PDA

View Full Version : Are euroskeptic parties mostly right-extremist and xenophobic ?



Maciamo
20-03-06, 11:25
The European Parliament is composed of alliance of parties from all member states grouped by ideologies. The two largest groups are the European People's Party/European Democrats (EPP-ED) and the Party of European Socialists (PES). Then come the Liberals, the Greens, the pro-federalism Union for Europe of the Nations (UEN), and finally the euroskeptic Independence and Democracy (IND/DEM) and Non-Inscrits (non-affiliated).

Among these, the only euroskeptic are to be found in the Independence and Democracy (moderately euroskeptic), and among the political melting pot of the Non-Inscrits.

The Non-Inscrits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Inscrits) are composed of anything from socialists to conservatives to fascists, although the right-wing extremists and xenophobic people tend to stand out.

On 16 March 2006, the Italian delegation (Lega Nord) and the Polish delegation were ejected from the Independence and Democracy Party for their disruptive behaviour and for sharing too close ties with far-right groups (see Euronews (http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=europa&article=349314&lng=1) report). They became part of the Non-Inscrits.

Among the Non-Inscrits, we find all the notorious far-right, racist and neo-nazi parties like the French Front National of J-M Le Pen, the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (Austrian Freedom Party) of Jörg Haider, and Italian coalition of fascist parties Alternativa Sociale and neofacist Fiamma Tricolore, the Flemish Vlaams Belang (formerly known as Vlaams Blok), the UK Independence Party, and the Samoobrona RP (Self-Defense of the Republic of Poland).

What I want to point out here is that all the far-right, fascist, racist and isolationist parties share one thing in common : their anti-EU stance. In fact, no moderate party can really be said to be "anti-EU" (at best euroskeptic). In other words, being anti-EU so-to-say equals being fascist, racist and/or isolationist. This is easy to understand as the EU wants to promote mutual understanding anc cooperation between all the people and cultures of Europe. One needs to be sufficiently tolerant and open-minded to agree with this ideology. Therefore, being against that implies being xenophobic, be it passive (isolationist) or active (fascist, neo-nazi...).

thomas
20-03-06, 16:51
In other words, being anti-EU so-to-say equals being fascist, racist and/or isolationist.

I wouldn't call countries such as Switzerland and Norway fascist, racist or isolationist, just because their population has opted against joining the EU. I am also very critical of current EU institutions, the inflated bureaucracy and its fat political oligarchy, but I believe I am neither fascist, racist nor isolationist.

Btw, Joerg Haider is not heading the FPOe any longer. He founded a new party last year.

Maciamo
20-03-06, 19:22
I wouldn't call countries such as Switzerland and Norway fascist, racist or isolationist, just because their population has opted against joining the EU.
That's not what I said. I was referring to the political parties of the EU Parliament, not individuals in non-EU countries. Anti-EU parties within the EU are typically fascist, racist or isolationist. Anti-EU does not mean that they have some reserve or criticism about the system (every pro-EU person has had things they disagreed with), but are completely opposed in principle and want their country to leave the EU.

I am also very critical of current EU institutions, the inflated bureaucracy and its fat political oligarchy, but I believe I am neither fascist, racist nor isolationist.
Yet only 5% of theEU Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Budget) goes to administration.

The European Union (EU) has an independent parliament and civil service which is distinct from those of the 27 member states. It administers common laws between the member states and expenditure on common policies throughout the EU. To pay for this the EU has an agreed budget of €862 billion for the period 2007-2013. By comparison, the UK expenditure for 2004 was estimated at about €759 billion.
So, in comparison to the UK, which accounts only 1/8 of the EU population, has a government budget about 7x bigger than the EU. Proportionally to the population, the EU thus cost almost 50x less than the British government. Is that inflated bureaucracy ? Let's remember than only 5% of this budget goes to "bureaucracy", and the most expensive things in the budget are by far the Common Agricultural Policy (i.e. money going back to some tax-payers, and make our food cheaper) and Regional Development (i.e. more money going back to the poorer tax payers or creating jobs).

