EU politics: ripples from the AFD
Tuesday 23 April 2013
 The CDU, on the other hand, had lost a point to hit 38 percent, with its coalition partner the FDP unchanged at five percent. The opposition SPD stood at 26 percent, the Greens were on 15 percent and the Left Party was on six percent. This means that neither grouping could form a government and all parties are keen to neutralise the AFD threat. Enter, therefore, the CDU-affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which has issued a detailed report, taking a closer look at the party, making recommendations on how to deal with it. Above all, the Foundation says, it is very important not to underestimate the AFD, as the party had quickly gained significant media attention and a great deal of interest. This also shows that "new populist movements" can have a considerable impact and can quite quickly record political success. In the view of the Foundation, therefore, concerns of citizens about the future of the euro should be addressed more fully in the policies of the federal government and there should be "extensive efforts to explain the policy towards the indebted euro countries, the guarantees given by Germany and the development of European institutions". On the other hand, the Foundation warns that "single-issue parties such as the AFD benefit from ongoing public debate. But many of the supposedly alternative political demands have long been debated between the parties in the Bundestag and it is questionable whether many voters really share the "pessimistic analysis" of the AFD about the situation in Germany. According to research carried out by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, citizens are more satisfied with their personal material situation, even if they are starting to worry about the overall situation". No one should shy away from a substantive discussion about the AFD, the Foundation then counsels, especially as the party had no more to offer than a "mini-programme and seemingly simple solutions". Moreover, the AFD competes over their single issue with other parties such as the liberals. But there is also advice about accelerate the disenchantment with the new party. Its founding congress has clearly shown that it has failed to implements its own self-proclaimed goal of "more democracy". Its rigid process of dealing with nearly 200 applicants who had registered for the election of its Board was very far from ideal. Thus does Handelsblatt put the boot in, but you would not think so from the coverage ofSuddeutsche. It actually rails against Handelsblatt pushing the AFD, overstating its share of the polls. The 19 percent support, reported, it says, was based on a flawed question which flattered the party, making the survey "unfortunate" and "suggestive", blatantly violating the rules governing survey institutes. Whether exaggerated or not, though, the AFD – for the moment – is punching above its weight. Says columnist Wolfram Weimar, the Left-right insults them as reactionary. The Liberals vilify them as nationalistic. The Union ostracises them as irresponsible, the Greens joke about " protest professors" and the Pirates brand them the "D-Mark grandpas". They have provoked the partisan establishment, and have shaken the political scene within a few weeks. And, for the time being, you can't ask more than that. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 23/04/2013 |
EU politics: to stay in Europe, vote Conservative
Monday 22 April 2013
 His reasoning is that, sooner or later, there will be a new EU-wide treaty, with further powers transferred to Brussels, which will trigger the "referendum lock" in the UK. With a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition in place (a likely outcome at the next election), he thinks that a Conservative party under a new leader urging a "no" vote, backed by UKIP and a mainly eurosceptic press, would prevail. A Labour-led government probably could not reassure enough of a class of voters called the "worried nationalists" to enable it to win a "yes" vote during the next parliament. On the other hand, a Conservative-led government in power would go through the motions of renegotiation. Small successes could be wrapped up in big, colourful boxes for presentation to voters and Mr Cameron would then have support of the two main opposition parties and much of British business. Thus, even while his own party might split, and UKIP would – of course – be against him, under Mr Cameron and the Conservatives, a "yes" vote would be more likely. Only the Tories could reassure the "worried nationalists". However, Garton Ash is basing his assumptions on a referendum being held in the next parliament. If a referendum was delayed beyond 2020, a different situation would pertain. For a start, in 2015, a defeated Conservative party would almost certainly dispense with Mr Cameron and could well select a robustly anti-EU leader. Come the election in 2020, a Conservative victory might still have that leader supporting a "no" vote in a referendum. But a Tory defeat in 2020 could mean the party – according to the Garton Ash recipe – also supporting a "no" vote in any referendum held during the 2020-5 term. And in both cases, in or out of power, the Tory-led "no" campaign would win. On this basis, it would seem that the best option for leaving the EU is to vote for Labour at the next election. Then, if a referendum is delayed until after 2020, either Labour or the Tories will do. It becomes a win-win for the "no" vote. And while that might be speculation, there is certainly less uncertainty in the post-2015 term. A Conservative Party in power, with the support of campaigns such as Business for Britain, would most certainly go for the "yes" vote. Thus, if a vote for UKIP at the next election is likely to let in Labour, some might argue that this might be the best way of securing an EU-free nation. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 22/04/2013 |
EU politics: "feeble", but not in the way intended
Monday 22 April 2013
