Do stop doing this Sunny.

In a blog-post he also called Sarkozy’s party “extreme”:

You even quote the bit you’re referring to

His party, the UMP, is in the EPP, and so cannot possibly be extreme

Whatever that is, it certainly isn’t calling the UMP “extreme”. But hey, it’s Hannan, facts are irrelevant.

Tim, when Hannan says “His party, the UMP, is in the EPP, and so cannot possibly be extreme”, he’s being sarcastic, and referring to the pro-Euro crowd’s habit of defining ‘extremism’ based on attitudes to the EU rather than substantive policy.

He is particularly irked by the constant attacks he faced for wanting to leave the EPP that he would ‘sit with Italian post-fascists’ years ago having been followed by the same attacks for leaving the EPP in which a number of those selfsame post-fascists now sit.

Funny how Dan Hannan criticises the EPP for sitting with racists and homophobes, even though the Tory Party decided to break-away from the EPP to sit with racists and homophobes who were too racist and homophobic to even sit with the EPP.

Politics, eh?

2 – fully aware of that. What he’s saying is that if this were a member of the ECR then they would be described by the left as extreme. Which is quite clearly not the same thing as saying that the EMP is extreme itself.

3 – must we go through this again? Read the EPP’s manifesto and point out to me where it even remotely coincides with Tory European policy.

For a start:

how on earth could the Tories have remained in a group which was in favour of: An EU foreign policy; an EU seat at the UN, WTO and IMF; a common European income tax; a harmonised European police force; and an end to all national vetoes. All those policies are debatable on the merits, but the Conservative party is opposed to all of them.

To be clear, I agree with Dan Hannan.

I think we all do.

So would it be appropriate now to apologise for last year’s posts alleging that Hannan was a racist?

> But if the French press were to report on a prominent British MEP publishing a picture of Sarkozy as Hitler – it wouldn’t bode well for Cameron’s diplomatic efforts in Europe.

This is the whole point, right?

“it’s Hannan, facts are irrelevant.”

Yeah, that’s his problem.

So Tim Jerk off is defending the scum that is Hannan. Tells you every thing you wanted to know about tory tim Jerk off.

The tory trolls love this little pip squeek and his idiot Fox lite stunts. It tells you that the broad base of the tory party are brownnshirts just waiting for their leaders word to deastroy the NHS and ivade Poland.

Sally-bot you really have failed the Turing Test with that last one!

But if the French press were to report on a prominent British MEP publishing a picture of Sarkozy as Hitler – it wouldn’t bode well for Cameron’s diplomatic efforts in Europe.

Well, I suspect that Mr Cameron could get away with the simple line, ‘well, that’s Dan Hannan you know; sorry, nothing I can do about him.’ I doubt there would be a diplomatic incident myself, as it is rather holding out hostages to fortune to expect all several hundred elected representatives of governing parties in the UK (to be pedantic, Mr Hannan is a UK MEP) and France to not say something potentially offensive occasionally. And Mr Hannan at least has form – he has insulted the previous Prime Minister of the UK as well.

And to be honest, why bother being diplomatic when what is going on is clearly unacceptable. Occasionally it is worth being offensive to get your point accross (David Cameron seems to try this about once a week in foreign affairs at the moment…).

sally,

The tory trolls love this little pip squeek and his idiot Fox lite stunts. It tells you that the broad base of the tory party are brownnshirts just waiting for their leaders word to deastroy the NHS and ivade Poland.

Without meaning to be offensive (oh, sod it, considering my previous post, meaning to be offensive) this is juvenile trash that I could have ripped apart when I was twelve. For it to be true the ‘tory trolls’ have to represent the ‘broad base of the tory party’, when it is generally accepted internet commentators don’t actually represent any party or movement particularly (or, if you want to be taken as representative of the Labour party, then they really are in trouble). You also need to show that there is any connection between Mr Hannan and Nazism, which might be a challenge – he is a traditonal whig, with inclinations towards direct democracy, neither of which are exactly pro-Nazi positions.

