BNP snubbed at EU

The BNP agenda is not being recieved favorably by the mainstream political parties in EU. The 2 members that were elected to EU parliament are being snubbed in a big way there. They were even asked to leave a bar where they were seated. Not exactly polite but then you dont have southern hospitality in the EU!

The British National Party’s first two Euro-MPs are finding it increasingly hard to win friends and influence people in Europe.

First, they were unable to muster enough allies to form an official political grouping in the European Parliament, which begins work next week.

Then they were asked to leave one of the main drinking haunts of European Parliament staff and Euro-MPs in Brussels.

And now they find they are not on the Government’s guest list for a formal drinks party for British Euro-MPs in Strasbourg next week.

Source: BNP snubbed at EU

Democracy at work again I see.

Politics sucks when someone else doesn't share your ideals . but to snub them and ask them to leave a bar is just sad of the europrats.

why should anyone be forced to entertain these people? just because they've been elected in one constituency doesn't mean that everyone has to be nice to them.

The news comes amid Mr Griffin’s revelation this week that the EU should sink all boats carrying illegal immigrants from Africa.

i wouldn't like to be associated with the guy either.

Thats fine. They are absolutely in the right to the snub or ignore them. Thats democracy.

What cant happen is outright banning. Glad to see europe is treating this the right way. Let the people hear there stupid idea's and make up there own mind. Eventually the BNP will go away or change.



Although in all serousness. Something needs to be done about immigration in the Eurozone

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Spartak_FL]

reply to post by Spartak_FL

Although in all serousness. Something needs to be done about immigration in the Eurozone

I agree, but the immigration changes have to be done without sounding far-rightist, otherwise parties like BNP will hijack mainstream attention again.

reply to post by Spartak_FL


something needs to be done? why? what's the issue with immigration?

to be honest, there's a good argument to be made that because europe became rich on the proceeds of colonialism they have a certain responsibility to allow quite a high level of immigration.

there isn't though, there just isn't that much immigration.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Spartak_FL

 

something needs to be done? why? what's the issue with immigration?

to be honest, there's a good argument to be made that because europe became rich on the proceeds of colonialism they have a certain responsibility to allow quite a high level of immigration.

there isn't though, there just isn't that much immigration.

What? Europe has an obligation to take care of itself, not make amends for what ancestor warlords did hundreds of years ago.

reply to post by Spartak_FL


europe enjoys all the lovely benefits provided by those ancestor warlords, it needs to take the responsibility that is due on those benefits.

I have to agree with Spartak,

I don't see how it is the responsibility of a nation to make amends for the actions of others.

The current state of the United Kingdom and other nations at this time are not fully equipped financially or structurally to support neighboring nations. It is becoming self destructive.

However, I think that a view of sinking all boats carrying immigrants is juvenile and not a tremendous way to win the hearts and minds of a nation. It only serves to dumb down their political status which is all ready in tatters even before they have had an opportunity to practice.

The votes were placed for the BNP primarily as a protest by the members of the British public due to the exploitation of support mechanisms put in place by the UK to assist individuals from foreign nations resulting in a progressive detriment to British society.

I think I speak for many British people in saying that the problem was never with immigration, as man immigrants have a great deal to offer, the issue lies with taking from a system to which is not contributed and this not only lies with immigrants but members of the British public who have become a drain on society.

The BNP have no place in modern society other than to "red flag" failures in legitimate politcal parties.

Just typically of EU but what can we expect from the left leaning EU elite?

Remember the pressure put on Austria when there people voted the too many far right MPs.

These people have been elected by the British people and I expect that to be honoured by the EU.

And when will people on this board, grow up and accept that some of the British people believe that the BNP can solve there problems.

You do not see the EU insulting MEPs who have far left leanings.

I consider this yet another insult from the EU upon my nation, but hey I guess that is what I have come to accept from the EU

Originally posted by pieman

to be honest, there's a good argument to be made that because europe became rich on the proceeds of colonialism they have a certain responsibility to allow quite a high level of immigration.

pieman it is people like you that make people like me want to vote BNP.
If your ideas get any closer to the front line of politics the end result will be more racial hatred towards the living immigrants of today, and more sympathy with right wing ideas as a result.

