Ukip. What is it? And, why should we care?

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by longknife, May 23, 2014.

  1. longknife

    longknife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,840
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've been seeing this all over the internet for some time – and have basically ignored it. Until today. The UK Independence Party is their version of our Tea Party – although far more centralized and organized. While not the only reason, it appears to me they were formed as a group opposing UK joining the European Union. :confusion:

    The latest news is somewhat interesting.

    [I know this was reported in another thread but thought it worth repeating]. :wink:

    While Britain's parlimentary system still puzzles me, the seems to mean that the current Prime Minister, who is a liberal, may be forced from office by a party espousing right-wing populism – whatever that means. I guess they're closer to Libertarians. Any way, it will be interesting to see the outcome. The author of the piece seems to think it will hearten the Tea Party here – although I don't see the connection. Read more @ http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63279#When:11:08:12Z

    And here's another, less biased report @ http://feedly.com/#subscription/feed/http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

    And this shows another view @ http://www.dw.de/bright-days-for-britains-euroskeptics/a-17656154?maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

    And even more [a bit amusing] @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
     
  2. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The UK is a member of the European union. UKIP want to leave (among many other things, although they only like to talk about that and immigration, because they know the rest of their policies would not go down at all well with the public). They are a fairly extreme right-wing conservative party, masquerading behind a particular brand of 'popularism' while not 'publicly' and 'officially' lapsing into outright racism (although some of their candidates and officials have done). Their popularity stems from a 'protest vote' against politics in general after the economic crisis of recent years, and a very clever campaign of poplarism, fear-mongering and 'smoke and mirrors' from their leader, not because most of their general policies are popular.

    Many of their votes are coming from the working-class left and other 'anti-political', 'protesting' people who are inevitably worried about jobs and wages after a difficult economic period (and have been scared into believing the propaganda from UKIP that it's all the fault of 'the establishment' (although their leader is about as 'establishment' as it is possible to get), the EU and 'foreigners' generally, especially 'immigrants'). Those people would want nothing of the rest of their policies, but they keep very quiet about them. They are also picking up the votes of the xenophobic elements of the extreme right, of course.

    The PM is appointed by parliament, and is obviously usually the leader of the largest party (i.e. the one with the most 'seats' - the most representatives elected by individual constituencies) in parliament. This current situation is unusual in that no party has an overall majority of seats, so we have coalition government comprising of 2 parties (Conservative and Liberal Democrat) running on an agreed compromise program of policies and legislation (note - 'liberal' is an important and much misunderstood political term, especially in the US - it is nothing to do with 'socialism'!). Currently the PM is a Conservative, the larger of the two parties.

    These elections, though, have nothing to do with the parliament - they are for the European Parliament and for local councils. Nobody is going to be 'forced from office'. No party leader is particularly likely to resign (or be forced out by their own party) as a result of poor results for them and good results for UKIP in these elections. UKIP have recently done well in these kind of elections, but when it comes to electing a parliament in a general election (when turnout is much higher, because people generally care more) they have never won a single seat (and they are still fairly unlikely to next year).

    There has been an upsurge of support for UKIP in recent years, although their vote is actually down from the last council elections despite the gain in seats. It's far more about the exploitation of vague protest and worry about current economic conditions than it is about some long term 'taking back the town halls from government' or any of the other nonsense suggested in that article. It's the kind of thing that can happen in difficult economic times, but it doesn't mean that 'the people' are 'overthrowing the government' or any of that rubbish. A section of the population that is currently worried, fearful and annoyed with politics in general has made a bit of a protest vote - the rest of the population generally think that UKIP are a pretty odious bunch of charlatans and xenophobic lunatics. That such people have become as popular as they have is, of course, something of a concern to ordinary, decent people, but they aren't in any way close to taking over the country or anything.
     
  3. mutmekep

    mutmekep New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,223
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We care because the more sits anti-EU parties have in European parliament the better for all of us.

    Never underestimate the evil of neoliberals from Brussels, in Hungary their president (not sure of spelling his name is Urban) is openly a fascist but he walks victorious from the elections after kicking the banksters out of the country . Charlatans or xenophobic lunatics who cares? our most urgent problem right now is EU and it has to be (dis)solved .
    I would vote for Gilles de Rais to make this happen :p
     
  4. longknife

    longknife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,840
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The EU constantly puzzles me. From time beyond memory, various races and tribes have fought over the territory we now call Europe. Every time some ruler seems to create an empire covering all of Europe, it soon breaks up over quarreling for minor things.

