Who should you vote for in the EU elections?

Post Reply New Topic

http://eu1.euvox.eu/

My three top results were:

The UK Independence Party - 85%
The Party for Freedom in the Netherlands - 60%
The Party of Free Citizens in the Czech Republic - 52%

I thought PVV would be higher up than that, but sadly not.

The Free Citizens Party look like a good bunch, but they probably won't win anything.

I'm not voting.
a) I didn't even know I could vote until the other day - but it is too late to register now; besides I don't know if my vote is here in France or by proxy in the UK.
b) Either way it is too much bureaucratic hassle to sort out.
c) I have no confidence in any of the candidates anyway; they are all a bunch of self serving wankers.

Yup - the major French parties don't seem worth the salt. I wouldn't vote FN.

They are the last party I'd vote for anyway! If they ever get in power, France will be out of the EU and likely those Brits with an income less than X kicked out of the country back to the UK. Assuming of course that we don't just get put into rail-road cattle trucks and disappear along with all the muslims, jews, romanies and anyone else who isn't native French...

I'm not sure the test works too well for me, as many of the issues I consider more important were not discussed.

In the UK, I scored Green-Labour-Lib Dem-Conservative-UKIP. I'm surprised Labour outscored the Lib Dems.

Europe wide, my strongest matches were the Belgian social democrats, the Croatian social democrats, and the Croatian greens.

Not eligible to vote yet (under 18 ) but took the test anyway.
For here in the UK, I got the strongest match as the Green Party.
Europe-wide:
1. Podemos (We), in Spain (83.1)
2. Die Linke (The Left), Germany (77.5)
3. Syriza, Greece (75.0)

...Jesus christ *facepalm*

So I tried to verify if that was true, and found this: http://metro.co.uk/2014/05/19/ukip-hope ... t-4733572/

Have I woken up inside a sit-com written by Mark Steel?

OK, I don't see how the picture Thomas posted can be legitimate, but that is a genuine quote from Helmer.

Seems like a really nasty piece of work: http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/10/r ... test-hits/

Any UKIP supporter because Thomas81 hates them so much.

We're coming
We're coming
We're coming down the road
We're the volunteers of UKIP
And we're coming down the road

Hopefully the Greens in England will lose a seat. That would be nice.

I get his point entirely, which is different. He wasn't advocating for that. I quite agree with him in that if a gay person wants that kind of service, they shouldn't be prevented from having it. He's not advocating that a gay person take up that service.

I can debunk some of them:

With the 'homophobia' comments, what he meant was that there are few people that actually fear homosexuality and gay people. They just don't like them (or hate them, or whatever) - so the term "anti-gay" would be better. His point is to do with terminology.

He doesn't think climate change is a lie, he disagrees with the concept of AGW.

As for the comments on 'rape' - they were part of a long article and comments that I'd like to dig up and re-read again. Helmer is sort of embarrassed that he made those comments because they are detracting from his campaign in Newark.

As for the shooting rioters and arsonists - I agree with him. Again, he's not suggesting shooting rioters straight off, but do whatever makes them stop. Most countries do the same thing (or worse). Get progressively tougher until the rioters stop. In Poland, for instance, riots don't last long because the police there are brutal.

Well, I can't say I care much whether the tyrant lives in Brussels or Westminster. I'm /voting /pirate.

Oh, well, that's OK then. I can see no possible issues with someone who is totally ignorant of the most important issue facing our society assuming elected office

So he's standing against some sort of oppression of gays who are apparently prevented from being "turned"?
That's not how it reads to me - both as it stands and in the context of his other wafflings about homosexuality, and even if it reads as claimed - it seems rather an odd issue to make a campaign poster about.
"A vote for Roger is a vote for better support for gays who don't want to be gay" - really now? Nope; still whiffs of a hidden agenda.

Ah yes, he's playing a pedant card and attempting to dilute the issue.
Denigrate and remove the word widely used to describe an issue and the issue goes away, eh? Straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and I expect Goebbels would be proud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia https://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_home/se ... s/2697.asp

I especially liked this: "stigmatise those holding conventional opinions, which have been held by most people through most of recorded history" - which applies equally to slavery, the oppression of women, child labour, etc.
Presumably he also wants to retain the "conventional opinions" which made all those things acceptable? No, thought not.

He has some other interesting opinions related to homosexuality too: http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/200 ... ome-stick/ (plus the earlier quote above. The comments are worth a scan to see the wider disagreement with this crap)

Then he is a fool.

So, not embarrassed because of their content, just "sort of" embarrassed because they're interfering with his campaign?
Well, that's Ok then...
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/201 ... lly-right/

Not yet, anyway...
Oh wait, he is.

Roger Helmer certainly sounds like an obnoxious, clueless dickhead. He definitely wouldn't get my vote.