Further, national socialism (yes, that is what Nazism was) would more likely than not have approved of a health service provided for the chosen people (they chose by race, we by citizenship) by the state (scary, if not really surprising, fact of the day – stick ‘Nazi health care’ into Wikipedia and the first entry is on Barak Obama!). That might be why they had a universal healthcare system (to be fair, they didn’t invent it – that was one of Bismark’s ideas). So I doubt the Brownshirts would be against the NHS, and the Nazi leadership would likely prefer its centralised control to the system based on health insurance they inherited.

Oh, and the brownshirts were disbanded after the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 wiped out their leadership. So they never invaded Poland – the blackshirts (SS) did, but that’s a different matter. And the repeated doses of Nazi history I did at school finally pay off…

So overall, probably a fail on every count. No proof of your logic, bad associations, failed understanding and historical inaccuracy. Perhaps you need something more than blind hatred to back up your posts?

“when it is generally accepted internet commentators don’t actually represent any party or movement”

Says who? Oh yes, a tory troll claims he is not a tory.

Next up, tory troll tells us that up is down and black is white.

France, getting it wrong since 1789.

I think France got it dead right in 1789.

Great pity we did not have a bit of aristocracy head chopping here too.

Sally,

Yes. Killing people because of who they are is the answer.

And the question is ‘what is the most evil act mankind can commit?’

“A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman.” Burke

“Fifty years of anarchy await you, and you will emerge from it only by the power of some dictator who will arise- a true statesman and patriot. O prating people, if you did but know how to act!” Marat

Interesting heroes you have, Sally.

12 – you’re reasoning with sally? Time weighing heavy on your hands this afternoon?

Sorry.

@18,

It’s basic logic training. Give it a go – it’s quite relaxing in a way, taking apart her rather strained logic (although I have agreed with her a couple of threads over). Take post 13, which if you ignore the fact that sally appears to be starting a fight (‘say’s who?’), is a wonderful example of how sally works. She picks on the weakest bit of my argument (admittedly, it is weak – couldn’t be bothered to go off and find the proof that online commentators are not party drones – albeit this site is full of such evidence, since everyone disagrees with every party at some point), then declares I am a Tory with no evidence (as I keep saying, I am neither a Tory nor a Conservative) and then declares I shall say up is down and black is white, which is news to me. I assume this means sally is so confident in her views that she can’t possibly consider they are any less fixed than the actual rules of physics (although I invite her to consider that to someone in Australia the direction of up is almost 180 degrees opposite to the direction of up in the UK – Goddamnit, she’s right, I am trying to prove up is down…).

Anyway, key point is she kind of misses the rest of my post (I presume didn’t read it, because she has found something to jump on) and keeps on screaming her slogans. Fortunately for everybody, that sort of behaviour generally died out in the 1980s on the left and the 1990s on the right, when the ability to be reasonable kind of crept in. Unfortunately for Sally, that means she probably has not learnt why she is wrong.

France, getting it wrong since 1789.
Maybe but is the model of absolutism monarchy the way forward. i.e.before the revolution.

21 – I think the point is that there are various ways of getting from absolutist monarchy to representative democracy, and anarchy, terror, tyranny and dictatorship is probably not the best one.

if the French press were to report on a prominent British MEP

Dan Hannen is certainly prominent, but not by appointment or promotion, Sarko knows he’s a loose cannon and Cameron has deniability.

Doesn’t stop Hannan being right though. But then, Sarko’s an arse.

think the point is that there are various ways of getting from absolutist monarchy to representative democracy, and anarchy, terror, tyranny and dictatorship is probably not the best one.

You could argue the England’s representative democracy was based on terror, tyranny and the dictatorship of Cromwell.
The French revolution was a bourgeois revolution, Marx despised it. Middle classes taking over from the upper classes
Also Tim your sort loves a bit of tyranny and terror.
Maggie loved the company of Augusto.
By the way Tim still posting on a left of centre site that you said was irrelevant.

You could argue the England’s representative democracy was based on terror, tyranny and the dictatorship of Cromwell.

You could. If you were a moron.

