European Politics Thread

Toivo Haimi. (The page is in Finnish so there's not much point linking to it but I know there's at least one Finn reading this in addition to myself so why not...)

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@ Best Of: Have you got a populist, anti-Establishment Party running in this EU Election? I've heard it mentioned a few times.

edited 7th May '14 2:52:34 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

The True Finns, although their welfare policy sounds at odds with the Generic Right Wing Populist Party Policy.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Aren't right-wing parties in Scandinavia generally along the lines of "we have really great social democracy and it's totes awesome...AS LONG AS WE KEEP THE IMMIGRANTS OUT!"?

edited 7th May '14 2:58:02 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Yes, and that's roughly what ours is like, too.

It's kind of disgusting that most people, even if they don't support the True Finns, would still claim that at least the True Finns aren't as dishonest and corrupt as the biggest (old) parties allegedly are. Anyone who cares to do any research (or just watch the news occasionally) would know that the True Finns' leadership is constantly involved in one scandal after another, often to do with the blatant lies they like to tell their voters (and everyone else). Then they moan about the media "persecuting" them because their lies get exposed just the same as anyone else's.

But anyway, it's a party that is generally perceived as centre-left economically and far-right socially, and as one that isn't as corrupt or dishonest as the "old" parties. They're also nationalist and very anti-EU. Oh, and religious.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Sounds familiar — and As You Know, Parties like that are everywhere (and popular) in the European Union.

Keep Rolling On

Happy Victory in Europe Day!

On this day, May 8th 1945, the signing of the German Instrument of Surrender was completed, first by General Jodl in Reims, and then by Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel in Berlin, late at night. Nazi Germany's unconditional surrender brought an end to the Thousand Year Reich after only 12 years, and lifted the darkness that had settled on Europe for the last six years of war and tension. HM The Queen, then Princess Elizabeth, recalled the scenes on the streets of London:

By UN mandate, it begins the 48 hour Time of Remembrance and Reconciliation for Those Who Lost Their Lives during the Second World War (As it was 9 May in Moscow when the instrument of surrender was signed, most of the former Soviet bloc celebrate it on the 9th). For many, it marked the beginning of a new age of prosperity and liberty, but for others it marked the beginning of years of Soviet oppression. For some weary Allied soldiers, it simply meant a transfer to the Pacific, where the embattled Japanese still fought on. Nevertheless, victory over Nazism, and the destruction of Hitler's racial-nationalist dream, is still a powerful symbol of Europe's past struggles, the rivers of blood spilled over her soil, and, one hopes, a reminder of the need for peace in Europe, and peace in the world.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

OP says "Basically a thread where we talk about news and politics that affect Europe as a whole rather than certain countries in it." Does that meant that discussing disputes between two or more European countries that do not have their own threads yet does not fall within this thread's purview?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

I think this thread nowadays has gone beyond the mere purpose of the OP's post. We even post stuff that is solely related to a single country (e.g. Berlusconi and Italy) so it's ok to talk about those disuputes here.

May we never forget.

edited 8th May '14 5:10:28 PM by Quag15

OK, so... I've been reading on the dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia (provisional name for UN use: the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia) over the latter's claim to the name of "Macedonia", and I was wondering about the strength/veracity of both sides' arguments (that is, the ones laid out here), as well as possible solutions to the problem.

Personally speaking, I think that the one hand, Greece seems to have a better foundation for its claim, but on the other, it's being rather unreasonable about the whole thing (e.g. blocking Macedonia's entry into the EU even under the provisional UN appellation). And on the other other hand, Macedonia itself has exhibited childish immaturity this year by insisting on "Upper Republic of Macedonia" as a solution for the name dispute (the Greek position is that only "Republic of Upper Macedonia" would be acceptable).

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Yeah, that issue is really childish from both points. It's just a name. As long as Macedonia doesn't claim Alexander the Great and Ancient Greece as part of their cultural and education history and heritage, it should be fine.

In other news:

30000 lobbyists and counting: is Brussels under corporate sway?

Time to relax austerity? Candidates for EU's top job divided.

But they do. At least in the last couple of years they have. I heard they've been restoring Skopje to have ostentatious Alexandrine monuments and museums or something.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

Then the issue shall never be solved, since neither country wants to cave in.

I just don't get the Greek position, it's a friggin name. Other inhabitants of the Americas don't get this uptight about the US being called the US, the people of Northern Ireland don't get upset about the Republic of Ireland being called the Republic of Ireland, why does it matter?

As for the idea of territorial ambitions, sorry but that's a stupid concern. not only does Macedonia not claim any of Greece but even if they ever did they'd be laughed out of the room politically over such claims and have to deal with NATO militarily.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Indeed. You arrive via Alexander the Great Airport, from where you can get a taxi to the Porta Macedonia Alexandrian triumphal arch and then take in the Warrior on a Horse

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Macedonia's educational textbooks still teach that the country is part of an "unliberated" whole that includes the Greek province of Maceodnia and the part of the Macedonia region that's in Bulgaria, though. You can see the Unfortunate Implications of dishonesty here.

