it. Who can stand in the way of freedom? In some instances, the reference to freedom becomes a rhetorical device to disguise the harm done to others.

<a href="http://www.autoinsurproviders.com/">insurance auto</a> <a href="http://www.getinsurdeals.com/">auto insurance quotes</a>
Mavrick from Spain | 06-04-2012 | 1:39

kAIT7T <a href="http://mryffjupfkfn.com/">mryffjupfkfn</a>
zbnkjk from Spain | 03-04-2012 | 22:41

Thanks for your post Maja!Freedom, as I understand it, has lloventinnaocy been conceived of by liberals as the starting point: one is free to do what one likes, unless the exercise of that freedom (substantially) harms the interests of others around them. This fairly empty stricture is something most of us can agree upon (although, see ethics-of-care theorists, some might consider this a rather meager idea of morality), but the big question has always been, who or what counts as having interests that might stand in the way of our freedom? The answer to this question can, I think, be found by reference to the power relations in a given society the socially powerless are often fair game; their interests are generally considered less important and easily sacrificed to the exercise of others' freedoms.Applied to this case, it seems that according to Richard de Mos and his ilk, animals are simply not considered to be subjects with interests we should concern ourselves with. If you agree with this, then his statement makes perfect sense. Why restrict an activity that doesn't harm anyone (important)? If, however, you see animals as subjects with interests, his statement comes to look like an exercise of power, cloaked in the ever convenient language of rights. As you noted, freedom is a word with a great ring to it. Who can stand in the way of freedom? In some instances, the reference to freedom becomes a rhetorical device to disguise the harm done to others.
Karynan from Spain | 03-04-2012 | 16:54

What do you think?

Your name:

Comment:

Country:

Type the following code *:

The fields marked with * are required.

Note: As long is goes the right way, it is allowed to comment anonymously. Please be ware that we monitor the possibility of abuse and that we might be able to track you IP and provider.

	Echnie. Opknoppen in een boom
	Ja wij weten niet beter heur
	REFERENDUM over de euro nu!!!
	Kweenie ben stemvee.

Europe FAIL!

News