We benefit from the legacy of colonialism, but we are not alone. In any case how much we benefit, and how much others did are two questions destined to remain unquantifiable.
In addition many places that were colonised benefited in many ways, most places enjoy a higher standard of living today before the West discovered them in naked, lawlessness (sometimes cannibalistic) societies of disease and general life expectancies below 40.

Anyway: How in pragmatic terms does you’re idea work: Is it because White, European, Western, Christian, Culture demonstrated a disproportionate ability for both power and ability 200 years ago, that this should be diluted (as it existed in the past) by letting in people with cultures at odds, and at a time of high unemployment, today?
What is you’re next suggestion? Bomb our own cities?

reply to post by pieman


One could also argue that any wealth generated by Europe on the back of colonialism was lost completely due to two devastating wars fought in the early 20th century. Remember them? Bit of a flawed argument you have there.

I think the problem of EU immigration is a well documented one too. You only have to look at the problems Italy, Spain and France have with waves of African migrants trying their luck to realise there is an issue.

Home office figures put the number of migrants into the UK alone are around 240,000/per year. In total, 1.8 million legal migrants (I use that term reluctantly, considering that they opened the floodgates) have arrived into the UK alone since Labour came to power in 1997. Top that up with the estimated 1 million illegals and you seriously expect us to believe there isn't an issue?

It was estimated in 2007 that the EU is home to almost 10 million illegal immigrants alone, not counting asylum-seekers or refugees, and it is believed to be quite a bit higher still.

[edit on 13/7/09 by stumason]

Originally posted by Liberal1984
pieman it is people like you that make people like me want to vote BNP.

yeah, it's someone else's fault, isn't it always.

In addition many places that were colonised benefited in many ways, most places enjoy a higher standard of living today before the West discovered them in naked, lawlessness (sometimes cannibalistic) societies of disease and general life expectancies below 40.

befitted, right.......... how do you define benefit, exactly?
when the west "discovered them", the west was pretty lawless, disease ridden and most people had a life expectancy below 40. most of the third world isn't a whole lot better off today, so you have to be using the word "benefit" loosely.

as regard nakedness and cannibalism, why would you even include that. trying to paint the natives as naked cannibalistic savages is a bit 19th century. can't you come up with something a bit more contemporary.

Is it because White, European, Western, Christian, Culture demonstrated a disproportionate ability for both power and ability 200 years ago, that this should be diluted (as it existed in the past) by letting in people with cultures at odds, and at a time of high unemployment, today?

no, no, because the white, european, western, christian culture demonstrated a disproportionate ability and willingness to exploit, murder, destroy, rape, swindle and pillage the natural, cultural and economic resources of what has subsequently become the third world, those people able to make the attempt to flee the squalor into which they have been damned should be allowed the opportunity to have a better life in the countries which formally colonised them.

What is you’re next suggestion? Bomb our own cities?

nope, that'ld be the government. please reference 9/11 and 7/7.

Originally posted by stumason
One could also argue that any wealth generated by Europe on the back of colonialism was lost completely due to two devastating wars fought in the early 20th century.

you could but it'ld be utter tosh. the wealth generated was redistributed briefly, largely in the direction of the US, but the worldwide social order had been re-established within 20 years and remains largely unchanged today.

I think the problem of EU immigration is a well documented one too. You only have to look at the problems Italy, Spain and France have with waves of African migrants trying their luck to realise there is an issue.

depends on what you call a problem, as i said, you see a problem where i see a responsibility.

[edit on 13/7/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
you could but it'ld be utter tosh. the wealth generated was redistributed briefly, largely in the direction of the US, but the worldwide social order had been re-established within 20 years and remains largely unchanged today.

You don't seem to familiar with events that came about at the end of WW2 and which continued right up until the early 1990's.