    The EU is going to be no different. The emperor-pro-tem, president of the EU, has a court of princes from all the member nations, each doing everything they can to gain the emperor's ear to get something special for their land.

    How long does one expect that to last? :roll:
     
  5. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Get some post-war history books. European integration isn't a recent phenomenon and its only getting stronger
     
  6. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Apart from the period since the last war, when the countries of Europe have been working together through what has become the EU instead of fighting each other.

    Except that that isn't remotely true, and that isn't the way the EU is. For all the need for reform of various parts of it, it certainly isn't an 'empire', and the presidents of the various institutions of the EU certainly aren't 'emperors', and the member states and their representatives certainly aren't a 'court of princes' trying 'to gain the emperor's ear'. That's pure nonsense, and has no resemblance whatsoever to reality.

    If the EU is so puzzling, that is probably because of a lack of understanding of what it is and how it works.
     
  7. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    EU neoliberalism is all external, as it imposes trade agreements that harm economic development. Unfortunately that's typically seen as a positive amongst the left and the right, as they see jonny foreigner as the job-nicker
     
  8. ThirdTerm

    ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,318
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Despite the bad press, UKIP is not as dangerous as other neo-fascist parties such as the FN in France and it mainly opposes Eastern European immigration. The rise of UKIP as the fourth largest party and a serious contender in the general election made it harder for the Tories to hold onto power after the general election. Labour is the beneficiary of UKIP's emergence as a populist anti-establishment party as it will face a divided party in the general election and most new UKIP supporters had voted for the Conservatives in the past. There is a notable increase in intra-EU migration after the lifting of labour restrictions on Eastern European countries and the OECD estimated that nearly 1 million citizens of the 28-member bloc have moved to another EU country.

    [video=youtube;RVUHYfjyVYI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RVUHYfjyVYI[/video]
     
  9. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All Thatcherite parties are dangerous, by definition
     
  10. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Think Yugoslavia, WW1, WW2 etc.. etc.. - Europe is not destined to be 1 country!
     
  11. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't think that is a safe assumption to make at all. Many, if not actually more, UKIP voters come from a Labour Party background, too - many of the urban poor who previously thought that 'the rich' and 'the establishment' were 'the problem' have been persuaded by UKIP propaganda (and other hysterically twisted media reports) that 'the problem' is actually 'foreigners coming over here, stealing our jobs and claiming our benefits'. That's nonsense, of course, but especially some of those who don't feel that they ought to have to work too hard themselves at being successful in life, if you know what I mean (that's not a slur on general Labour voters, or people on the left, or 'socialists' at all - such people are very much a minority, but they certainly do exist (and they also exist among the wealthy-born on the right of politics, of course)) have been sucked in by it. They haven't looked any further to discover those policies that UKIP don't like to discuss (flat tax, for example), and they think that the UKIP brand of smiling, beer-swilling casual xenophobia 'of the common man' is actually the answer to all of their problems (which it isn't, obviously).

    There are also, of course, xenophobes and racists on the fringes of left wing politics as there are on the fringes of right wing politics, as there are easily frightened people on both sides - nobody should kid themselves that either 'side' is exempt from such things. UKIP appeals to them from across the board, because it is portraying itself as effectively a single issue 'protest' party on the basis of their soundbite scaremongering (which is very difficult to combat with facts, because the facts are 'boring' to many people, and not so easy and fun to share on social media). It treads mostly just far enough away from the line of actual obvious nastiness to be considered 'acceptable' to those who are 'not racist, but....'.

    Don't forget also that there is a very strong tradition of anti-EU feeling on the left of the Labour party - in the days of Michael Foot's leadership it was Labour Party policy to withdraw from the then EEC. There is even a left wing anti-EU party around at the moment (No2EU), although they are very small and largely ignored, and not picking much of the left wing anti-EU vote, which is going to UKIP.

    There are also 'protest' votes coming from the centre ground, of course - those who just don't like Labour or Tory, and have previously voted for a third option, believing it to be nothing more than a 'something between the two, and not likely to actually form a government'. Now that party has entered government and put some of its actual principles into place, while (as a minor coalition partner) not being able to totally control its Tory 'allies', it has lost much of that 'protest' vote, and even been accused by some former voters of 'betraying' a perceived position of being 'just a slightly more moderate version of Labour - Labour-lite' that it never actually held (being a party with its own distinct ideology and traditions). Many of those voters have gone fully 'anti-establishment', now seeing all 3 major parties as 'the enemy', and have found a protest vote home in UKIP to 'just give the others a bit of a kicking'.