You could. If you were a moron

Oh dear are we a little touchy.
Was not, the English civil war full of terror and tyranny.
Was not, Cromwell a dictator

@14

France, getting it wrong since 1789.

Ummm that assumes France got it right before 1789.

Also, singling out France assumes that all other (now) democratic states were havens of Utopia and shining beacons of hope and kittens. Which as anyone who knows anything about anything knows, is what is called “completeandutterbollocks”.

As Rhys points out – all democracies have a bloody, nasty, unfair past.

Yes Rhys, both of those things are true. But Cromwell had nowt to do with modern British parliamentary democracy, there was that whole Restoration thing, remember?

If you want to credit someone, credit Dutch King Billy, who invaded and took the throne in order to fund his war with France but had little to no interest in the domestic situation beyond “pay me money for my army”.

That’s also a gross simplification, but it’s a lot closer to the truth than crediting Cromwell FFS.

26 – the civil war was not particularly remarkable for its terror and tyranny – although wars in general and civil wars in particular are deeply unpleasant things. But Cromwell was certainly a dictator, and the changes he made to the English constitution were certainly directed towards the transformation of this country into an absolutist hereditary dictatorship.

It’s just that the Restoration so thoroughly removed Cromwell’s reforms that it’s hard to see much of a direct track from the Civil War to English parliamentary democracy – Cromwell of course butchered Parliament as an institution almost as much as he did the monarchy. It’s to 1688 that you have to look for the true English revolution.

So any argument that England bases its representative democracy from Cromwell is, well, a bit moronic. Sorry.

directed towards the transformation of this country into an absolutist hereditary dictatorship

Except he didn’t want it to be hereditary, and was pushing towards the Polish model of electing a monarch figure near then end. His sons certainly didn’t want it to be hereditary.

Apart from that, you’re completely correct, of course.

Except he didn’t want it to be hereditary, and was pushing towards the Polish model of electing a monarch figure near then end. His sons certainly didn’t want it to be hereditary.

The Polish technique was awesome. I think I described it in my finals as a medieval clapometer.

Cromwell did nominate his son as his successor as Lord Protector…

Daniel Hannan is horrible for other reasons. Don’t you “60 year mistake” me, you rich fuck.

But, in the spirit of fairness, Sarkozy is also horrible. I’m not sure the lack of coverage of this is as much to do with any membership of anywhere as it is to do with Sarkozy having better international PR than some places.

the civil war was not particularly remarkable for its terror and tyranny – although wars in general and civil wars in particular are deeply unpleasant things. But Cromwell was certainly a dictator, and the changes he made to the English constitution were certainly directed towards the transformation of this country into an absolutist hereditary dictatorship.

It’s just that the Restoration so thoroughly removed Cromwell’s reforms that it’s hard to see much of a direct track from the Civil War to English parliamentary democracy – Cromwell of course butchered Parliament as an institution almost as much as he did the monarchy. It’s to 1688 that you have to look for the true English revolution.
Even the most inadequate historian would say that the English Civil war started the movement away from absolute monarchy. Charles 11 for instance did not have as many powers as his father had.

As for the English civil war not been bloody. More English died proportionally than any other event apart from the plague of the 14th C.
Also the idea that the Restoration and it’s following conflicts in Ireland and Scotland were not full of tyranny and terror begs belief

So any argument that England bases its representative democracy from Cromwell is, well, a bit moronic. Sorry.
Well there is fuckin big statue outside parliament proclaiming so

Well, when Sarko’s government introduced proposals to ban the niqab from public places, a French Green MP said it had “the whiff of Vichyism”. And more recently, after Sarkozy took a hardline on gypsies and called for changes in the laws governing French nationality, French Socialist MPs accused him of aping Le Pen. So, if Hannan is saying that Sarkozy is copying Le Pen’s policies, he’s saying nothing more than what the French left has recently said.

Of course, I agree that to picture him as Hitler is going a bit far.

