Europe

[Tribesman]

gee, sounds like confirmation of my earlier statement that

...the tories have joined a bunch of fruitcakes

[Louis VI the Fat]

the yanks are now getting their knickers in a twist over the Conservatives place in the ECR:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...in-Europe.html


gee, sounds like confirmation of my earlier statement that the US wants a strong federated partner, and wants the UK firmly on the inside to ensure that strong partner is both:
1) strong
2) anglophile
as a friend of america; "tough nuts!"

Frankly, I do not think this is a confirmation of your earlier statements. Nor, indeed, of your very enthusiasm for the direction the Conservatives want to move Britain in, which is what this thread started about.

This is instead about America - to which you want to move Britain ever so closely - deploring the direction the British Conservatives have moved in. And worrying about the repercussions this will have for Anglo-American and Euro-American relations.


Edit: Ah, Tribes - now there's a man of efficient phrase.

[Beskar]

...the tories have joined a bunch of fruitcakes

Exactly.

[Subotan]

<3 Tribes

[Furunculus]

[edit] double post [/edit]

[Furunculus]

[edit] oops triple post [/edit]

[Furunculus]

even were i to accept that, which i do not, they would be fruitcakes pulling in the same direction as the Cons on europe, which is about the limit of my interest in elected euro MP's from the continent.

[Tribesman]

they would be fruitcakes pulling in the same direction as the Cons on europe

the fruitcakes can't even decide on who is pulling what in which direction.

[Furunculus]

"CONSCIOUS OF THE URGENT NEED TO REFORM THE EU ON THE BASIS OF EUROREALISM, OPENNESS, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY, IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR NATIONS AND CONCENTRATES ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY, GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS, THE EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVES AND REFORMISTS GROUP SHARES THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:

1. Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity.
2. Freedom of the individual, more personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability.
3. Sustainable, clean energy supply with an emphasis on energy security.
4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.
5. The sovereign integrity of the nation state, opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity.
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures.
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."

this is at least a political platform i can respect from within the EU parliament, it has yet to be demonstrated that they can achieve anything in this direction, but it is at least right-wing and anti-federal.

[Louis VI the Fat]

it has yet to be demonstrated that they can achieve anything in this direction, but it is at least right-wing and anti-federal.

...and anti-healthy Transatlantic relations.

The Conservatives can pretend to their electorate that their unfortunate change of policy is really cool, what with taking a though stance against an EU that seeks to undermine Britain's sovereignity.

But now not only Britain's European partners, but the Americans too, are starting to worry that the Tories will weaken British influence. Weaken it in Europe, and in Washington.


You have two recurring themes, Furunculus, of where you want to take Britain: less EU, and more pro-American. It would seem that the two are increasingly at odds, owing to the unfortunate change of course of the Tories.
That is what this is about. About American unease over the Tories and this new alliance of the weird, the bizarre, and the British Conservatives. Washington, in order to maintain the special relationship with the UK, would prefer the Tories to be mature towards Europe. The Conservatives are not the UKIP, they have no business with these parties and sentiments.

There is growing unease in the White House that David Cameron's Euroscepticism could undermine the ability of a Conservative government to influence events in the EU, threatening to weaken Britain in the eyes of the US. Clinton, while anxious not be seen to be interfering in a domestic election, has discussed the issue informally in Europe.
[...]
"I think Churchill would turn in his grave. It is an insult to the tradition of this great party"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...es-us-pressure

An American official, asked about the consequences for the US and about the far-right links, said: "I do not see any upsides in the new grouping. I can only see downsides. In life it is normally best to do things when they have an upside."

Louis Susman, the US ambassador in London, in an interview with the Financial Times, issued what could be interpreted as a warning to the Conservatives not to try to disrupt Europe.

European diplomats said Clinton believed it would be unwise to try to overturn the Lisbon treaty in the unlikely event that it has not been ratified by the time the Tories come to power. She is also understood to believe that it would also be unwise for a Tory government to try to undo earlier EU treaties.

"Hillary Clinton is concerned that the Tories would not take a lead in Europe," one European diplomatic source said. "It is clear that this US administration does not believe that Britain's relations with Europe and the EU are a zero sum game – the wrong-headed idea that if you are close to one you can't be close to the other. The US wants Britain to be fully engaged in the EU – that makes Britain more relevant in US eyes."

That's what Washington is thinking. Pretty close to my position: strenghten Britain, strenghten the EU, cherish the Special Relationship between the UK and the US, and strengthen Transatlantic ties.

So much better for everybody, in Europe, in the UK, and in America, than this immature posturing of the Conservatives. They shouldn't pander to populist sentiment. They should prepare themselves to lead Britain instead.

