Corrections regarding Austrias vote: 1: The austrian chancellor is not the "Boss" of minsiters, he's "first among equals". He cannot tell the ministers what to do in their respective ministries. 2: The green minister had not voted in favour since there was a unanimous opinion by the austrian states (regions) to block the yes vote. 3: Last week two of the states reversed course and said they agreed, thus there was no longer a block by the sates (requiring unanimity) 4: Gewessler thus announced she would support the bill 5: The chancellor send a letter to the EU Council Presidency stating that the green minister was not authorized to vote 6: The green minister as well as the EU Council Presidency dissagreed, the vote moved forward and was approved 7: The Austrian Conservatives are arguing this vote shall be null and void since the minister was not legally allowed to vote. This question will now be decided in front of the courts Source: Am Austrian
How do you feel about it? Did she do something illegal or didn't she? In my opinion she didn't do anything illegal, especially considering that the pm could have resigned, which would have resigned the entire cabinet, which would have blocked the vote. He didn't, therefore his disagreement is just for show, but his actions show consent. Secondly, the only reason he has authority is because he was voted in by a coalition, which agreed to vote for him only because they would be able to make some decisions. Of coalition partners can't make any decisions, then there's no coalition, and no Nehamer as PM.
@@nydydn She did not do anything illegal from a constitutional standpoint in fact each minister is quite independent and owes the chancellor no explaination in regards to their respective ministries unless they diviate from the coalition programs. Seperation of powers in a way. The threats about the break up of the coalition with this proofed to be more hot air than anything. From an Austrian domestic point of view it also seems that the conservative party was quite under pressure from regional party members and big farmers.
@@nydydnI as an an Austrian as well also doubt that she did anything illegal. Generally right now chancellor Nehammer is an unpopular politician and this move already made a pretty unpopular politician look even weaker so he wants to sue her to show the Austrians that he is strong. I personally don’t know how to feel about the move I generally like the law that was passed and I found the decision of Gewesslers right I don’t know how to fell about her doing it in the shadows without telling anyone. Now generally I feel like Gewessler is the only decent politician in the current cabinet since while I don’t agree with many things she believes in at least she stands up for her beliefs which is a rare in Austrian politics.
Young conservatives here in austria celebrated this coalition, including me. I want to see green politics implemented, but I am also more socially conservative than the greens or social democrats. And frankly, I couldnt care less about the subsidy rich whining farmers. Its about time they faced the free market the rest of us live in.
The conservative ÖVP embraced green ideas in 2020 (even though they had been typical polluters in the years before). After a few key laws however they saw how their voter base wanted no big changes, so they backed down immediately and went back to anti-green.
Actually most in Italy are perfectly fine and applauding. Not because of FAAAAARHHHHRIGHT!!!, but because we are sick and tired of a public service where admission is related to a left wing political adhesion.
@@Leptospirosi It's not. More young Italians have to flee the country because the corrupt fascist government is making finding decently paid jobs even harder with their deregulation of the economy. But hey: If you can just make the media report that you're actually great then you're bound to catch some useful idiots who will just blindly follow what you're saying.
Nato's treaty never stated that members have to do anything. They only need to have a meating toghether and then decide for themselves what's necessary
There are people who will say with a straight face, "We can't stop climate change if it destroys the economy." and they really mean it. How they think the economy will survive a climate disaster is beyond me but I'm not an economist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Perhaps "economic viability" is a dumb excuse to let the planet cook
Taylor Swift jet healthier than a burping cow in the rural small towns called the Dutch Bible Belt? Dutch Bible Belt is 2.5% with 13% with 4 or more children. If you were to actually use that definition Rotterdam alone has as many large families.
We'll all be under water by 10 years ago? Not to mention that Europe is responsible for less than 7% of the emissions. Maybe you should try to find middle ground instead of forcing a radical change on everyone just because you want to speedrun. Here's a simple example of middle ground: Renewables for the day and fossil fuels to make up for the lack of solar energy during the night. Can keep going like this untill we find a way to store the energy excess from during the day. Threatening to ban all the non-electric and non-hybrid cars isn't a good idea when you're basically pushing everyone to buy a new expensive car and then pay double as much for the electricity. Oh, right. Someone wanted a liberal energy market and that's why the energy prices exploded. I wonder what they were thinking when they wanted both this and to go green.