@Watchman,
“national socialism (yes, that is what Nazism was)”

Well no. That is what the word Nazi was an abbreviation of, but National Socialism wasn’t socialism in any sense that socialists recognise. Terms can be misused. The German Democratic Republic wasn’t democratic, either, and Zhrinovsky’s Liberal Democrats aren’t liberal democrats.

The Nazis were certainly very statist, but is an error to identify statism with leftism. Rightwing statism (as often seen in France) exists too.

The Nazis may not have really regarded themselves as socialists (Hitler reportedly admitted it wasn’t the right word) and certainly don’t seem to have regarded as socialists by either the German or foreign right (with their widespread sympathies for Nazism) or by the German or foreign left (with their widespread antipathy towards it).

@29

The Whig and Tory traditions that emerged during the Restoration, and which continued up to and beyond the Glorious Revolution, were directly descended from the Parliamentarian and Royalist factions in the Civil War, so any argument that England’s representative democracy didn’t spring from Cromwell is, well, a bit moronic.

@28

“If you want to credit someone, credit Dutch King Billy, who invaded and took the throne in order to fund his war with France but had little to no interest in the domestic situation beyond “pay me money for my army”.”

But without Billy we wouldn’t have had Anne (our greatest Queen after Elizabeth I), Walpole etc. We would have been stuck with James II and it could be argued that we’d eventually ended up with the Code Napoléon instead of Common Law.

Oh, wait….

Spartacus, I think you just actually made my point. You’re right about the Whig/Tory tradition growing from the different factions of the civil war, but they didn’t really organise as parties until way after the GR, etc etc etc. Plus it was 50+ years separate, so it certainly wasnt the same people.

Also? Anyone linking to Cranmer as anything other than a joke is to be discounted. I assume you’re joking, but, y’know, just checking.

I get a little tired of this analogy with the Nazis and democratic social democractic.
There are common aims. Yes
They probably would have liked the NHS but they would also have liked the US republican idea of workfare
But Nazis had common aims with conservatives.
I have read on this post that Hitler was a vegetarian, which he wasn’t (he just could eat little meat because of flatulence). Ergo all vegetarians are Nazis.
It is a logical fallacy.
If you want to really understand the Nazis I recommend Lawrence Rees “the Nazis”.
The Nazis believed in everyone for themselves and the survival of fittest. Very much like the early capitalists.
In fact Ford loved Hitler because of their co belief in this type of neo Darwinism
Hitler greatly admired the fact that US whites had destroyed the savages of the west (native Americans) and loved the British empire (he was an anglophile) for the same reason.

“I have read on this post that Hitler was a vegetarian, which he wasn’t (he just could eat little meat because of flatulence). Ergo all vegetarians are Nazis.
It is a logical fallacy.”

Also ‘evolutionists’, whatever that may mean, and people who support the smoking ban.

I’m not even joking. I used to debate about the smoking ban online, because I’m really cool like that, and the more bullheaded members of the anti-ban side used to post pictures of Hitler with no-smoking signs instead of Swastikas. You can Godwin anything if you try hard enough.

Matt GB
It wasn’t the same people but it was the same ideals.
Charles 11 was not an absolute monarch, his father was. The Civil war changed the idea of absolute monarchy in this country.
The funny thing is that the French revolution and English civil wars were bourgeois revolutions of the trading classes not working class revolutions. The participants would have been by abhorred by current lefties.

Except of course for the Diggers and the Levellers and the more radical elements of the NMA and and and…

Who is this Charles Eleventh you keep writing of? Are you in fact referring to Charles II? It’s double ‘i’. You can write 2nd if you prefer arabic numerals y’know.

Regardless, CII did rule for some time in without PArlt in the same way as his father (despite promising not to) and it was JIIs attempt to do similar that stoked the support for William to invade.

However…

Much as I enjoy the chance to discuss the only time in the history of this country my home town has done anything significant, if you count ‘helping a foreigner get off a boat’ as significant, it’s not exactly in any way relevant is it?