Also, do remember that the country itself started off as a subdivision of Yugoslavia that was split off from Serbia by Tito in a thinly veiled sign of irredentist ambitions regarding the aforementioned other parts of the Macedonia region. Combined with the above point, Greece's concerns about the current Macedonian government's territorial ambitions are actually legitimate.

It doesn't help that they insist on having a radically divergent interpretation of ancient Macedonia's relationship to both ancient and modern Greece (read: they refuse to acknowledge the Greekness of Macedonia), in contradiction to both the internationally accepted view and the hard fact that the ancient Macedonians themselves (at the very least, the Alexandrian Macedonians) self-identified as Greek, and with little supporting evidence to back up their claim.

edited 9th May '14 6:15:08 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Let's add another wrinkle to all these complications: Bulgaria thinks Macedonia is doing all this cuz they know they're actually Bulgarians ethnolinguistically and should be ruled by Sofia.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

Mostly.

The dominant line of thinking with the Republican movement up until the 1990s was that the Irish Republic was and remained the only legitimate government of Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland. It's why Sinn Fein abstained from taking seats in the Dail as well as Westminster.

Granted that's maybe not quite the same thing, but an interesting little tidbit nonetheless.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

That makes sense then, though I'd say that Greece should make it clear that it will drop its objections if Macedonia stops making territorial claims.

I did consider adding that what I mentioned is pretty much the only thing that Northern Ireland doesn't have a group of people being uptight about, but I figured that would be rude.

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran

Unionists tended to use the term "Irish Republic" as well, either to imply that the Republic of Ireland was an SF Trojan horse or because they objected to the use of "Ireland" as recognizing Dublin's territorial claim to the whole island of Ireland.

Of course, any discussion of Ulster Unionism must involve this video.

edited 9th May '14 12:01:03 PM by Achaemenid

Schild und Schwert der Partei

Actually, they do. At least, that applies to Latin Americans, among whom the normal way of referring to the US or its citizens is the Spanish/Portuguese form of "United States", or estadounidense/estadunidense. Likewise, while Canadians do use "American" for US citizens, they rarely use "America" to describe the US specifically.

There are several key differences in the two situations:

1. The people of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are genuinely Irish (nevermind that Northern Irelanders self-identity as "British"; that's no different from, say, a Scotsman claiming his nationality as "British"). Contrast that with the FYROM, who are ethnolinguistically Slavic, and the people of the Macedonia province, who are ethnolinguistically Greek.
2. Northern Ireland is officially called "Northern Ireland", and has been so since the Partition of Ireland after the Irish War of Independence that gave birth to the Republic of Ireland (then the Irish Free State).
3. The Republic of Ireland was founded on an Irish nationalist-separatist revolution that sought to liberate the whole of the Irish nation and island from the UK. The FYROM as a distinct political entity, however, was created by Josip Tito essentially from scratch in 1944 (yes, I know, there were abortive precursors as far back as the 19th century, but all of them were crushed prematurely), with irredentist purposes as have been revealed by his involvement in the Greek Civil War shortly thereafter.
4. Whereas the Kingdom of Ireland was an actual country with its own history prior to annexation by the UK in 1801 (and thus giving legitimacy to the Irish Free State's claim to all of Ireland, since the ROI is pretty much the KOI's successor as an independent Irish state), Northern Ireland is more or less an artificial creation of the UK with no historical basis for existence, besides the largely-Protestant unionist/loyalist majority that apparently were mostly descendants from British colonists — who, if they had their way, would've seen to it that the whole of Ireland remained within the United Kingdom. Apparently, the significant minority of mainly Catholic nationalists/republicans living there did not factor into the UK government's equations at all. If you ask me, it seems like the UK only held on to Northern Ireland because they could not stomach the huge blow to their country's prestige should the entirety of Ireland break free from the union, as opposed to only the majority of the island doing so.

And just to be clear: Yes, the UK did object to the ROI renaming itself "Republic of Ireland" rather than Irish Republic in 1949, but it became alone in doing so in the 1960s, and eventually stopped being stubborn and followed the rest of the world in the 1990s.

edited 9th May '14 4:13:14 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Re: 4.

The Partition was done for the same reason it was done in India: if two peoples can't share the damn country, then cut it in two and give them each a piece.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

The Partition of India is quite different and much more reasonable. Pakistan's population was quite distinct from India's along ethnic, cultural, and historical lines, for example. For two, the UK was more or less a third party to the whole affair, being the colonial power ruling over all of the nations involved.

edited 9th May '14 4:18:29 PM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

France has definitively banned the growing of genetically modified corn.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Back in the day didn't the ancient Greeks treat Macedonians as barely qualifying as Greek? As basically semi-barbarians who married their sisters and mated with livestick? Just pointing out the irony.

Trump delenda est