THE BONDZHINOV INTERVIEW: PETER LEESON
By Dan Bondzhinov
Bondzhinov
DAN BONDZHINOV is the editor of the BONDZHINOV REPORT, Pravoslaviya's most popular news aggregator and the independent voice of the Make Europe Great Again movement. With no MEGA candidate standing in these Commission elections, Bondzhinov aims to interview all the candidates, starting with Peter Leeson.
BONDZHINOV: You've said in one of your rallies that 'we must especially oppose Berrism and Trympovism'. What do you believe is so wrong about those ideologies, and what's your alternative?
LEESON: I believe that we need to work together as a continent at EU level in order to succeed on common challenges, and that includes helping nations like Pravoslaviya and Nofoaga with green development through EU funding, while having richer nations contribute and believe in free trade EU wide. I also believe we need to support businesses of all sizes, big or small, as well as the workers. The extremities either are all pro-big business at expense of workers and nationalist to the point of almost total euroscepticism, or so far left in Berrism's case where only small businesses and workers are considered with potential for many good big businesses to fail under weight of over-regulation. We need a middle ground, for example you can have capitalism and workers' rights and support, just look at Roscoes who work as a partnership between worker and owner. I would encourage this type of model but within the context of each county while encouraging common regulations for simplicity on product standards throughout EU as much as possible. This is not possible without strong EU leadership. Neither is fixing the climate change issue. That's what I oppose.
Le Berre has accused you of 'delusion' and said you're a 'ridiculous person' for calling him a radical leftist. You clearly stand by calling him that. Why, what policies does he have that you think make him a radical leftist?
I do; he supports only the unions, he would raise a lot of unnecessary restrictions on business as well as supporting inefficiencies in business effectively. He opposes business freedom, that is far left.
You want to bring in environmental regulations to get the EU to net zero emissions by 2040. Isn't that just as anti-business as anything Le Berre is proposing?
No, because I am proposing a radical package of support for businesses to adapt with grants for green technology research, and also for implementing green policies, and it applies to nations who can afford to do it too, with poorer nations being given until 2050. We will also raise green development aid and support from the EU. We already have enough surplus to do with over half of money unspent in the EU budget, also it is more anti-business to not do enough leading to greater extreme, weather, floods, falling harvests which will hit the poorest nations hardest but also hit richer nations. This is an essential target if we want to come out ahead economically in the long run , we will tailor it to nations too so they will just be told meet this target but you decide how, so Alkharya can find a way without taxing aviation but United Duchies can continue with its plan to abolish domestic aviation, for example, and companies can buy credits if needed from companies with negative carbon emissions.
Dragan Trympov and the Make Europe Great Again movement are not running this time. You've said you're against Trympovism, but what would you say to the people who voted for him last time?
I would say I understand why people voted for it, like I understand the National Rally votes in our nation. People feel betrayed by business and political elites and we need to do better to engage not only the upper and middle classes but the working class also by making sure any policy works for them as well. We need to tackle mass immigration and the threat to culture from it, something we are now starting to do in the Duchies, but I would say extreme nationalism when radical centrism as practised by companies like Roscoes can help the working class. We need to encourage this co-operation between business and workers model and private and public sector model not lurch to a far-left or pure nationalism. There is room for a centrist model and a model of glocalism with global co-operation but individual national sovereignty into how to reach the targets, as not one model will work everywhere. I would also say the democratic deficit needs addressing also by bringing more people involvement in the EU.
I'm glad you raised that issue. Globalist politicians like to say they're different when running for election, but in office they revert to type. You've talked about replacing the EACA, which is very unpopular in a lot of countries. You've also talked about strengthening it, and you've talked about more sovereignty for nations. Are you just trying to be all things to all people, or do you have an actual plan for the EU's governance?
I will talk to all nations about how to reach our targets within their framework. I actually have a plan, I plan to get a trade union and business council to provide input, possibly with a religious council depending on if nations want that. I am open to reform or replacement of EACA and even having some appointed EU councillors, but we need multiple councillors, having one leaves a nation vulnerable to no representation and forces first past the post on a nation for elected we need at least 3 reps elected per nation for PR or ranked choice to work, so actually expanding the number of seats will increase sovereignty in that respect and provide greater representation for groups from all areas of politics as you could have socialists, right wing and centrists from all nations meaning actual political competition at EU level can strengthen legislation and lead to more compromise, not just have one or two blocs dominate with no other views being input.
The EPA have governed the EU for several terms now. How are you different from all the EPA commissioners who've come before?
I want to reform our approach. I feel the EPA have been good but at times too prescriptive in their approach. I would like to move more towards "here's a target up to you how to meet it" type solutions where possible for example on climate change, workers' rights protections and in terms of environmental and business regulation. I feel its best negotiation is done on a Glocal partnership basis than a top down EU approach in most cases. There is places where this isn't possible for example in aviation safety, consumer protection especially on goods if we want a single market and freer trade in the future but in many cases Glocal policy making is the way to go.
According to a recent poll, almost 50% of Duxburians want to leave the EU. Angleter is planning a referendum on leaving the region too. In Azrekko, in the DU, people are protesting an economic collapse caused in large part by EU rules. What would you say to the protestors in Azrekko, and people across the EU who are questioning the entire globalist order?
I would say in some cases they have a point, that's why the EU needs to do better engaging governments and the people, but there is also an element of misapplying the rule in the Neurodivergent and Disability Act's case. There is no reason why reasonable adaptations can be made and they don't have to change processes if its not reasonable. For example deaf people cannot work in kitchens in Duchies because it's a safety issue if they cannot hear properly and we cannot enforce sign language in that environment. I'd talk to them about the reasonable adaptations clause as I think its been misinterpreted. But I do agree there is too much prescription in many acts, we would do best to move to targets like for example reducing poverty to a certain level but states choose how to do it.
What would happen to countries that miss your targets?
I would look at a grace period to meet them and investigate why, but hopefully we'll identify they are likely to miss in advance and in that case we could go in and offer aid or funds or whatever is needed to help meet it as we know sometimes spanners are thrown in the works. If there is an absolute refusal to meet one then we can let that go to jurisdiction of the court system in the EU. It's important nations actually bother to meet their international commitments they sign up to or are required to but there can be sovereignty in how you meet them.
And finally, you've said a lot about Le Berre, but what do you think about Cocx? Why should people vote for you and not him? What is the difference between you?
The difference is I am for more integration on key issues. We will not achieve our climate goals and protect Europe's people without more EU but it's about where we have more EU and how we integrate. I don't think it's an answer just to reduce the EU to a bit role and that is where he'd take us which I respectfully disagree with. He has good intentions but I fear his approach would lead to a weak EU that would be too easily ignored leading to abuse of minorities, the environment, the neurodivergent and disabled.
The Kingdom of Spain
