I love the way that the idea of parties getting fair treatment regardless of their politics is a “concern” for you and Hope Not Hate.

But yeah, they’ve lost the moral high-ground and allowed their enemies to honestly present themselves as the victim while they’re at it. Well played.

Pretty amusing. You’re free to vote, but what you can vote for is not quite so free.

Respect for “the rule of law” is going to screw a lot of far-left groups who prefer direct action to dialogue as well.

said EU funding only be given where parties observed the values of the European Union: “namely respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities”.

Fairly reasonable set of demands really. Course given the EU’s recent spate of appointing it’s own autocrats in place of democratically elected leaders, Maroš Šefcovic might be fibbing a bit about those observed values.

Does a country that participated in 2 illegal wars pass the new EU test?

Why does the EU give parties funding at all?

And this is my tax being given to parties that I do not belong to nor support.

Gee, that’s democratic!

” including the rights of persons belonging to minorities”

I’m sure the cunning strategists at BNP will be able to dodge this. Indigenous Brits are a minority themselves, when looked at on a bigger scale.

@ 7 wg

“And this is my tax being given to parties that I do not belong to nor support.

Gee, that’s democratic!”

Actually, it can be pretty democratic. Democracy isn’t defined by everyone spending their tax how they want to.

Of course, when the EU decides that the tax money only goes to parties it likes, that’s when it becomes the opposite of democratic.

Entirely disgusting.

The BNP obviously, but also this monstrous decision. When you’ve got tax funding of political parties you cannot go around insisting that only political parties that “think the right way” can get that tax money.

That becomes a dictatorship of those deciding on what that “thinking the right way” is.

But the fact that vast numbers of people will support this outrage is entirely and precisely why we should not have tax funding of political parties domestically in the UK.

Will far-left parties who idolise murders like Leon Trotsky and want to discriminate against class minorities (the bourgeoisie) also have their funding cut?

@11 Richard,

No.

If you believe in democracy, you have to accept that non-democrats are playing the system. It is against your gut instinct but it reinforces liberty, by granting small things to people who wish to deny you everything.

Apparently, they do not conform to “the values of the European Union”. I fail to see why not. These and other deeply unsavoury people have been legislating for us ever since we went into the wretched thing, both in the European Parliament or in the predecessor European Assembly, and in the coalitions represented in the Council of Ministers.

Those coalitions might nominally be single parties: off to Brussels in the Thatcher and, to a lesser extent, Major years trooped Ministers who were members of the Western Goals Institute or the Monday Club, with their crossover, via things like the League of Saint George, to overt neo-Nazism on the Continent, to the Ku Klux Klan, to apartheid South Africa, to Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, to the juntas of Latin America, to Marcos and Suharto, to the Duvaliers, and so forth. For that matter, the Cabinet Minister who took us in under Heath, Geoffrey Rippon, was a Monday Club stalwart. “Europe a Nation” was Mosley’s slogan, and the whole idea’s affinity with Fascism could not be more obvious.

It needs to be brought home to our people, among others, to whose legislative will we are now subject. Let there be a European Senate to which each of the Europarties, currently 11 in number including this one, would nominate one Senator from each member-state at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament. That would give a total of 297, or 308 once Croatia has had the bad taste to join up.

Just imagine if at least the more politically aware people in this country were confronted with the figure of David Irving, or of someone who held equally noxious views about the gulags, the Holodomor and the Cultural Revolution. Imagine those potted newspaper profiles of our 11 new European Senators. Hell, why not make them all members of the House of Commons, and allow each of the Eurofoundations to nominate a Crossbench Peer? No, probably better not to, home though that would certainly bring the point. Their numbers might turn out to be just enough to stop anything from being done about it.

The European Senate would have the power to propose amendments which the European Parliament would then be obliged to consider, and before the final text went on to the Council of Ministers the Senate would have the power to require unanimity there rather than Qualified Majority Voting. On that second point, it might even do some good.

And why not give the EU some Lords Spiritual? Let each member-state nominate two permanent offices the occupants of which would always be European Senators, one representing the country’s religious and spiritual sources of moral sense and cultural identity, and the other representing the country’s secular and humanist sources of moral sense and cultural identity. All very Blessed John Paul the Great. The former offices would be far easier to identify, but they could both be done, especially in academia: the Professor of Moral Philosophy at the ancient seat of learning, that sort of thing. In either case, which office it was could not be changed without the consent of all of the office-holders in the same category.

At present, there would be 15 Catholic hierarchs (16 with Croatia), six Lutheran ones of considerable diversity, four Orthodox, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and someone Dutch Reformed, again most obviously drawn from the ranks of senior academia rather than from among those who changed every year. There would be those who would argue that the Catholic Church ought these days to have the British, Dutch or German place, but that would only antagonise those whose support we needed. Dispensation from the canonical bar on Catholic clergy sitting as civil legislators would not be difficult to obtain, least of all from a Bavarian Pope.

