Europe: Nationalist resurgence BBC..
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13115454

i think its a expected response after a long and naive ruled era of post-imperialist socialism...

lets just hope we can find a balance and not go too extremely to the right, there is no need to repeat our mistakes again..

but i think EU should survive and go forth, unless there is a better alternative as Europe is too weak without a union....

Just curious, but what are those "mistakes"? Surely you are not speaking of the wartime acts carried out by nearly all nations pre-1945? Such occurrences have been carried out in all time periods, by all nations, and by all political philosophies.

Again, just curious, as I do not mean to criticize or support your views by these statements and questions, but what are the positive aspects of the EU, and what would you suggest as a "better alternative"?

Also, why do you think Europe would be too weak without a union? Was it not more powerful in the fiercely nationalistic Age of Imperialism? Strong nations tend to come from the people (and the will of said people), not the amount of resources in possession, or military strength. Large nations tend to face greater divisions, leading to instability, and if continuing on that trend, lead to the destruction of the nation.

They've been saying that for at least fifteen years, and in that time Vlaams Belang (the Flemish far right) has peaked at 25% before crumbling in the last few elections. That's partly because the focus has shifted to the federalism versus separatism debate in the past few years, benefiting the centrist nationalists (N-VA), but I don't think any European party on the far right is stable and competent enough to deal with our long-term problems. What we need is for the traditional parties to adopt a more common-sense attitude.

I think the BBC like to make stories out of piss all. A rise in political extremism is a short term rise tha tis found in all financial crises' and which dissappears again shortly after. Although the rise in opposition to Islam is new. This is more out of fear of some terrorist attacks or Islamisation. However, this is seperate from the issue of Nationalism. I wouldn't call Geert Wilders, SIOE or the EDL (although debateable) Nationalists. These issues are distinct and should be looked at in a distinct light.

According to the German Der Spiegel True Finns' success comes primarily as a result of support from young men with average to low levels of both education and income. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gifhttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757702,00.html

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif
j/k

---

Now I'm waiting DF in Denmark now take more than 20% of parliament in September, with their muslim here and there and no serious platform so..

At least in Sweden and Denmark they are not all that different from the social democrats/socialists, only difference is that they want to greatly reduce immigration or to create a voluntary repatriation of immigrants besides that they are practically identical to social democratic parties since they all believe in traditional welfare state, large taxes and still keeping their pathetic jantelagen.

Very enlightened. Exactly. Far-right parties may appear to be speaking of the woes of the common man, but they are usually 1) Idiots or 2) Oppurtunists (or both) and have ideas that would never work in practice. What does need to happen is a return to popular principles by political parties (whether left or right) and a more representative landscape. ALthough, given the current state of politics I very much doubt we will see this anytime soon.

I said to a guy who is a supporter of such parties that Denmark has the highest taxes in the world ans he said that: "yes, but maybe the taxes goes to right things nowadays when DF has influenced?".

True Finns gained votes mainly from working class men and people from the countryside, unempleyed people who's been "disappointed" and "left behind" by the Social Democrats. Classical populist voters in other word.

I spoke to my fiancee this weekend about the finnish election and she said she hasn't any friend in finland voting for True Finns (and least not who says it open, naming the party you vote is taboo but people talks about politics in election time). Her friends are young women from the capital region.

Populist parties are the new social democrats. When social democrats lose votes, such parties gain.

This is because you can't have both welfare and multiculturalism, as Jimme Ã…kesson said. That's why our PM Reinfeldt is so popular with all his tax cuts. Swedes don't want to share as much as they did back when the country was homogenous.

While accurate, this is a very Scandinavian point of view, things look different on this side of the North Sea. (And in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, the US etc).

Although from what I know of politics in the region this all fits.

What does "our mistakes" mean?
You do not identify with National Socialists?

I cant understand why do they mention the Northern League, the are not right wing or extreme nationalist. The Italian far right is the Fiamma Tricolore and the random Christian extremists around the right.
Northern League is to the left of Silvio Berlusconi (ex-Forza Italia).

why not? doesn't look Marine Le Pen actually flirting with the Socialists vote?

I meant the perceptions of the welfare state more than anything, and the far right will always flirt with any possible demographic they can grab the vote of to gain more. But small nations in Scandinavia have a very different political landscape to larger ones like the UK, France and Germany, although of course there are overlaps.

The main divide is probably between countries that have some type of (essentially) two-party and/or first-past-the post system, eg the UK and, to a lesser extent, France, and most of the rest of Europe that is traditionally ruled by coalition governments. The latter kind of system is more 'vulnerable' to extremist parties as they are given the chance to grow and gain influence.
In Belgium, the fragmentation is even worse because of the linguistic divide, meaning that each community has its own set of parties. After federal elections, these parties have to form a coalition government with a majority across the entire country. The current deadlock should not come as a surprise.

Here is how seats are currently distributed in the federal parliament (this includes both Flemish and francophone parties):

wow, nice vertical rainbow hahahahttp://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ilies/grin.gif

Coalition government is a much more democratic system, and hence fairer, because it represents a much broader spectrum of public opinion than government by one party alone.

BTW, Germany don't even have an anti-immigrant 'extremist' party in the parliament AFAIK they are ruled by 'coalition government' system..

I dont know if you are aware, but the UK is heading towards changing its traditional voting system. If it is going to be changed- noone knows, but there will be a referendum on that.

Funny thing is, the new system called AV, was initially the very idea of Liberal Democrats. The reason was Lib Dems used to get in last elections around 25% votes, but only a few dozens MPs, while Labour and Conservatives having achieved just slighlty more, around 30%, ended up with having around 300 Mp each.
However, after going into coalition with Cons, Lib Dems lost a lot of support, some polls suggest even half of lost votes, so finally they may be not better off indeed.

Uh, yes, I agree. Merely pointing out that it is harder to wrest control from the traditional parties in a two-party system, which I actually think is a bad thing.

Leading German politicians (at least Angela Merkel) are not as stubborn as their swedish counterparts to refuse using "xenophobic" way of thinking, so germany is not as much in the need for it.

i mean the constant swing from one extreme to the other, from left to right and back again etc...we need to find more balance as to avoid falling in the utopian pit of naive dreaming..


a better alternative would be a Nordic union and similar unions for various parts of Europe with similar history.. but it might not work so..

with the rise of China and India, Europe needs to speak with one voice, as otherwise we can easily be undermined as European powers have done with others for the last centuries (divide and conquered), this is mainly in terms of economics, military and general foreign policies.. even Chinese politicians has said the things ive said about Europe.. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion...t_12200024.htm

i dont mind living in a socialist country as i am a socialist myself, i just get worried when policies get too much dominated by socialism, they get very naive, especially with regards to immigration and foreign policies..

Thats funny, Finnish media used to claim the exact same. Idea was to present True Finns supporters as non-educated, sorry losers and as slightly retarded body builders.

Then the True Finns support base was researched and the outcome was: Middle to high income, middle aged men are just as likely to support True Finns as young, not so high income men.

From the research done by Suomen Kuvalehti:

Perussuomalaisten ääniosuus on korkeimmillaan 50 000 - 70 000 euroa vuodessa tienaavien joukossa. Puolueen kannattajien suosikkiauto on Mercedes Benz.


=

Highest support base for True Finns is in income group 50K - 70 K € / year. Favorite car was Mercedes Benz.
http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/laugh.gif

Young men are not supposed to have as high income as older guys, this should be obvious.

What they got right is that the True Finns support base is very masculine. It is markedly party of men.