The mainstream of the Parliamentary forces may’ve become the Whigs, who may’ve morphed eventually into the Liberals, who may then have split and a massive chunk of them may’ve ended up in the Conservative party because they couldn’t stand the idea of a Labour govt, but there were a lot of Radicals at the time and later who would look at modern Labour and proclaim them to be a bunch of right-leaning sellouts.

Except of course for the Diggers and the Levellers and the more radical elements of the NMA and and and…
You will find the Levellers would have been perfect Thatcherites and the Diggers were destroyed by the Parliamentarians. As for the radical elements of the NMA more religious than political.

Who is this Charles Eleventh you keep writing of? Are you in fact referring to Charles II? It’s double ‘i’. You can write 2nd if you prefer arabic numerals y’know.
Now that is a little uncalled for eh Matt

Regardless, CII did rule for some time in without PArlt in the same way as his father (despite promising not to) and it was JIIs attempt to do similar that stoked the support for William to invade.
Charles the second was not an absolute monarch in the same way as his father.
He openly distanced, although probably not privately, himself from the divine right of kings, one of the mandates given to him in return for his restoration. Also the reason for Williams takeover was the birth of James’s catholic son to mary of modena, Hence the danger of a Catholic administration.
Much as I enjoy the chance to discuss the only time in the history of this country my home town has done anything significant, if you count ‘helping a foreigner get off a boat’ as significant, it’s not exactly in any way relevant is it?

The mainstream of the Parliamentary forces may’ve become the Whigs, who may’ve morphed eventually into the Liberals, who may then have split and a massive chunk of them may’ve ended up in the Conservative party because they couldn’t stand the idea of a Labour govt, but there were a lot of Radicals at the time and later who would look at modern Labour and proclaim them to be a bunch of right-leaning sellouts.
A little like the current lib dems

Matt, it probably won’t come as any surprise to you that I happen to be a bit of a Cranmer fan (sadly he’s not been active of late, which is a shame), although I don’t share his superstitions. I can find plenty of other links if that one offends you.

Are you suggesting that Common Law still has supremacy in England? I can introduce you to a lot of Euro Federalists who would disagree with you.

Well if you can find some “Euro federalists” who believe that it’s true, then either they don’t understand the way the law works in this country or they’re blithering morons, possibly both.

A law is passed at a certain level, but it can only be enforced by the English courts, whcih operate according to English legal principles. If you can point to an Act of the UK Parliament that changes that in anything other than a weird paranoid delusional fantasy, I’ll be very surprised, I’ve read all the EU treaties, and guess what, none of them change how laws are applied within the UK, merely how they are made for the UK.

Also? My name isn’t Matt, please learn to not annoy the people you’re talking to with such basic errors. Now go away you delusional little troll.

Temper temper, Matt.

Well here’s Vernon Bogdanor (though of course MatGB could be more expert) from a very interesting lecture of a few years ago:

“There is a famous case, which will be familiar to those of you who are lawyers. It is a case called the Factortame case in 1990, and that came about in the following way. Parliament had passed a Merchant Shipping Act, which restricted the fishing rights of foreigners in British territorial waters. Some Spanish fishermen said this was against the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy, and the European Court of Justice agreed with them – they said that it was against European law. But what were the British courts to do, because, you see, the European courts say the European Union is a superior legal system to the British or any other member-state legal system, and so they held that they say what is legal and what is not. What do the British courts do? Are they to follow that rule or are they to follow the rule of the sovereignty of Parliament, which says Parliament can do what it likes’ Well, the British courts did something quite revolutionary: they said they would dis-apply those portions of the Merchant Shipping Act which restricted the rights of Spanish fishermen. In doing this, they were, for the first time ever, restricting the rights of Parliament.”

It may be good, it my be bad. But UK law is subservient to EU law.

http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=875

@ watchman….’Oh, and the brownshirts were disbanded after the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 wiped out their leadership. So they never invaded Poland – the blackshirts (SS) did, but that’s a different matter. And the repeated doses of Nazi history I did at school finally pay off…’

No they weren’t….that Nazi History sounded like bollocks to me mate, they ceased to exists like many Nazi related things around about 1945, you know the end of the war. The last Chief of Staff was a Mister Wilhelm Schepman, he was thankfully made unemployed roughly at the same time the Nazi reich ended, thank de lord. Seriously I think you should pop back to those Nazi history lesson to just double check. Maybe you meant superseded not disbanded.