@@Hardcore_Remixer Nevermind i looked it up but there is an easy way to get rid of nuclear waste and nuclear is our best option and modern reactors produce way less waste than the old ones
@@LunarPenguin42I am struggling to find any English sources that delve deeper into the topic. Could you please enlighten me with your perspective as presumably an Austrian citizen who is more familiar with Austria's political climate?
@@CCLethe ill try my best. so the ÖVP (conservatives) are in a coalition with the greens (left wing). So some corrections for the video: 1.) Nehammer isnt the Gewesslers Boss. The Chancellor doesnt have authority over the ministers. He is legally the primus inter pares (the first among equals). so not the boss 2.) she wasnt sued by austria. she was sued by the ÖVP. The party sued not the government. So the claim: austria sues itself is total BS. 3.) could she loose her job? not really. the lawsuit is more of a political instrument to make the greens look unfavourable right before the elections (they are in autumn). also so far this is not working at all. Most people support the law and think the ÖVP is being kinda childish about the whole thing. So about the whole situation. Gewessler voted in favour of the law, the conservatives are strictly against it. current polling shows that 82% of austrians support the law. why didnt austria vote in favour of the law earlier? because as i understand it, the law cuts into the area of responsibility of austrian states (austria is a strongly federal country, meaning the states hold a lot of power). due to the voting system most state governors are conservative. and they unanimously voted against this law, therefore gewessler would have legally not been allowed to vote in favour of it. BUT right before the vote the governors of the state of vienna and carinthia (who are both social democrats) reversed and their NO-vote and supported the law verbally. after consulting a lot of legal experts she felt she was allowed to vote in favour of the law (nobody actually knows for certain if this was legal or not, but my gut feeling is that it was legal). the ÖVP is now saying it wasnt written down therefore it doesnt count therefore all of this is illegal. the ÖVP btw is the party in austria that has a huge corruption scandal pretty much every year and still gets away with it. nehammer and the conservatives are just simply really really scared of the upcoming election because they are extremely unpopular in the polls and btw they pulled the exact same move as gewessler with the schengen Veto on bulgaria and romania with the only difference being that the majority of the population werent in favour of the veto.
@@CCLethe oh and btw just because Alma Zadic is the justice minister and part of the green party doesnt mean that she would have any say in wether or not a minister would get charged. That would obviously be total corruption and isnt even possible in the austrian legal system
The Austrian Peoples Party can -excuse the expression- fuck all the way off. They pushed the veto on Romanias joining Schengen area alone in one of the previous governments. Additionally, the majority of Austrians wanted this vote. only the Austrian Freedom Party and the Austrian Peoples Party push this senseless delayment in ecologically friendly legislature.
Sry, but your Austria part is terrible. Please redo it. 1.) No Austria is not suing Gewessler. The Conservative party is. 2.) No she will likely not loose her job. The courts are too slow for that as we have elections in september 3.) No, it wasnt blocked by government. It was blocked by the states. Gewessler would have voted for it if not for the states. (small difference) 4.) WHY THE HELL are you insinuating that the courts wouldnt go after her just because our justice minister is from the green party. Sry, but we are not THAT corrupt... just stop it. 5.)The most important part of this story is. Nehammer could have kicked her out the day before, IFF he wanted. He didnt do it. So this isnt about the law, but it is 100% domestic politics in preperation for the september elections. Both parties looked for some strong arguments and can now present them to their voters. The law about how the states can take back their unanimously decision doesnt really matter here. TL:DR:... redo this part. You are better than that!
If you visit Thailand, you know same sex marriage is nothing special. People already been doing it but the government had no time legalize anything because they got coup after coup to cater to. Heck, even their soldiers are caught doing make up. Their monks, for Buddha sake, are shown to turn ladyboys every year. As you said, the whole thing is a matter of formality.