After WW2, the entire of western Europe was a decimated battlefield, rebuilt on the back of high-interest US loans, of which the UK only finished repaying in 2005/6. So no, any wealth "redistibuted" to the US by the Europeans did not come back. The colonies of the European powers were "liberated" on condition of the these loans, to enable US corporations and Government to expand their own sphere of influence to combat the USSR and further their own national interest.

Had the UK not been litterally forced into giving up the Empire, wealth, development and the benefits of organised society would have spread out to Africa organically.

As it was, the nations that were released were done so quickly, without any real planning or foresight and as a result, they quickly collapsed into anarchy. Many of the African colonies, prior to "liberation", had functioning, Government with education, transport and emerging health systems. After "liberation", many of these institutions fell into disrepair and poor management.

Many former colonies suffered repeated coups, dictatorships and poor governance, leading to their arrested development. Many of these oppressive regimes were propped up or even supported in their power grabs by either the US or USSR as a means to expand and cement their own spheres of influence.

The fact that Africa is a pile o'crap now is not down to anything the European nations did, but rather a result of Cold War superpowers playing them off as proxies.

The period of Empire, at least in the British Empire, actual saw great strides in modernising Africa as well as the rest of the world. What happened after we left had nothing to do with us and as such, it is not our responsibility.

You seem to be under the nonsense left-wing revisionist sentiment that everything bad in the world can be blamed on colonialism, whereas it can be clearly shown that those colonies fared alot better under impreial rule than they have ever managed without.

Originally posted by pieman
depends on what you call a problem, as i said, you see a problem where i see a responsibility.

The problem is the flood of immigrants into already overcrowded countries ill-equipped to deal with massive rises in population. It isn't racism, it is pragmatism. The UK can only support a certain amount of people given current resources and letting more people in that is way above normal organic growth will only strain those resources. No amount of left-wing apologist historical revisionism will change that simple fact.

reply to post by stumason


how countries with falling birthrates and an aging population can be considered over populated or ill equipped to deal with immigration is beyond me, i guess you'll need to explain that leap in logic to me.

as regard revisionist attitudes to history, while the colonialists took great pains to paint themselves as a civilising influence on the painted savages, perhaps even believing that crap themselves, i take this version with a pinch of salt and refuse to appologise for it.

the functioning governments you imply were nothing more than an administration set up to allow for colonial taxation and the movement of natural resources away from the aboriginal inhabitants toward european elitist companies. the idea that there was anything like health care or education for anyone besides these colonists is almost laughable.

i agree that cold war power struggles are responsible for a chunk of world difficulties, the european powers, especially the brits, have as much to answer for there as either the americans or the russians.

[edit on 13/7/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


Hey, I hate to piss on your parade but a lot of 'the colonies' benefitted tremendously and have deteriorated rapidly since gaining independance.
Many former colonies would like to see a return to Empire days.
Corruption is rampant and endemic in a lot of these countries with wealthy elites exploiting the natural resources and aid far worse than 'we' ever did.

I also think it is a mistake that many make to judge the acts and deeds of yeasterday by the morals and standards of today.

Originally posted by pieman
how countries with falling birthrates and an aging population can be considered over populated or ill equipped to deal with immigration is beyond me, i guess you'll need to explain that leap in logic to me.

Our island is overpopulated as it is, so surely falling birthrates is a good thing? Besides, whilst the media likes to portray the fact that without immigrants the Brits will all die out in 10 years, the truth of the matter is the birth rate is around 1.95 children/woman, which is just ever so slightly under the amount needed to stabalise the population. Some regions report a birth rate of 2.1/woman, which is obviously a growth. We don't need an extra 3 million people in 10 years to bolster anything.

Originally posted by pieman
the functioning governments you imply were nothing more than an administration set up to allow for colonial taxation and the movement of natural resources away from the aboriginal inhabitants toward european elitist companies. the idea that there was anything like health care or education for anyone besides these colonists is almost laughable.

The British East African government actually went to great lengths to ensure the native Masai retained their land and grazing rights. Other administrations around Africa were also sensitive to the local populations.

Vast railroad networks were constructed at great expense, linking the coastal cities with the previously isolated interior and connecting regions the length and breadth of Africa.