[Subotan]

So much better for everybody, in Europe, in the UK, and in America, than this immature posturing of the Conservatives. They shouldn't pander to populist sentiment. They should prepare themselves to lead Britain instead.

It's hardly likely you'd get legions of hardcore Tories defecting to UKIP in a General Election. Cameron has the political capital to just ignore the Eurosceptic wing of his party; it's not an issue we, the electorate, care about. Having the capital doesn't mean you have the balls though

[Tribesman]

4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.

That just shouts that the whole of the group is going to be caught having a gay orgy at their next meeting.

10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."

Does that mean a muppet like Kaminski will have to stop ranting about everyone who just happens to not be Polish?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Exactly.

Well, so has every other party, including your socialist comrades forming the farthest left-wing grouping in the Parliament. Though to be honest that group consists entirely of fruitcakes...


I like that "populism" is so easily dismissed as a bad thing by so many of the crowd here in Europe especially. Populism, by definition, represents the needs and wants of the ordinary people. Whether I agree with those needs or not is irrelevant, because is that not an important basis for democracy?

[Beskar]

Well, so has every other party, including your socialist comrades forming the farthest left-wing grouping in the Parliament. Though to be honest that group consists entirely of fruitcakes...

Do you know who I voted for in the last election? They actually got 63 seats in the house of commons.

Edit: I hate this forum, it chopped up a massive reply I wrote about the rest of your message. I can't be bothered writing it again, so in short "Political questions presented to the politics are frauds", I did have the evidence and proof, but I am not rewriting. Also pointed to the figures that 5% of those presented were actually informed enough to be answer to answer properly, and 2% of those were well-read and know all the details. They are also leading questions and full of fallacies and complete joke questions like "Are you a racist?" in a live-interview situation.

[Subotan]

I thought populism was more generally defined as "mob rule", when politicians are elected on issues which resonate with the plebians, usually with disastrous results.

[Furunculus]

...and anti-healthy Transatlantic relations.
The Conservatives can pretend to their electorate that their unfortunate change of policy is really cool, what with taking a though stance against an EU that seeks to undermine Britain's sovereignity.
But now not only Britain's European partners, but the Americans too, are starting to worry that the Tories will weaken British influence. Weaken it in Europe, and in Washington.

You have two recurring themes, Furunculus, of where you want to take Britain: less EU, and more pro-American. It would seem that the two are increasingly at odds, owing to the unfortunate change of course of the Tories.
That is what this is about. About American unease over the Tories and this new alliance of the weird, the bizarre, and the British Conservatives. Washington, in order to maintain the special relationship with the UK, would prefer the Tories to be mature towards Europe. The Conservatives are not the UKIP, they have no business with these parties and sentiments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...es-us-pressure
That's what Washington is thinking. Pretty close to my position: strenghten Britain, strenghten the EU, cherish the Special Relationship between the UK and the US, and strengthen Transatlantic ties.

So much better for everybody, in Europe, in the UK, and in America, than this immature posturing of the Conservatives. They shouldn't pander to populist sentiment. They should prepare themselves to lead Britain instead.

So you're telling me that america wants us in the heart of federal europe. Is that because:
a) They want a partner in the 21st century
b) They want that partner to be as anglophile as possible
Tell me something i don't know!

No, what i'm telling you is that a Britain of shrinking importance is feeling increasingly like it must choose a side rather tha straddle the divide, i disagree, but if a side must be chosen then i would prefer we chose the anglosphere rather than europe.
This does not mean that i refuse to recognise that the US wishes to leverage the UK for US strategic benefit by anglo-cising a potential partner for the future (read: federal EU), but why does that matter? i don't feel jilted or betrayed, politics is about interests, and i seek to ally Britain to power blocs that are:
a) powerful
b) as closely aligned with our own interests as possible
So the fact that we don't wish to infiltrate and subvert the EU is something Washington will have to live with.

No, it is called representative democracy, they are representing the wish of the electorate in holding a platform that opposes further federal integration.

It's hardly likely you'd get legions of hardcore Tories defecting to UKIP in a General Election. Cameron has the political capital to just ignore the Eurosceptic wing of his party;

it's not an issue we, the electorate, care about. Having the capital doesn't mean you have the balls though

lol, what parallel universe do you live in?
the expenses scandal was an event that broke the stranglehold of the 2.5 party system, voter contempt (if it persists) for a political class that doesn't represent their interests could see a general election where no party can form a majority government without a coalition of minor parties.

roflmao, not an issue voters are interested in, dissatisfaction at the lack of the promised referendum is about the one issue that every voter agrees with.