Thailand same sex marriage is pretty much only really accepted in Bangkok. It’s opposed in the south and in other areas. The concept of same sex marriage etc is more accepted due to pink economy rather than actual support of the population. Anyway I don’t disagree that for parts of Thailand people are supportive of it but to assume it’s special is far from the truth. Lady boy is a common culture across the world, it just isn’t as clamped down on in areas such as south east asia. It is often a don’t ask don’t tell scenario (tho Thailand is the only one that openly supports it due to the pink economy strategy) You be surprised to find lady boys are also “common” in Islamic states such as Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia. Feel free to look up more into the topic, but even in Thailand most of the population is anti lgbt, it’s just people can’t make as much fuss due to the military junta and crackdown by government (non-junta as well). It’s a weird situation but many people their face issues locally.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 it’s south East Asian culture tho it’s support and practise is heavily dispute even in Thailand outside of Bangkok it’s pretty opposed and even then violence in both an official and non official capacity is seen. It’s just tamer due to pink economics.
@@teamjam2863 i'm indonesian. transgenderism in other southeast asia countries arent that prevalent compared to thailand. its only in thailand, not southeast asia.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 aye? And you’re talking to a Malaysian. It’s prevalent depending on areas and ethnic groups. You’d be surprised how many Indonesians are lady boys in areas such as Kalimantan vs say Java. Transgenderism in Thailand is also miss leading as they believe that tomboys or “effeminate man” are “genders” rather than expressions. Thus are added to the poll.
When a Cabinet member doesn't do what you want them to do, I doubt that is a criminal offense or at least it shouldn't be. Someone approved of her in the first place and it's his job to pick someone who doesn't defy party lines. I think the only recourse they should be allowed to have is to simply fire her.
what's the point of coalition, if the head of government still wants to call all shots? How is her vote surprising if you give the green party (coalition partner) the position of Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology? I don't know their law but sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to hide from political backlash of main party voters.
You're either an adult and do the hard thing by supporting Green policy for the future or you're a child who wants to go "lalalalalala" and ignore it so they can have lower taxes and more toys in the moment without thinking of the future and anyone else.
"You're either a chad like me or a virgin like those who disagree with me." You aren't convincing anyone with this argument. The comment above sais it all. And we're in a crisis right now because the leftists wanted economical war with Ru551a. Thank you, left. You made me go in the right direction.
Or you're an actual intelligent person who recognizes that fighting the damage of climate change is a centuries long battle and massive sudden changes that are unsustainable actually do more damage than good
Austrian Conservative party is giving "older brother, whos had it with the messing about" while the Austrian Green party giving the "younger sister who does the opposite of what shes told because she can"
that would make sense if the conservatives hadn't had one scandal after the other in recent years and the greens were under constant fire for backing the coalition. has more of a mom taking a glas of wine after a long day with the rowdy kid energy in my view
It is very unclear if the minister should have voted for or against the issue. There are multiple levels of government include in those decisions and some positions changed recently. It is by far not as clear cut as it was made out in this news clip
Rogue? Shes actually representing here country. I study in Vienna and 80% of the people are for her chouce but now övp (nehammer who wasnt even democratly voted in the first place) calls it undemocratic
The Thai Senate has 250 members, so I'm not sure 130 counts as overwhelming. I'm assuming the low turnout for the vote is due to it being a lame-duck session with the selection process for a non-junta appointed Senate finally under way. (There might be the makings of a story there as the selection process seems rather arcane--akin to that of the Venetian Republic.)
thing is, you framed the story about austria in a weird way. most ppl here in austria are like: "not another shit show from ÖVP", and some are also happy Gewessler, as party of the greens in the government did this. ÖVP just stages a dumb "theater", and i know this is not as journalistic of a story, but at least one could have guessed that by the news from austria.