47 – yup, Factortame ripped great holes in English constitutional law that have never been healed. But the actual ratio of the case is a wee bit narrower – what it rules is that, in the absence of explicit wording to the contrary, where European and UK legislation are in conflict European legislation will apply. It did not rule on what would happen if there were specific wording to that effect.

It is, in any event, a classic example of something not working in theory but working in practice. We can only be in the EU if we accept that its laws take priority. On the other hand, constitutional law is explicit that this is impossible. So far, the courts have bent over backwards, and in bizarre contortions too (see, for instance, the fabulous ‘constitutional acts’ theory in Thoburn v Sunderland) to keep these two wholly incompatible facts together.

cj, on phone so brief. Whats that got to do with common law under threat? A law passed at the highest level overrides a law passed at lower level. Doesn’t change how the courts work, nor does it change fundamental principle of common law legal system. It just asserts a principle enshrined in treaty, european laws have precedence in application by court. Nowt to do with code napoleon, complete red herring.

Oh, good grief.

The Code Napoléon, MatGB, is the basis for the legal systems in France, Portugal, The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Poland (pre 1946). Its influence can also be seen in Austria and Germany.

That being the case, what do you suppose is the basis for the codified legal system in the EU, (which does have precedence over English law with regard to the European Arrest Warrant, for example)?

Yes Spartacus, and Common Law is the principle that courts can set precedent when interpreting legislation and other laws, and applies within each jurisdiction of the UK.

How other countries apply their laws within their country is up to them, England uses common law, continues to use common law, and will continue to use common law, and nothing has changed that. Where the legislation comes from has no bearing on this.

Nothing has changed the way English courts can interpret laws, all that’s changed is where some of the laws come from.

12

Errrrr, you are quite incorrect…. the leadership (in particular Ernst Rohm who Hitler feared had become too powerful) of the Brownshirts (SA or Sturm Abteilung) were wiped out, however, the SA continued to play a part in Nazi culture for some time afterwards.

What’s more, it was the German army that invaded Poland not the SS although there were some SS units involved. To be precise the invasion was planned by General Franz Ritter von Halder, chief of staff, and very much a Wehrmarkt man.

I find it really annoying when people quote history incorrectly – please try harder in future.

MatGB – a true lib dem.

Truth should not be treated so casually but you are a lib dem. How could I blame you when Nick Clegg is so casual with the truth?

And then that other big lie about new politics – MatGB – PARLIAMENT IS SUPREME and Ecofin very recently tried to usurp that supremacy – thanks to Cameron and Osborne it did not happen.

So stop spreading half truths in some areas – the fundamental basis of our democracy is that one parliament can reverse the decision of a previous parliament – some of the treaties we have signed up to including the fucked up Lisbon treaty which your party and Labour reneged on a promise to hold a referendum by saying its not the constitution – this parliament cannot change.

But reneging promises and treating truth casually is becoming a Lib Dem thing init.

Sad – what happened to the likes of Charles Kennedy, Lord Ashdown and even David Laws – what do we have Clegg, Huhne, and Hughes – what the fuck?
***************************************************

For once Hannan is spot on – Sarkozy’s comments about Roma people after a riot were vile. He was playing the race card and used very vile language to the extent one French Human rights group threatened to take him to court for inciting racist hatred.

Lets see if any French citizen actually gets stripped of their citizenship.
I bet it doesn’t happen.

Perhaps it would be better to call Sarkozy something else other than a fascist.
He’s certainly not liberal in the way that liberals usually are.

A ”muscular” something would be better maybe.
Muscular conservative?

“A ”muscular” something would be better maybe.
Muscular conservative?”
Like Arnie

What a nob!!

Who voted for this fool?

”Like Arnie”

Yeah maybe. It’s about as accurate as ‘fascist’ I think.