In the "European Game of Thrones", as Babiš's wife Monika calls the exercises, the European Union is trying to find the successor of Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission – which is supposed to be a de facto government of the EU. And the progressives want to turn it into a real government – and the EU into a superstate – really soon, indeed. Juncker, a well-known drunkard, is nominally moderately conservative (Luxembourg's Christian social party) – but he is one of the "conservatives" who cry on Karl Marx's grave, in this case literally. Karl, what did you do to us? How can we live without you?
An IQ test: by looking at the color of the men's suits, which of the four Visegrád's prime ministers seems like a new fifth column of an empire with a blue flag?
OK, the EU isn't a democracy so the elections are a farce. Will the successor of Juncker's be a Christian democrat or a social democrat? This question isn't being decided by any elections and negotiations that would depend on the outcomes of elections. Instead, as the EU folks rather openly admit, it is determined by an unwritten rule that the Christian democrats and social democrats are alternating. No one else is ever allowed, if you asked. So it should be time for the social democrats now.
Excellent, so the top pick happens to be Frans Timmermans, a "Spitzenkandidate" of the European socialists (the German term is being used because Germany claims the right to conquer the continent again), the current "commissar for better regulation" (cool!), and a member of the Dutch Labour Party. The chair would stay in Benelux, in one of the small privileged nations, as Timmermans' comrade Vladimir Lenin called them.
Timmermans speaks six languages including Russian. I found his English and German to be excellent. His rhetorical skills seem to be top notch. In many formal respects, he is better and perhaps more likable than his comrade Martin Schultz. But nothing positive can be said about the content. So far, only Hungary, Poland, and Czechia are clearly protesting against Timmermans. Slovakia is turning into a lady whose affections may be bought, especially after our brothers elected a new, even more PC president.
He has been attacking our countries for years so the hostility isn't something new that we had to discover. He is completely wrong about migration – he advocates the most devastating policies, including quotas on the number of migrants that countries have to accept, with the usual deceitful comments that the migrants are refugees saving their lives – as well as about the climate hysteria (or "climate crisis", as he also calls it), among other things – he wants to aggressively introduce CO2 taxes for all EU companies right away.
Don't nurture any doubts that he's wrong about the climate, regulation in general, identity politics, migration, and all these topics that the political correctness wants to turn upside down. While Macron considers Timmermans a great guy, Viktor Orbán's spokesperson has called him a tool hired by George Soros. Timmermans has been incredibly hostile towards the Polish reform of the courts and other things that matter in Central Europe. But he's also incredibly wrong about policies affecting old-fashioned things such as the economy – which still exists although no one is passionate about it anymore.
Czech journal Reflex published an interesting piece
Marxist Timmermans to head the EU? The European politicians have understood nothing, threaten the existence of the EUMiroslav Cvrček writes that Timmermans would be an optimal successor of Leonid Brezhnev in the Soviet Union. He represents all the mistakes of communism that we were escaping from in the late 1980s. Aside from various examples of wrong communist policies, they embed a 2016 video from ORF II, an Austrian TV station, where Timmermans clashed with Richard Sulík, the chairman of a Slovak pro-free-market party:
If you understand neither German nor Slovak, here is the content of the one-minute-long video. Timmermans said that he had a great goal, to make sure that the people working on one place have the same salary as other people working on the same place. OK, Sulík also speaks German well although as a Slav, he is in a disadvantage. So he dared to ask: Warum? Or: Why?
Timmermans almost exploded and repeated: Warum!? Meaning: "How dare you ask such an incredibly blasphemous question?" Timmermans really asked: "Do you really want the third person to have a different salary than the first two?" (It isn't clear to me why he needed three people to explain the notion of equality but it's a detail LOL.)
Sulík answer: "Yes, even the tenth [should have a different salary]." Timmermans: "Is it what you consider just!?" – Sulík: "This is the free market. Mr Timmermans, what you are presenting is pure socialism." – Timmermans misunderstood it was a vulgar insult and he confirmed: "If this is what we call socialism, then I am all for socialism!" Of course are you are, Lenin's rectal elevator. Sulík: "Do you want to prescribe the same salary to all people? Leave these decisions to the employers. Why do you want to regulate everything?"
Timmermans, slowly: "Mr Sulík, really, when two people work on the same place, can one get 50% of the salary of the other person?" – Sulík: "He may. Even 100% ;-). Don't intervene into such matters. This is a place where we can't settle it. Just don't meddle with these things. It's been working like that without the EU and without you for centuries. Let the employers and employees deal with it."
Timmermans: "Do you know what amazing achievements the labor unions have made in that whole time?" – Well, I do, they greatly helped socialism to be established in my homeland which has crippled some 90% of the GDP, among other things. Sulík: "Fine, so leave it to the unions. It's still not your job to regulate these things."