In essence, this situation can be explained by the upcoming election, the election campaign, and the current domestic political situation. And it’s complicated. 1. The elections are scheduled for September 29th, but the parties have already begun creating their candidate lists, and the pre-election campaign is already underway. 2. The coalition between the Conservatives and the Greens had two main goals. On one hand, the Greens accepted a restrictive immigration policy that goes against their core principles. In return, there is a strong focus on environmental and climate policies in their direction. 3. The Greens ousted former Chancellor Kurz due to massive corruption allegations. However, Kurz was the golden boy of the Conservatives, and they never truly forgave this (related to the Ibiza affair). 4. The current polls show the following: o The FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria), a right-wing populist to far-right party, is leading with 30-26%. They are clearly against any climate protection measures, and a majority of the party doubts climate change or believes nothing can be done. Their stance differs significantly from that of the Greens. o The ÖVP (Austrian People’s Party), a conservative center-right party, is currently at 26-20%. Despite an excellent result in the last election, they are losing significantly, especially to the FPÖ .In terms of policy, they align more closely with the FPÖ than with any other party. However, there’s a problem: the FPÖ leader is a personal issue for the ÖVP, and they rule out forming a coalition with him (related to the Ibiza affair, Kurz, and recent snap elections). Despite this, many expect that these parties will form the next government if possible. In regional elections, the ÖVP and FPÖ engaged in fierce campaigns but still managed to form a regional government after the vote (e.g., in Lower Austria). The ÖVP is currently trying to shift further to the right. For instance, during the EU elections, they questioned the ban on combustion engines and suggested that Europe should become a global leader in combustion engine technology. o The SPÖ (Social Democratic Party of Austria) comes in third, tied with the ÖVP at 24-20%. They have longstanding internal disagreements. Currently led by a figure from the left wing, they face constant challenges from the right wing. Beyond that, there’s a larger gap, and several smaller parties come into play: o Greens: The ecological party, positioned center-left, is currently part of the government but is projected to lose support (10-7%). Their stance on immigration policies has eroded trust among their voters. Their recent focus on environmental protection and climate action is crucial for their supporters. The Greens have both a moderate and a left-wing faction. Most likely, after the election, they won’t be part of the government anymore. Besides a coalition between the FPÖ and ÖVP, the most probable scenario is an ÖVP-SPÖ-NEOS coalition. o NEOS: The liberal party, positioned in the center, is currently at 12-8%. While they will gain some ground, their potential remains limited. They prioritize economic issues but also incorporate left-leaning influences in environmental and social matters. Currently, they are drifting toward the center at the expense of the ÖVP and Greens. o Beer Party: Originally a satirical party, they are currently at 8-5%. The name literally means beer, the beverage. They’ve proposed fun ideas like a beer fountain (replacing water with beer). Their charismatic leader ran in the presidential election and secured 10% of the vote. They gain support at the expense of both the SPÖ and the Greens, as well as among non-voters. o KPÖ: The Communist Party, positioned on the left, is currently at 5-3%. With a 4% threshold, they may or may not enter parliament. Although they haven’t been nationally represented since 1954, they’ve gained momentum in recent years, especially at the regional level. Their main focus is housing, but their name remains a challenge (given that they are the Communist Party). In summary, there are many left-of-center parties competing for the same voters, while the right is engaged in a two-way battle. For over 40 years, Austria has had a majority to the right of center.
Wait, so the chanselor is suing an MP who isn’t part of his party, for her having the *gall* of using her democratic right to vote? Edit: I seem to have started an ideology war in the comments… have fun (drink water)
She's there as part of the government, representing the government. She herself has no vote, the government holds the right to vote, not her personality.
Well, the head of the democratically elected government she is part of didn't approve her pro-vote, though one could argue she is more qualified to take that decision than him-
@@stefrob yes, I am well aware of that. Hence why she's a minister. But that doesn't give her the power to decide policy unilaterally, not even the Chancellor has that. This will likely lead to a collapse of the government, with the far-right replacing the Greens in the coalition, whether with an election or not. Typical leftist shortsightedness by the greens there
Why the hell does Orban not just leave NATO if he's going to oppose everything they do that might upset daddy Putin NATO countries need to start economically sanctioning Hungary until Orban changes his tune or leaves
Here's the thing, Putin wants Orban to be the spoiler of NATO in order to buy himself time. Plus, NATO doesn't really have a way to kick out members. Even if it did, Turkey and Slovakia would most definitely block it.
Giving Orban an opt-out is going to cause problems. Either he can fall in for the benefit of mutual military aid, or he should bounce out of NATO. Capitulating to him is the worst option.
