UKIP opposes petition by EU MEPs to deny funds to the AENM

Post Reply New Topic

Needless to say, I agree with Godfrey Bloom's attitude towards this case (although Bloom himself has had a rather tawdry episode with a lot of the members of the AENM - remember the European Alliance for Freedom, which contained many of the members of the Alliance of European National Movements?). All parties should get the same privileges and money. You can't start picking and choosing which ones do get certain privileges and which ones don't because you don't like them.

Any comments?

I think political parties shouldn't be receiving funding from the EU, regardless of their political stance.

Well, yes, but I'd rather the EU didn't exist.

What I think is wrong in this specific case is that MEPs want the EU to discriminate against political groups that they don't like.

Hmm I think this can backfire.

I really wish that Bloom hadn't created the EAF and gotten into bed with the likes of bloody Vlaams Belang, FN and Jobbik but his stated reasoning for opposition is sound.

Last edited by Tequila on 31 Jan 2013, 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

I really hope Ed Milliband becomes the next prime minister, so that we can have a federal Europe where Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel can forcefeed UKIP members on garlic bread, croissants and bratwurst.

[/sarcasm]

I'd eat all those things willingly. Can you get me a more attractive German lass to cook them for me? Perhaps with a nice, strong Pilsener?

The petition is opposed by nazis.

Lolwut? The USSR was opposed by Nazis, therefore the USSR must be good (or vice-versa)? Smoking was opposed by Nazis, therefore one must be suspicious of these anti-smoking people?

It's not about parties they don't like. It's about parties whose ideologies are the same as those which came into power in Germany and Italy, among other countries and resulted in the worst tragedy the human race saw to this day: WWII.

UKIP aren't Nazis.

The sole principle is that the same privileges that should apply to all MEPs, no matter who they are (and no matter how unpleasant they might be), and that MEPs shouldn't be discriminated against for the views that they hold, whatever they are. In fact, you could say it's a rather non-Nazi measure.



You won't see the far-left and Communist parties saying that they should have their own funds removed, though. It does seem that these types see Nazism as the worst possible tragedy to befall the world when, in many respects, Communism was even worse in the sheer brutality and repression and the millions of people that were murdered under its regime - actually, it was worse than Nazism, but people don't want to talk about that.

I'm sorry, but no EU groups should miss out on funding. I'd say the same if it was the far-left (although, crucially, it always seems like it's the left that is least keen on democracy). These parties have been elected by their populations. Having said that, I doubt the BNP in the UK will do very well any time soon. Hopefully, UKIP will take one or both of their seats. Jobbik, Golden Dawn and so on might well be another matter.

Yes, all totalitarian parties should not be alowed to be funded. That includes communists who miss the USSR. There is a "far left" party here in Portugal that rejects all totalitarian communist governments. In that case, they should be funded. In short, totalitarian parties shouldn't be alowed to go to elections, nor should they be funded by the state/EU.

I'm far left in my country, but I reject utopies. In the name of utopies horrible crimes hapened. Humans are imperfect. I prefer a mixed aproach of moderate capitalism and state owned economy. To sum it up, I would like to see my country living with the same politicies as the nordic countries.

In which case, you're an anti-democratic totalitarian.

Nice, isn't it?

No parties should be banned, not the Partido Nacional Renovador nor the Partido Comunista dos Trabalhadores Portugueses.

In a UK context, no matter how much seeing the likes of the BNP (the white nationalist racist far-right) or RESPECT (the Islamic supremacist-leaning far-left) get votes in this country revolts me, I'd never want to see them banned. If nothing else, it's a very important safety valve and a weathervane of popular discontent having these parties around. I'd much rather have them where I can see them instead of not being able to see them.

Either all political groups should get state funding or none. I'd prefer to say 'none' and be out of the EU, but that isn't going to happen just yet.

Our constitution prohibits fascist parties to exist. The constitution has one flaw: it doesn't prohibit the communist parties (who are friends with the soviets, etc.).