Farming introduced by settlers greatly increased not only food production, but also provided vast amounts of locals with steady employment. These farms, up until recent "land reform" programmes, have been producing huge quantities of food ever since.

Education systems were implemented, most notably in South Africa, Kenya and Ghana which still to this day are the gems in African schooling. These are all based of the British model. The British even built the first universities in Africa.

All the governments of the regions were modelled off the British parliamentary system and it is these Governments that took over when indepedence was granted.

Justice systems were in place, again modelled off the British, at the time of independence. The British system of Justice is widely seen as the fairest around then world.

I could go on, this is actually a pet subject of mine and whilst I acknowledge it wasn't all a bed of roses, what was being done in Africa prior to independence was far removed from the "taxation and the movement of natural resources away from the aboriginal inhabitants" you imply.

Prior to WW1, the desire of the British Empire was to actually implement a Pan-Global Commonwealth Union, along the lines of a Federation of Nations, with democracy and justice for all the citizens of the Empire.

Unfortunately, world events were to overtake these plans and they never came to fruition. How different the world could have been...

Originally posted by pieman
i agree that cold war power struggles are responsible for a chunk of world difficulties, the european powers, especially the brits, have as much to answer for there as either the americans or the russians.

Not really. The last big power play by an "imperialist" Britain was the Suez crisis, were the British and French we publicly castrated by the US, ending any further major involvement in Africa.

Nearly all the tin-pots that cropped up during the 60's, 70's and 80's were directly supported by either the US or USSR, much to the chargrin of the former colonial powers who could do nothing about it due to either an indesire to appear as "neo-colonialists" or because their Superpower masters simply ignored them.

Originally posted by stumason
Our island is overpopulated as it is, so surely falling birthrates is a good thing?

europe isn't an island, so i assume you are talking about england, scotland and wales. in what respect is the island overpopulated?

Originally posted by pieman
The British East African government actually went to great lengths to ensure the native Masai retained their land and grazing rights.

okay, that might well be the brittish view but, strangely enough, the massai disagree. this is called a link. they contend that the efforts to ensure their grazing rights was actually a way to dispossess them of their grazing rights.

Vast railroad networks were constructed

with the single purpose of transporting material for the economic benifit of the colonialists.

Farming introduced by settlers greatly increased not only food production, but also provided vast amounts of locals with steady employment.

which they needed because the settlers had taken their land so they no longer had the means to support themselves.

Education systems were implemented, most notably in South Africa, Kenya and Ghana which still to this day are the gems in African schooling. These are all based of the British model. The British even built the first universities in Africa.

as i said, created for the colonists and not open to the natives until independence, and in south africas case, not even then.

The British system of Justice is widely seen as the fairest around then world.

only when it isn't opperated by the british, they tended to apply it in a fairly one sided manner which invariably meant the native lost their rights, freedoms or lives.

what was being done in Africa prior to independence was far removed from the "taxation and the movement of natural resources away from the aboriginal inhabitants" you imply.

i believe you suffer from a myopic approach to the subject. it was always the view by the british that what they were doing was for the best and they went to great lengths promote these beliefs but that is entirely irrelevant to the actions and effects that were unleashed upon "the empire" throughout it's history. trying to limit a discussion to the final years of empire ignores the fact that by that stage most of the damage was done.

Prior to WW1, the desire of the British Empire was to actually implement a Pan-Global Commonwealth Union, along the lines of a Federation of Nations, with democracy and justice for all the citizens of the Empire.

did the empire desire to give the members of this commonwealth a choice in the matter, na, not a chance. truth is, the brits didn't have the military to maintain its empire and needed the natives to police themselves.

Originally posted by Freeborn
Many former colonies would like to see a return to Empire days.

for example?

Corruption is rampant and endemic in a lot of these countries with wealthy elites exploiting the natural resources and aid far worse than 'we' ever did.

that's called the legacy of empire. when you say "wealthy elites", who do you mean, exactly?

I also think it is a mistake that many make to judge the acts and deeds of yeasterday by the morals and standards of today.

i disagree, that statement is akin to saying that so long as a person feels justified in what they do they have the right to do it.