Not really they can only send toilet paper and they would do everything article 5 said ( each country can help by which action it thinks is necessary from sending fighters to military aid ) and it's like that because the USA wants to have the ability to choose if they want to help with troops or not but unfortunately for urban , he can't escape EU article 42 that force EU countries to help each other in time of war with everything they got but unfortunately the far right is trying to change that but your average European still voted for them at this point if far right take control next election, we should probably just get rid of EU since there will be no point of it , no military, economic, humanitarian or diplomatic relationships between it countries since that far right will just vote those rules out since they want everyone for it own and that will destroy Europe economy making the place so fragile since EU already have enough separatist moving to cause civil wars then wars between countries then full European war ( it won't effect the world like WW1 and 2 but Europe will be gone after it forever
Good for her! Finally some politicians with some fkn ballz, some courage! Doing whats right. How dare these alt right guys try to put her in prison for doing the job she was hired and empowered to do. Ie. whats right on behalf of the Austrian people and the environmental ministry of Austria.
Your accent is a little too stylized/ slurry and your rhythm is annoyingly repetitive. Makes me want to skip yout vid. I can tolerate Anne Widdecombe or Rees-Mogg over your delivery.
Honest;ly it's a tragity what is happening in autria and a sign of one of two things... 1. democratic back sliding or 2. a stupid governmental system being stupid... which a side of poleriztion and haterd for other.
@@jjxed That's not what "fundamental Nazism" means in the slightest. That's just the two funny countries merging, that doesn't suddenly mean they'll march into Paris and erect camps.
@@eyalamit5120 pan-Germanism was the entire premise of Hitler's Nazism. All other ideologies stemmed from there. Not saying it's evil like most of the other ideologies but it's a big red-flag that people are openly calling for it
I don't understand why people like you want straight women married to gay men. If you're against same sex marriage that's what you're advocating for. You can only have a family if you marry a straight woman
Can TLDR please STOP reporting LGBT laws as uplifting news? I'm not against it, but this being deemed as postive is very subjective. For an impartial channel, this is poor journalism
You're talking about the same channel that calls everything right of Biden far right, and says the UK has been a multiracial country for one hundred thousand years 😂
There's something inherently fucked with your perception if you think stuff like same sex marriage or the legalization of just being gay are bad things. These things are objectively good, unless of course your bias says something else.
Your content is good but I hate listening to your voice. You’re putting to much stress on your vocal chords when you should be relaxing them and using your diaphragm. Also, slow down how fast you talk and stop taking such sharp inhales. And maybe move back from the mic just a tad. The other guy who does the EU stuff has the right idea.
For what crime? She has been given the power to vote, there is no legal requirement to follow any directives when there is no national consensus. Vienna declaring to be in favor broke the national consensus. Is it peak political shenanigans? Absolutely, but entirely legal.
@@mormacil Not the only illegal thing she has done. She refuses to build roads which are due to be built and have taken all legal hurdles. Cant wait for FPÖ-ÖVP government to put this criminal behind bars.
The full picture of what happened in Austria: 1.) There is a law that permits the federal states to create a binding resolution that requires the ministers to vote according to that resolution - IF all the federal states can agree on such a resolution unanimously. There are some exceptions when the ministers may vote differently, though that has never happened until now and the law is vaguely worded. Some time ago all the federal states agreed, that the minister should vote against the bill. 2.) A few days ago Vienna (which is the capital and a federal state) decided that they changed their mind and the local council voted to withdraw from the unanimous resolution. Again, this has never happened before and there seems to not be a procedure in place how such a withdrawal should happen. 3.) Now that there is (probably?) no more binding resolution, the environmental minister could decide on her own ... except that there was - again - a discussion on whether the environmental minister is required to agree with the minister of agriculture on a common position. In the past such agreements were not made by the green's coalition partner's ministers, they just decided on their own, so this time there wasn't made an agreement either. So does this vote make her a "rogue" minister? It probably depends on what side of the political spectrum you are
And from the EU side, I believe that the Treaty only knows one council, the EU Council of heads of state and government leaders. No other council formations can be found in the Treaty.
@@ronaldderooij1774 You're mixing them up. It's the EU heads of state Council, known as the "European Councli" that has no formal legislative powers. The various ministers of the "Council of the European Union", which is the very same body that is informally known as the "Council of Ministers" are legally allowed to vote and their votes are legally binding. As far as I know there is no special clause that says they are only representing their head of state and have to get permission for each vote for it to be valid. Edit: Look specifically at Articles 15 and 16 of the Treaty on the European Union.