Those parties are dangerous and, with adequate funding, could rise to power. Fortunately no one is interested in funding these parties for now. They (the big companies) prefer to corrupt the other parties (except the "far left" who isn't friends with the soviets, etc.) to serve their interests. But the situation in Europe is not stable at all and these parties could gain much power with the crisis. In Greece there's a far left party that almost won the elections. Fortunately, they don't support the previous communist governments of USSR, etc., AFAIK.

You can say that I'm an antidemocratic totalitarian, but that doesn't mean anything to me. There are some decisions which are best given to a government than to the people to decide. It's a fact. An example is how would the people, in a war scenario, vote in using nuclear weapons or not. It's not something that should be left to the people to decide directly. They can decide it indirectly through election of the government.

The question is, of course, which matters should be decided directly through popular vote? I can't answer that except in a case by case analysis. And analysing the case of alowing totalitarian parties to exist, I think it's best left to the constitution to decide. I only wish our constitution didn't have the above mentioned flaw.

You can hardly claim to believe in full democracy if you ban certain voices from the debate. You can't trust the people if you say to them: you can only vote for the parties we can stomach.

If you say: we have an election coming up, and you can vote for any party you damn well please - any party, whether they be far-right, right-wing, right-of-centre, centrist, centre-left, left-wing or extreme left. The way it works (and I know that Portugal has had its own problems with fascist government in the past) is that you trust the people to make the right choice. And, unless there are serious, country-wrecking problems, people generally do make the right (or at least not a massively wrong) choice. Politics doesn't become polarised - it goes centre-left one year, right-wing the other, centrist another election after that, and so on.

If a Golden Dawn or Jobbik comes along, there must be a reason for it and the idea is that a government - if it's competent - should be able to deal with the reasons behind its popularity. In many cases, it's because people are pissed off with the mainstream parties who they consider to be wilfully ignoring them on a certain very important issue (and, in the UK, it's about facing up to inconvenient truths like mass immigration, cultural relativism, or EU membership). In a way, you can consider meaningful elections an in-built safety valve. Everyone is represented, and no-one is denied a voice. If there is particular resentment around an issue, people that feel disenfranchised will move to more extreme parties. This then gives the chance for the mainstream parties to sort the issue out.

And my other point is this - in the UK, I'm a member of an anti-EU, civic nationalist, economically liberal party that could be called right-wing populist and has been smeared by some with the BNP (an anti-EU, ethnic nationalist, white supremacist, economically protectionist and statist and far-right party). In the early days, the left-wing media (and the opposition party) chucked around all kinds of nonsense at us: racists; bigots; fruitcakes; nationalists and so on. What's to stop a government moving in to extend the ban to other parties they don't like? Parties that aren't actually Neo-Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Islamist or whatever but threaten the order in some serious way? A way that they cannot allow to happen. Personally, I think you're putting too much trust in the state.

It's a slippery slope - I'd rather they banned none, and that all parties were decided on their merits. If the PNR are a load of crap, argue against them. Nick Griffin (the leader of our fascist party) is a national joke. Make your own fascist leaders a focus of Portuguese comedy.

The Portuguese people don't seem like massive fascists on the whole to me - in fact, they seem fairly relaxed and liberal and in fact, a lot more so than people in many other countries (like the UK). I've found Portugal to be more liberal and less authoritarian than the Spanish, for example. I would much rather holiday in Portugal - all things being equal - than Spain. The beer is better, anyway.

Money should not be given to racist organisations, no, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum (e.g. the BNP is largely a left-wing party that happens to be racist, that doesn't make it more or less deserving of funding than, say, the "Tea Party" would be if it broke away from the Republican Party altogether).

Which has so far proven to be totally true. You throw people out of the party for supporting gay rights ffs! Over half the party members think immigrants are the main cause of crime in the country, and around 64% of UKIP members would be "bothered a lot" if a Mosque was constructed in their community (and another 20% were "bothered a little"). 85% think Islam is a serious danger to Western civilisation. They prefer Tommy Robinson and Nick Griffin to Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. 80% support the death penalty and 57% support censorship of films and magazines.