    They have also, of course, picked up much of the genuinely vicious racist vote (and membership, as is clear from some of the 'characters' who have been standing as candidates) from the likes of the BNP and NF.

    UKIP votes are coming from everywhere. It's all based on smoke and mirrors, though, and those vastly different elements of support inevitably won't last very long in bed with each other at all. As for being 'less dangerous' than the more openly extreme parties in Europe, I'm not so sure. In a sense they are more dangerous, because they are actually managing to fool people into believing that they are somehow not a party of the extreme far right, and that what they actually stand for is somehow 'just common sense'. If they do manage to continue with that, it could have some very, very worrying results indeed.
     
  12. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Think post-war. Its all rather stable. Now I'm not a fan of preferential trade agreements (given I think it harms more effective multilateral trade policy which can hinder the rich north from corrupting trade trends), but its obvious that Europe is a rather stable environment. Even the upturn in UKIP (which we shouldn't exaggerate, given the Greens have more representation) has naff all to do with Europhobing
     
  13. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Those anti-EU parties that make it into the EP are the ones considered utterly useless at national level. And you think they are good for you at European level?
     
  14. Vlad Ivx

    Vlad Ivx Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Tell that to the Germans. 2000 years of separation and now they are called the Federal Republic of Germany. Tell that to Italy (same as Germany) etc etc. In Europe you have a traditional process of de-feudalisation that mostly started in the 14th and 15th century with the unification of France which naturally continues today. Being against it is actually being against European tradition and not the other way around.

    You may say that people in Europe have always had clearly separate identities but that's false. In the 1200s for example, people in Normandy, Burgundy, Picardy, Britanny, Aquitanine etc did not know that they are French until their country was unified, yet they were not made conscious of a truly common identity until much later in the 18th century.
     
  15. longknife

    longknife New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2012
    Messages:
    6,840
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks to all for the interesting and informative posts.
     
  16. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The EU spells the PC puscification of Europe - no, each nation that can should stand strong and independent! It's better for the long term
     
  17. Csareo

    Csareo New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    UKIP is a UK based libertarian party headed by Nigel Farange. They are the most hated group in that country, having only 35,000 members. They got a bit of recognition after surprisingly winning several local elections (Given UK's size, that's a big deal)

    While they had quite the chance to benefit from the media attention, people quickly saw how loony they were. Nigel said several racist statements on Romanians, and another huge candidate got seriously homophobic. They are officially, now pathetic.
     
  18. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is nothing libertarian about them. They are Thatcherite
     
  19. Csareo

    Csareo New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2014
    Messages:
    870
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argue it if you want, but they are classified as a Populist Libertarian Party. They want a completely decentralized economy, which, is pretty much libertarian.
     
  20. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thatcherism has nothing to do with libertarianism. It is inherently coercive (e.g. eliminating minimum wages to ensure greater theft of labour value)
     
  21. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I wouldn't call them 'libertarian' as such - they are extreme Neo-liberals economically (which most of their voters don't notice, because they don't like to talk about it), while being extreme neo-Conservatives socially. That's a particularly nasty combination.
     
  22. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It was 'libertarian' economically in a sense - maintain and enhance the 'old order' or corporate wealth through unregulating markets to ensure that the corporations in control can manipulate markets to remain in control and stifle competition (and yes, that does include keeping the 'old poor' poor, and making them poorer, by making sure that their power to do anything about it is removed by those who already have the wealth and power to maintain control). It is coercive, but not by corporate rather than direct government coercion - the effects are much the same, of course, especially when the ties between the people in government and the people running the powerful corporations are so close.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Naff all to do with libertarianism then!
     
  24. cenydd

    cenydd Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    11,329
    Likes Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Not quite - 'libertarianism' does exactly the same thing in exactly the same way economically...it just doesn't mean it to have the practical effect that it inevitably does!
     
  25. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your use of 'economically' is bogus. We see that with the minimum wage example, with Thatcherism demanding that exchange is harmed (increasing equilibrium unemployment rate by ignoring the nature of market failure)
     

Share This Page