"4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society."
That just shouts that the whole of the group is going to be caught having a gay orgy at their next meeting.

"10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."
Does that mean a muppet like Kaminski will have to stop ranting about everyone who just happens to not be Polish?

thanks for the useless non-contribution, no really.

well lets see, it might mean something like not having france making public statements about how poland missed a historic opportunity to shut up, or something similar.

I thought populism was more generally defined as "mob rule",

when politicians are elected on issues which resonate with the plebians, usually with disastrous results.

in the context of British parliament it is the byword for politicians who do what the voter wants rather than pursue there own agenda, created by the same people who are stunned when people vote en-masse for the BNP and UKIP because of trifling issues such as immigration and the EU.

good job we have all those technocrats who are willing to lead a dull electorate down the correct path in life, eh?

[Tribesman]

thanks for the useless non-contribution, no really.

They are valid statements , just because you don't like criticism of the fruitcakes you support it doesn't make that criticism useless.

well lets see, it might mean something like not having france making public statements about how poland missed a historic opportunity to shut up, or something similar.

It was a historic oppertunity , for fruitcakes to shut up their revisionist crap and nationalist nonsense so they didn't look quite so crazy and might get taken more seriously.

[Subotan]

lol, what parallel universe do you live in?

The one where Europe features about 10th on the scale of importance in elections.

the expenses scandal was an event that broke the stranglehold of the 2.5 party system, voter contempt (if it persists) for a political class that doesn't represent their interests could see a general election where no party can form a majority government without a coalition of minor parties.

So electing Esther Rantzen and having a few more UKIP MEP's is "Breaking the stranglehold of the 2.5 Party system"? Under a PR system, that might be true, but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem.

in the context of British parliament it is the byword for politicians who do what the voter wants rather than pursue there own agenda, created by the same people who are stunned when people vote en-masse for the BNP and UKIP because of trifling issues such as immigration and the EU.

So, essentially what I just said.

[Furunculus]

They are valid statements , just because you don't like criticism of the fruitcakes you support it doesn't make that criticism useless.

It was a historic oppertunity , for fruitcakes to shut up their revisionist crap and nationalist nonsense so they didn't look quite so crazy and might get taken more seriously.

i'm fine with criticism as long as its evenly applied: *
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lcomments=true

oh, i thought it was an excellent way to alienate the nations of new europe by telling them to keep quiet when their superiors have already made their opinion clear............

*

Labour's unsavoury Euro friends
Before complaining too loudly about Michal Kaminski, Labour should look at its own dubious connections in Europe

Harry Phibbs
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 October 2009 17.30 BST

"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" asks St Matthew. A very good question for our foreign secretary David Miliband. He has been busy denouncing the British Conservatives for forming an alliance in the European parliament with Latvian, Czech, Polish and other Euro MPs who share the Tories' sceptical outlook rather more than their erstwhile Christian Democrat allies.
Miliband claims that the new allies from the east have some unsavoury extremist connections. The accusation against the Latvian Fatherland and Freedom party, that they "celebrate Waffen SS veterans", has rather run out of steam. They attend an annual commemoration of all Latvia's war victims, an official remembrance day attended by every non-Russian political party in Latvia.

Rather more effort has gone into denouncing Michal Kaminski, the Polish MEP from the Law and Justice party who is leader of the new group. There has been some effort to brand him homophobic. This is because he used the term pedaly, a slang term for homosexuals that is, or at any rate was when he used it in 2000, in common usage including among Polish politicians. There is some dispute over whether it is equivalent to saying "fags" or "queers" or something rather less derogatory, but Kaminiski has agreed not to use the term in future as he does not wish to give offence. By the way, I used to sometimes use the term "Polacks", under the impression it was equivalent to "Aussies" or "Kiwis". When I was gently told that Polack was an offensive term I stopped using it. Kaminski says he is proud that Poland was the first European country to decriminalise homosexuality, in 1928, that he has gay friends and that he has "nothing against" civil partnerships.
But the main thrust has been to accuse him of antisemitism. This has been based on two pieces of evidence. First, that he opposed an apology on behalf of the Polish people for the massacre of Jews by Poles as well as Germans which took place at Jedwabne. But this opposition was based on his view that those individuals involved in the massacre were guilty, rather than it being a matter of collective guilt. He regards the massacre as shameful.

