European Politics

Forostar said:
On the problems with Turkey:
Click to expand...

That wasn't funny, even though I agree with the statements in it. Would be funny if the score was the other way around.

Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I am more interested to learn if there were some legit reasons to refuse the minister entry - except "we don't want you to spread your message here". I mean, did the Turkish government lie about their intentions or break an earlier agreed deal on what was to happen?

Mind you, I think the nazi remarks from Erdogan et.al. are disgraceful and I have no sympathy for him or his cause at all. I just hope that when the Dutch government closed the door the way they did, it was for a better reason than appeasing potential Wilders voters.
Click to expand...

From our persepective of this, it's actually unconstitutional for a minister in Turkey to do political propaganda meetings abroad. So it was already wrong before Netherlands even got involved.
 
Once again, this is domestic terrorism.

The more this happens, the more I come to the following conclusion - this is not due to ISIS or Al Qaeda. Domestic terrorism is a constant in Western society. We've seen it constantly from the origins of modern democracies in all nations. It has different flavours, and Islamic is the current sexy choice, sure, just like anti-government was the choice in the 90s. It differs greatly from terrorist state terrorism - such as the strikes by Al Qaeda in the US in 2001, or actions by the IRA in the UK during The Troubles.

This is our failing, because we marginalize a huge amount of people in society. If it wasn't ISIS, it would be someone else - skinheads, anti-government terror groups, Nigel Farage, extreme environmental activism...something else that grabs the disaffected of society and empowers them with violence. We need to do a better job finding these people and empowering them - we need to do a better job making sure people don't fall through the cracks.
 
"Created" by failing UK society/failing main character.

Urged, inspired by (people urged/inspired by) IS and other hatespeech (imams).

Your reasoning is a little blunt, but I agree to a certain extend. Perhaps you can now apply this reasoning to oppressed people outside the western world: E.g. Palestinians, Kurds.
 
Forostar said:
"Created" by failing UK society/failing main character.
Click to expand...
All Western societies have this problem - look at the easy way people latch onto hate speech campaigns by obvious fascists (IE Geert Wilders or the Swedish Democrats or Mr Trump). It's just a race who gets there first.

Forostar said:
Perhaps you can now apply this reasoning to oppressed people outside the western world: E.g. Palestinians, Kurds.
Click to expand...
I do, in general, agree that nation-states of suppressed people deserve greater deference. But I also am strictly opposed to nation-state violence in general, and as long as those organizations continue terrorist actions, I will also support their targeted societies' rights to defend themselves, while opposing the actions of those state actors in creating the original oppression.

IE I agree that a two-state solution is needed in Palestine, and I think Israel needs to be criticized for the conditions they have created in Palestine. But I also support Israel's right to kill Palestinians engaged in terrorist action against them, and even to strike back against Palestinian terror cells. I do not support it when they blow up a Palestinian hospital, mind you, because they either had poor intelligence or acted out of spite. These issues are complex and simple brushes don't work.
 
It's domestic terrorism caused by wahhabist Islamic ideology.

I think it's silly to put Islamic terrorism in the same bag as terrorism from other marginalized groups. This is a constant presence, not something that happens in a blue moon. The West may have started to face it only recently, but in all Muslim world secular way of living has been systematically oppressed and wahhabism actively supported by various governments for decades. This is a different issue.
 
LooseCannon said:
The more this happens, the more I come to the following conclusion - this is not due to ISIS or Al Qaeda. Domestic terrorism is a constant in Western society. We've seen it constantly from the origins of modern democracies in all nations. It has different flavours, and Islamic is the current sexy choice, sure, just like anti-government was the choice in the 90s. It differs greatly from terrorist state terrorism - such as the strikes by Al Qaeda in the US in 2001, or actions by the IRA in the UK during The Troubles.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean with "terrorist state terrorism".
 
When a country provides resources for terrorist attack in another country.
Sorry, wrong conclusion.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I guess the primary reaction outside of Netherlands is relief, as Wilders et.al. didn't have the success it was feared they would have.

@Forostar - what happened to the Dutch Labour party? There's been a general decline for European social democrat parties since their heyday in the 50s and 60s, but such a decline from one election to another ... how is that even possible without a major scandal?
Click to expand...
Hi Wingman,

I still wanted to say something about the elections. The PvdA (Dutch Labour / Social Democratic party) got punished severely for having governed with the VVD (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy / right wing liberals). In my view, the punishment was too hard, out of proportion.

It was the biggest loss in the history of Dutch politics. Not only has the party become the smallest in its history (9 seats), the decimation is unprecedented: a loss of 29(!) seats. There are 150 seats in the parliament.

When the government started, there was a economic crisis and some hard measures had to be taken. The biggest two parties took that responsibility. Now, we're out of the crisis. "The PvdA talked left, but ruled right" critics say. But it was fucking coalition. What would have happened if other middle/right wing parties would have joined the VVD, the biggest(!) party? It would have been worse for the poor, we'd have a less fair distribution of the crisis/costs. It was a difficult story to tell: "Yes we governed like this, but thanks to us, we beat the crisis, we have less unemployment (and other good things that happened people were not interested in) and now we have the money to make things better." But still a lot of people had enough of the PvdA. A party that always had a quarter or third of the parliament. The other two left wing parties are bigger now, for the first time in history, but as a whole, left has lost. Also, a lot of votes went to other parties. It made me bitter that people can punish so hard. It doesn't feel fair.

Post WWII governments:
xxl.jpg

(PVV didn't govern in 2010 but they gave support to a minority government)

Conclusion: yes, I'm relieved Wilders did not win, but I do not think we have beaten populism. And we're moving to the right, more and more.

Right now there's a possibility of a four party government. If that happens, it would only be the second(!) time since WWII (if we count the CDA predecessor parties as one): The Den Uyl kabinet of 1973-1977 (PvdA, CDA, D'66 and PPR) was the only one.

Here you can see how many days it took to form a government:
xxl.jpg
 
Last edited:
If at first ....

But I think the Scots need to be pretty careful here .. they can easily find themselves out of the UK and not in the EU
 
bearfan said:
If at first ....

But I think the Scots need to be pretty careful here .. they can easily find themselves out of the UK and not in the EU
Click to expand...
This is not in dispute. It doesn't matter when a vote is held, Scotland will exit the EU as part of the UK. Nobody is suggesting a Yes vote would prevent this. Discussion will be about how quickly Scotland would/could be allowed back in. Positive noises from Europe over the next few years (still looking unlikely) will certainly be persuasive to some.
 
Yeah, that is what I was suggesting, if Scotland votes to leave the UK .. it is not a sure bet they get into the EU as Scotland for some time. Depending on what governments are in certain countries (Belgium/Spain come to mind) Scotland getting into the EU might take quite a bit of time.

But as you said, I am sure that will be pointed out during the campaign that leave UK/enter EU would not happen in quick succession ... it might .. but I tend to doubt it would.
 
Indeed. The whole of the UK (inc. Scotland) will probably be in some sort of transition arrangement after the two-year Brexit process has passed anyway. Scotland would be in a similar position, with the UK, if it voted for independence; again, regardless of the timing of a vote. Either of these outcomes are going to start a process that will take years to run. Could Scotland use that period to negotiate entry to the EU? I don't know. I see no compelling reason why it couldn't though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top