You can check the public expenditures of any EU country and divide by its population to compare with the EU. Austria, for instance, had a budget of $70bn in 2004, i.e. $8,800 per capita. The EU uses only €250 per capita (32x less) to analyse and treat more complex and widespread political, social, economic and scientific issues than any single member-state. The question is, do you think it is excessive to pay 5% of €250, so €12.5 per person per year to support the huge EU administration, when an Austrian resident pays in average €8,000 of tax for its own government ?

A god comparison is the cost of monarchy in Belgium (probably similar in other European monarchies). Each citizens pays just €12 per year to support it, just as a old-fashioned symbol (the monarchy has no power and doesn't really do anything). For exactly the same price, the EU gives us free university exchange programmes, cheaper agricultural products, develop poorer EU regions, foster scientific research, keeps peace inside Europe, add cohesion to economic policies of member states, make it easier for people and businesses to work across borders (thus increases business and individual revenues), facilitate transports, waves visa requirements, etc. etc. (if you are not convinced, please check what has Europe ever done for us (http://www.eupedia.com/cgi-bin/dir/jump.cgi?ID=228847)). I am very happy to pay these €12 a year for all that - especially compared to the remaining bulk of the national and local taxes !

Then, what do you mean that "its fat political oligarchy" ? The EU Parliament is directly elected like any other democratic government. Its commissioners (=ministers) are the same non-elected ministers as those of member-states. The administration is made career-type professionals, like in every country, except that the entry requirements are tougher, so that EU civil servants are true specialists, unlike those of many member states.

bossel
21-03-06, 05:06
Common Agricultural Policy (i.e. money going back to some tax-payers, and make our food cheaper)
I doubt, that this actually makes our food cheaper. It's more a measure for the protection of European (speak: French) farmers.


You can check the public expenditures of any EU country and divide by its population to compare with the EU.
This is not a valid way of comparison, for the EU is still not a full-blown state, but more of a coordinating structure.

What's more: Who said that national governments do not waste money?


I am very happy to pay these €12 a year for all that - especially compared to the remaining bulk of the national and local taxes !
I'm never happy to pay tax. :p


Then, what do you mean that "its fat political oligarchy" ? The EU Parliament is directly elected like any other democratic government.
But the EP is not the government & its legislative powers are rather limited.


Its commissioners (=ministers) are the same non-elected ministers as those of member-states.
Nah, for the commission is not really based on public vote, but commissioners are appointed (1 by each country).

Maciamo
21-03-06, 10:26
Nah, for the commission is not really based on public vote, but commissioners are appointed (1 by each country).

Are ministers in member states elected in a more democratic way ? The French Prime Minister (Dominique de Villepin) had never been elected in his life - and he is running for presidency next year (his first ever election !).

bossel
23-03-06, 04:19
Are ministers in member states elected in a more democratic way ?
Usually they are. At least they are not appointed by regional chieftains, as it happens with commissioners. German chief appoints a German commissioner, French chief appoints a French..., a.s.o. for 25 countries/commissioners.
I doubt, that the French government works the same way; if so, I see a certain democratic deficit there as well.

What's more: there is no clear separation of powers. The commission is legislature & executive at the same time.

Maciamo
23-03-06, 22:26
Usually they are. At least they are not appointed by regional chieftains, as it happens with commissioners. German chief appoints a German commissioner, French chief appoints a French..., a.s.o. for 25 countries/commissioners.
I doubt, that the French government works the same way; if so, I see a certain democratic deficit there as well.
What's more: there is no clear separation of powers. The commission is legislature & executive at the same time.

How are German ministers appointed/elected ?

bossel
24-03-06, 06:23
How are German ministers appointed/elected ?
Not that it's too relevant to the question of democratic deficits in the EC, but there are obviously some deficits in Germany as well, since they are recommended by the chancellor & appointed by the president.

Not as grave as in the case of the EC, though. Before the election campaign the whole planned cabinets (both opposition & government) are made public, so people know who they vote for when they chose a party. & the one who is most responsible for their appointment, the chancellor (who also has Richtlinienkompetenz, which probably means something like 'policy-making power' or IOW 'he's the boss'), is elected by parliament.
It's not as if every German state could appoint a minister.