Second, when Kaminski was 14 years old, a time when there was no open opposition, he joined the first anti-communist group he came across, the National Revival of Poland (NOP). This subsequently became an antisemitic party, but he had left by the age of 17. So this involvement doesn't even prove that was an antisemitic teenager, let alone that he is antisemitic now.
Still, it would have been better if Kaminski hadn't joined NOP, if he hadn't used the word pedaly. These were misjudgments. But what about the beam in Miliband's eye? A look at the lineup of MEPs in the socialist group of the European parliament shows that they are mad, bad and dangerous to know. There's Romania's Social Democratic party, whose members include Radu Mazare, the mayor of Constanta, who dressed up as a Nazi at a fashion show, and was strongly criticised by Jewish groups as a result. From Ireland we have in the socialist group (having defected from the communist group) Proinsias De Rossa (born Francis Ross), a former member of the IRA. He says he "can't remember" whether or not he wrote to the Soviets asking for money. He'll forget his own name next.

Then, since the Labour party is so interested in Polish MEPs, it might care to explain why, in December 2004, it welcomed into its ranks two MEPs from the Self Defence of the Republic party, Bogdan Golik and Wieslaw Kuc, although Kuc left, leaving Golik behind. This party is led by Andrzej Lepper, recipient of two honorary degrees from the antisemitic Interregional Academy of Personnel Management – an outfit that counts the American white supremacist David Duke as an honorary professor. Lepper has multiple convictions for assault and his party anthem once featured the line "this land is your land, this land is my land [and] we won't let anyone punch us in the face".
Before June, also sitting in the socialist group was a former communist Italian MEP called Giulietto Chiesa, whose main concern was promoting his 9/11 conspiracy theory that it was all a put-up job by the Americans. Thankfully, the Polish Self Defence party was wiped out in the European elections and Chiesa, who went to stand in Latvia, also lost his seat. This is to the credit of the Polish and Latvian electorates – but no thanks to the Socialist MEPs, who were happy to shelter them in their ranks.

Nor do they show much sign of having changed. They continue to sit alongside the Slovak Social Democrats (SMER), who share power with the neo-Nazi Slovak National party, which is open in its admiration for Jozef Tiso, the wartime ruler of fascist Slovakia. It is as if Labour councillors had entered a coalition with the BNP.

What of the Bulgarian Socialist party, who Labour MEPs also snuggle up to? Its leader, Sergei Stanishev, condemned Bulgaria's first gay pride march, declaring his disapproval of "the manifestations and demonstrations of such orientations". Many of the eastern European parties have their roots in the communist dictatorships of the old Warsaw Pact. The Hungarian Socialist party, the successor to the Hungarian communists, is led by Ferenc Gyurcsány. He was chief of staff for his predecessor Péter Medgyessy, who was once a communist counterespionage officer under the code name D-209.

There is nothing particularly new about the European parliament being stuffed with weirdos. It's not just the socialists, of course. The Christian Democrat grouping, the EPP, that the Tories have ditched, include Mussolini's heirs in the National Alliance – now absorbed into Berlusconi's People of Freedom party. The Lib Dems have got some oddballs in their group. What all this mudslinging at the Tories comes down to is that the European establishment dislike the prospect of a mainstream, respectable Eurosceptic grouping emerging. The double standards involved in making the attacks are quite staggering.

[Tribesman]

Wow this means you ended up where you started off anfd are now reposting stuff that was already rubbished 25 pages ago.
Full circle.
So

I think the Polish members are those dreadful Kaczyński twins again.
I think the Belgian members are far-right
I think the Latvians are dangerously close to fascism
I think the Dutch are reactionary homophobes

The others seem to be run-of-the-mill rural, conservative, somewhat alarmist but mainstream parties.

Family, God and Fatherland seems to be what they all have in common. Best of luck to the British Conservatives. Remember: in the end, the only thing national parties have in common, is incompatible national narratives and interests. Pan-national national parties don't tend to last very long.

It's what I predicted before the election. Just when they need the EU to counter a major economic crisis, the British are sending more Europhobes to Brussels in an attempt to sideline themselves. The new formation is going to be just another anti-tax party in disguise, and it is going to last just as long as all the others.

Mainstream my foot.

EDIT
'Racist flat earthers' made me laugh. Sorry Furunculus, the Daily Torygraph isn't very convincing.
__________________

Said perfectly without me having to lift a finger to write my own.

[Furunculus]

The one where Europe features about 10th on the scale of importance in elections.

So electing Esther Rantzen and having a few more UKIP MEP's is "Breaking the stranglehold of the 2.5 Party system"? Under a PR system, that might be true, but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem.