Remember, 'farmer' can mean quite a few things; small business owners, farm workers, or even multinational agricultrure conglomerates. Farmers aren't inherently working class is what I'm getting at.
Wow so Gewessler is like... a hero. Sacrificing her own status and career to stand up for humanity's future and the wellbeing of our planet! And not in a LARP-y or virtue signal-y way either, her going rogue will have significant and concrete positive consequences for everyone. Honestly, huge respect. It's people like these who deserve statues.
Sorry? A Hero? She should be in prison for treason, she acted on her own accord without permission, her act was un democratic, going against the voters, and the majority of the people, she did not only betray the coalition, she betrayed her country and the people she needs to serve, wether you’re right or left, whether you’re for or against the bil, if you’re a person for democracy, and believe in the ideas of a democracy, you can’t support her action, and if you do, you’re nothing better than the far right or the far left, then you’re nothing better than some one who supports a dictatorship.
@@chris6ix. The EU’s biggest budgetary expense is farm subsidies, not even including the individual countries themselves, most European farmers haven’t been competitive without massive subsidies for decades, they only survive because of the massive amounts of subsidies they receive
@@chris6ix.most European farmers are not the working class, instead they are more like business owners. They use either immigrant or machine to do the job.
@@chris6ix. Most farmers aren't the poor working class being subjugated by the upper crust, they ARE the upper crust. Yes, there are smaller farmers out there, but most are business owners just like the rest and they are simply in the business of growing food.
@@shroomyesc And? We still need them, and so constantly putting up new laws that hurt them/their business is stupid. We need to keep producing as much food as possible so that we don't become food dependent on other countries that can then use that to their advantage when we do smth they don't like. Being cut off from gas, oil or certain manufactured good from an authoritarian state hurts economically, but doesn't kill us. If we are food dependent on a state that doesn't like us, and they cut us off, then we just die, or we are forced to do exactly as that state says, basically becoming their b*tch in the process and loosing all independence. Yes, I know farmers are expensive for the EU, but we just simply cannot afford to get rid of them, or we are screwed. That is why I find it very stupid or even borderline suicidal when some people demand the farmers subsidies to be cut or for new environmental laws to be put up that hurt them. We need to keep protecting them.
@@The_New_IKBIt's kinda weird, but after September's election such a coalition probably won't be possible, because the far right will gain a lot of votes.
@@foxooo How? One cannot sanction a government without sanctioning the country it governs. USA sanctioning Hungary for the way Hungarians vote would only lead to sour the relations between USA and Hungary. Ooor you can have CIA intervene in Hungary's elections like they did 81 times between 1946 and 2000. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if CIA backs another coup (yes, there have been many).
Honestly this ruling is something that's so controversial I wouldn't be surprised if countries in EU at least threaten to leave the union if the law goes through or if someone tries to enforce it.
Also a survey among Austrians showed 80% in favor of the law. Even if it was from a pro nature organisation, it would be impossible to tweak it with survey information data available that much, if the population would be against it.
@@Avatar2312Right, and the constitution says that the government is there to represent the people, and the people are in in favor, so obviously she should vote in favour too.
I get voting with your conscience, but if you as a representative of a country opposed to certain legislation decide on your own that you know best, please accept all the hurt coming your way, the Austrian minister can be happy not to be charged with treason.
I don't understand what's treasonous about voting in favor of a law that roughly 80% of the population support, could you explain? She did not break any laws, the most she did was disrespect the coalition, but she is not beholden to them by law.
The chancellor is opposed to the legislation, but has no legal grounds whatsoever to force her vote. That is clear in the Austrian constitution: ministers are free in their decisions. The Austrian states could force her position/vote if all states agree to. But while all states opposed the original legislation, two states recently withdrew their opposition.
@@AmadeusMozart-yk5uk Ich hol' mir doch nicht das ins Haus, was Bismarck damals auf den Balkan zurückdrängen musste. Nope, die Ösis bleiben wo sie sind. Wir hatten *das* Experiment einmal, ich wiederhole das nicht. Hinzu kommt: wir haben schon ein durchgeknalltes Bayern. Und du willst gleich die ganze Sippe von denen einladen? Nope, nicht mit mir.