 Dimitrov declares that Nigel Farage is "usually very feeble in presenting solid arguments", and suggests that he prefers to "engage in propaganda which deviates markedly from the essence of the debate". This is all about the Bulgarian and Romanian hordes that are to descend upon us on 1 January 2014, thus provoking UKIP leaflets stating that 29 million Bulgarian and Romanians will have the right to "live, work and draw benefits" in the UK. And, while many will be "fine, hard-working people", the UK may struggle to cope with "another influx" of "people needing jobs, housing schools, hospitals and benefits". Mr Dimitrov detects an "element of hostility in certain political quarters" over the issue of immigration. But he believes the UKIP's message "… is not the reflection of the prevailing mood of the British people towards the Bulgarian people but it is very disappointing and very discriminatory in certain aspects". "We react firmly, politely, but very strongly against these assertions and the atmosphere created by this propaganda," Mr Dimitrov goes on to say, asserting that UKIP's pamphlets are "absolutely unacceptable in a European country". Doubtless, though, the Bulgarian ambassador's intervention will delight Farage and his supporters. Verging very closely on external interference in a domestic election, it will again confirm that foreigners are seeking to influence internal matters which are none of their business. However, it is rather sad that Mr Farage decided to say that Bulgaria and Romania "do not belong in the European Union", adding that, "these two countries are racked with corruption and organised crime. They should never have been allowed the join the EU since early stage". One might think that, for those of us who wish to depart from the EU as soon as possible, it is not our place to decide which countries should belong to the EU. It is not so much that Bulgaria and Romania don't belong – being racked with corruption and organised crime has never been a bar to entry, or Italy and Greece could never have joined. The issue, surely, is that Britain does not belong in the EU. As to potential immigration, supposedly such small numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians areactually looking for work in the UK, that the BBC would have it that you cannot safely estimate real numbers of how many will come. Despite this, the Telegraph translates the percentages into 350,000 people. It is there that Farage has a really serious problem for, to exclude those potential 350,000 incomers, he must junk the "freedom of movement" and other provisions of the EU treaties. But this would mean accepting the return of upwards of two million Britons currently resident in EU member states. Not until UKIP can solve that problem can its immigration policy really be considered credible, the lack of which solution suggests that Mr Dimitrov may actually have a point, even if it isn't the one he intended. Seeking to exclude immigrants, while expecting other member states to accept our emigrants, is rather feeble. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 22/04/2013 |
EU politics: the enemy in plain sight
Monday 22 April 2013
 Nothing terrifies the corporate sector more than the idea of an independent Britain, with a free people able to think for themselves and chose their own leaders. Thus are the corporates seeking to divert attention from leaving the EU by pushing the renegotiation meme. Run "by business for business", the group is headed by Matthew Elliott, one-time "no" campaign wannabe, and has adopted an overtly europhile stance. Based on the belief that "the Government is right to seek a new deal for the EU and for the UK's role in Europe", it expresses the view that, … far from being a threat to our economic interests, a flexible, competitive Europe, with more powers devolved from Brussels, is essential for growth, jobs and access to markets.Business for Britain, it says, "is absolutely not about leaving the EU". What unites our supporters, it claims, "is an agreement that the status quo in our relationship is not working and that the Government is right to seek a new deal for the EU and the UK’s terms of membership". Thus, we are told, "Instead of pushing the debate to the extreme corners of 'In vs Out', we should be having a sensible discussion about what is right and what is wrong in our current arrangements. Resisting renegotiation will push public sentiment further towards Out and fast-track an EU exit". The group is therefore "urging all political parties to join in committing themselves to a national drive to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the EU". Unable overtly to support membership of the EU in the light of growing public hostility, corporate business has thus shifted its ground to support the unattainable objective of renegotiating the EU treaties, thereby hoping to weaken the pressure for an exit. This is exactly the false-flag type operation that has typified the europhile Open Europe and it is no surprise that a leading member of the Advisory Board, John Hoerner, former CEO of The Burton Group, is also a supporter of Open Europe. Similarly, both co-chairmen, Alan Halsall and John Mills, count themselves as supporters. It is obviously attempting to position the out campaign as one of the "extreme corners", and place itself as hosting "a sensible discussion" – the classic strategy for marginalising the "out movement", and making the platform indistinguishable from the European Movement. Effectively, it becomes indistinguishable from the EM clone, Business for a New Europe, with a virtually identical pitch. Needless to say, the new group is being given a free pass by the media, with gushing pieces in theTelegraph, the Mail and the Express, and – predictably – a warm welcome from Conservative Home. It never was the case that the establishment was going to stand back and let the people leave the EU without a fight. It is thus running true to form, fudging the debate, and dressing corporate interest in the clothes of jobs and economic prosperity. T'was ever thus, of course, but at least we have five hundred of them broken cover. More of the enemy is in plain sight. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 22/04/2013 |
EU politics: give us some money!
Monday 22 April 2013
 Actually, the party has collected at least €580,000 but the trouble with being a fully-fledged political party is that you need millions to fight a campaign. Bernd Lucke reckons that he needs to raise at least three million euros, and then he has to complete with the SPD and CDU, which have over €20 million each available to them. The main sources of funding from the AFD are donations. However, large donations have not materialised and the highest sum so far contributed has been €5000. Thus, the party must bake small rolls, says FAZ. In a way, I feel quietly vindicated when it comes to the Harrogate Agenda. One can see the attraction of going high profile and hoping the funding catches up, but the risk of failure is high. Better, I think, to set up the systems and the financial base first, and then to start building the campaign. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 22/04/2013 |
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Posts