To summarize, he is simply a hardcore commie who is totally detached from reality. Can you imagine how insanely devastating these egalitarian policies would be? No two jobs are really the same. Different people are perceived to do different amounts of work so they often have different salaries although their job descriptions are the same. Teachers have different experience. Or take universities. A physics professor at Boston University works a mile from a Harvard physics professor. They're doing "the same job", if you describe it by some sketchy name. Should they be getting the same salary? Of course not. Indeed, the number 50% may be a realistic description of the disparity. The Harvard professor has been selected in a more competitive process which is why there are good reasons to expect – and there are also other reasons to think – that he is doing more work or more valuable work in total than the guy at Boston University.
So how they could be getting the same salary? Should three prostitutes, a pretty one, a passionate one, and a 60-year-old one, be getting the same salaries? If they will, will they have the same demand?
Or just take some regular companies in the commercial sector. They may compete against each other and one is struggling, being threatened by bad results if not a bankruptcy. Of course that such a company may need to lower the salaries of the people who are doing the same thing as similar people in other companies – even if they really do the same amount of work that is equally good. It's simply needed and it's natural to lower salaries of everybody if the whole company seems to be having bad results.
To impose higher salaries in a struggling company means to bring it much closer to very bad results if not bankruptcy. Similarly, he is clearly trying to equate the salaries at different places and different countries, too. This could bring majorities of whole national economies such as ours out of business. The conditions are such that most Czech companies just can't triple their salaries and survive. Even if something else were adapted in some way, we would lower our GDP growth rate. One just can't even talk about insane things such as the universal salary egalitarianism promoted by the clueless comrade named Timmermans.
It is honestly true in reality that millions of workers e.g. in the Eastern (or Southern) parts of Europe are doing the same work as counterparts in the Western (or Northern) parts but they are getting salaries that are nominally just 1/3 of the Northwestern ones. Maybe they were unlucky to be born at one place or another. But the inequality is linked to many other inequalities. A Bulgarian janitor may do the same amount of work as a Dutch one but he is a janitor serving engineers who are producing less than the Dutch engineers, so he will also get less money because he's cleaning the floor for less efficient or less productive people! So when two people are doing the same thing it isn't really the same thing. How can someone misunderstand these basic things in Economics 101?
As Reflex points out, Timmemans doesn't have the slightest idea why the Soviet bloc economies collapsed and why the Soviet bloc lost the Cold War because he really wants to revive all the key things that were wrong about the Soviet bloc's management of these societies – the direct causes of the Soviet bloc's self-evident underperformance.
To elect Juncker's successor, one needs
at least 21 countries representing at least 65% of the inhabitants of the EU.Sadly, almost all relevant decisions in the contemporary EU28 are affected by deluded majorities which is why it's much more meaningful to negate the requirement. Note that the negation of "A or B" is "not A and not B", i.e. "or" and "and" get interchanged. So to defeat such a proposal by the powerful, the minority needs
at least 8 countries or countries representing at least 35% of the inhabitants of the EU.Despite having two possible paths, that's very hard. Our regional block is way too tiny to block such decisions by itself. Hungary, Poland, and Czechia are just 3 countries, not 9. Even if Slovakia were regained, and it seems unlikely, it would be 4. The population counting also seems hopeless. 35% of 508 million EU folks is 178 million folks. Poland+Hungary+Czechia have 38.4+9.8+10.6 = 58.8 million. Even with Slovakia, we're below 65 million.
To get to 8 countries, we need to get 5 new allies – perhaps Estonia, Croatia, Finland, Italy, Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, and maybe Romania or Lithuania or Latvia or Greece (probably for other reasons), I tried to sort them from the "easiest ones" to persuade. That seems very hard because countries outside Visegrád and even Slovakia seem to be šitting into their pants.
It could also be enough to get countries with 178 million people. It's a lot. Add Italy with 60.6 million. Along with PL+HU+CZ, we would be at 119.4 (or 125 with Slovakia) and we would still need countries with 58 (53 with Slovakia) million. Where are they? Even the combination Austria+Finland+Croatia+Baltics isn't enough. Romania may make a difference with 19.6 but the populous Romania seems to be submissive to Brussels.
Well, I forgot about an elephant: isn't the U.K. still voting? Would they support Timmermans? Visegrád, Italy, and the U.K. would be enough for the blocking 35% fraction.
So even if Babiš remains allied with Poland and Hungary – and isn't persuaded to switch sides by a promise of a few billions of extra subsidies for Agrofert – it seems likely that the incomplete Visegrád's opposition to these proposals will fail. A boss of the European Union commission who really seems to be wrong about everything – and who seems a bit more aggressive in promoting all these fallacies and lunacies than Juncker was – will be picked.
The United Kingdom is already leaving this progressive hell, despite the fact that the U.K. is progressive by itself. For example, the mayor of London is an exotic apologist of terrorism who is turning the British capital into a giant šithole with tons of street violence and street feces, as Paul Joseph Watson described in some detail. What about those of us who find "even" London to be too EU-like, too much of a šithole? Will our nations tolerate the increasing dominance of Timmermans-like lunatics over the union?