So, essentially what I just said.

this tells me otherwise:
http://www.democracymovementsurrey.c...pollwatch.html

i beg to differ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...ion_999999.stm
Conservative 4,198,394 27.7%
UK Independence Party 2,498,226 16.5%
Labour 2,381,760 15.7%
Liberal Democrats 2,080,613 13.7%
Green Party 1,303,745 8.6%
British National Party 943,598 6.2%
With dissatisfaction with labour so high, those lost votes should have gone to tory's and lib-dems, instead the fringes of british politics got a massive boost over and above anything seen previously.
We are still a 2.5 party system, what the euro elections results in effect said was that this assumed truth is in danger of becoming a fallacy if voter contempt for the political class doesn't improve.

perhaps, the only difference is that i happen to think representative governance is a good thing, whereas you appear deeply ambivalent to it............
a remarkably similar view to the sentiments from Beskar supporting 'benign authoritarianism' to help the foolish proles choose the correct path:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=181

[Furunculus]

Wow this means you ended up where you started off anfd are now reposting stuff that was already rubbished 25 pages ago.
Full circle.
So

i really don't see of what great consequence this post is supposed to herald...........?

ECR MEP's are a little exotic.
EPP MEP's are a little exotic.
S&D MEP's are a little exotic.

it least i'm consistant in not wanting a federal union with people i consider too 'exotic'.

[Beskar]

Though it isn't "benign authoritarianism", there are clear differences. At the moment, the public could be argued are purposely made unaware of the real issues. According to the governments body involving in handling questionaires and gauging public opinion, in their own estimates, 5% are able to actually give a proper opinion, with 2% of those being well-read and fully understanding the issues.

Now read the above with my statement:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

unfortunate fact that the average man doesn't know what is good for him, as they aren't taught or made to understand things. Simple education providing key skills such as critical thinking and how to research/come up with valid conclusions by itself will make the common man know what is good for them

I am clearly saying the public should be actually taught, for the government and media to actually give all the issues and discuss the various points of view, in "Question Time" manner and in unbiased manners. Then people are able to understand the issues, able to give solid opinions, able to make the right choices.

You seem to think that is authoritarianism. I call that educating the public to give us an informed and knowledgeable voting base.

[Beskar]

but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem.

No it doesn't.

[Furunculus]

if you were misunderstood, my apologies.

[Subotan]

i beg to differ:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...ion_999999.stm
Conservative 4,198,394 27.7%
UK Independence Party 2,498,226 16.5%
Labour 2,381,760 15.7%
Liberal Democrats 2,080,613 13.7%
Green Party 1,303,745 8.6%
British National Party 943,598 6.2%
With dissatisfaction with labour so high, those lost votes should have gone to tory's and lib-dems, instead the fringes of british politics got a massive boost over and above anything seen previously.
We are still a 2.5 party system, what the euro elections results said is that fact is in danger if voter contempt for the political class doesn't improve.

Ok fair enough, I accept that there is disdain for many politicians at the moment (Although voting UKIP because of anger with corruption is laughable). But that won't translate into support for UKIP at a general election.

perhaps, the only difference is that i happen to think representative governance is a good thing, whereas you appear deeply ambivalent to it............
a remarkably similar view to the sentiments from Beskar supporting 'benign authoritarianism' to help the foolish proles choose the correct path:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=181

That's not my opinion at all. What I oppose is politicians manipulating ignorance and a lack of understanding, because they're either too weak or stupid to have any real qualities, in order to gain political power. That's my understanding of populism, and were the public properly educated about the EU, and they decided they didn't like it, I would be upset, but I would not oppose it.

this tells me otherwise:
http://www.democracymovementsurrey.c...pollwatch.html

Sure, those say that people oppose the EU, but when it comes to the crunch, issues such as the economy, NHS, education etc. will always trump the EU Card. I remember reading the statistic I produced on the BBC, but I can't find it...

[Beskar]

if you were misunderstood, my apologies.

I wouldn't call producing an educated public who are able to discuss and vote on issues in an intelligent matter (As they know the facts, etc) a form of authoritarianism.

However, just thinking now, you probably thought I was saying "Make the choices for the public since they are uneducated". Which would be authoritarian. If you thought that, I wasn't meaning that. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on the point.

[Furunculus]

I wouldn't call producing an educated public who are able to discuss and vote on issues in an intelligent matter (As they know the facts, etc) a form of authoritarianism.

However, just thinking now, you probably thought I was saying "Make the choices for the public since they are uneducated". Which would be authoritarian. If you thought that, I wasn't meaning that. I apologise if I wasn't clear enough on the point.

fair enough, it would seem that several of us were mistaken.

for my part, my apologies.

[Subotan]

but FPTP guarantees a two party sytem.

No it doesn't.

It practically does, and you know it.

[Tribesman]

i really don't see of what great consequence this post is supposed to herald...........?

I know you don't, which is why it is so funny.