And let each of the Europarties nominate a further two such Senators, at the same time as its other appointees on whom see above, one representing the secular and humanist basis of its philosophy, policies and support, and the other representing the religious and spiritual basis of its philosophy, policies and support. Quite an eye-opener. Not least in view of quite how many of those figures might very well be British. And not least in view of quite who those Britons would be.

It’s a bugbear of mine that any political parties get public funding.
In the era of the practically free, unlimited, up to the minute online, information, the argument that to get your message across is a nonsense.

^ meant to say ‘the argument that you need money to get your argument across is a nonsense’

Priceless, unelected bureaucrats change the rules for elected representatives. The left are being played like amateurs with the victims being their kids who won’t ever get decent jobs, will be taxed to buggery, live in shitholes in sink estates unable to afford heating or decent food because there is no ladder of social mobility anymore. When even Yasmin Alibiya Brown states that social cohesion has failed and the EU hierarchy with their federalist pocket lining actively prevent and exclude dissent, well, tough shit I guess.

I don’t support the BNP for a second but you gotta ask yourself, if the voters are wrong, if their MEPs are wrong and if some failed suit decides all this then isn’t that just fascism with a bit of expensive voting thrown in for entertainment. Be careful for you wish for coz you just may get it.

@12 Presumably because they currently receive none already.

@ 10 Tim W

“But the fact that vast numbers of people will support this outrage is entirely and precisely why we should not have tax funding of political parties domestically in the UK.”

That’s a bit of a leap. I’m cautiously in favour of tax funding for political parties. But I’d want it to be contingent on something like the last election’s voting numbers. Certainly, if it’s only awarded to “acceptable” parties, it does more harm than good.

who funds hope not hate?
why are they constantly on the bnp’s back?
we are not stupid the more shadowy organisations like hope not hate try to remove the choice of voting for bnp the stronger their vote gets.

So this is the EU deciding that it will use our money to only fund groups that support its values. So no political bias being put into place there then?

I think it’s OK that the BNP are having their funding cut. But this Hope not Hate group are a bit annoying I find. As they were mentioned so much in the OP, perhaps LC might discuss them and this kind of campaigning ”anti-fascism” one time.

A bit of an elephant in the room when it comes to discussing the BNP, are public polls like this:

‘There ARE too many immigrants in the UK’, say seven in 10 Britons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022432/There-ARE-immigrants-UK-say-seven-10-Britons.html

@ 22 damon

“A bit of an elephant in the room when it comes to discussing the BNP, are public polls like this”

Why is that an elephant in the room? We know that people are generally anti-immigration. But they still don’t vote for the BNP. Possibly because they’re not racist morons.

It’s entirely possible to condemn the BNP while facing up to the fact that immigration isn’t popular.

There’s something that doesn’t quite add up about that view I think Chaise. As I have found out in the past, anti-racists don’t like to take that as a starting point for any discussion about immigration.
As it could lead to the ”simplistic” kinds of arguments you might get on a late night TalkSport radio phone in.
The kind that might say: ”well if it’s unpopular with the British people, how come there has been so much of it …. particularly in the last fifteen years?”

I have found that what happens then is there’s some: ”yeah, but no, but yeah, but no” carry-on, or the person gets denounced as a racist.

And isn’t it good that the BNP we’ve had have been such idiots and goons? The anti-racist left have made it so that’s the only kind of people who will be attracted to join a party that takes an anti-immigration stance. You’d get denounced as a fascist, even if the group was quite mild mannered and non-fascist.

Even though the BNP once got nearly a million votes in the Euro elections, I have long felt that too much was made of them also (just like the EDL) …. because of a failing of left and liberal politics. Them being bereft of an alternative way of dealing with far right grouplets like those. But I have found out (really, after nearly two decades) that silly anti-fascism is a cornerstone of the left and they really don’t know of another way. Having OPEN wide-ranging debate would be just too ”dangerous” – so they have to stick with the ”lowest common denominator” that is most easily understood. The anti-racism that tries to make racists seem like WW2 German Nazis, as us plucky Brits were solidly against them during the war. So it’s an easy hook to rest your position on.
”Do you support Nazis?” you can demand.
What could any decent person say?

@ 24 damon

“There’s something that doesn’t quite add up about that view I think Chaise.”

In what way? Hating people for their skin colour is not the same as being concerned about immigration. It just isn’t.

“As I have found out in the past, anti-racists don’t like to take that as a starting point for any discussion about immigration.”

You’re over-generalising. Yes, some people don’t like to surrender their straw-man attacks. Doesn’t apply to everyone.

“I have found that what happens then is there’s some: ”yeah, but no, but yeah, but no” carry-on, or the person gets denounced as a racist.”

Surprises me, as they could simply point out that we have an open-borders policy within the EU.

“And isn’t it good that the BNP we’ve had have been such idiots and goons? The anti-racist left have made it so that’s the only kind of people who will be attracted to join a party that takes an anti-immigration stance.”

I think the racist right have made it so that only that kind of people will join such a party. People understandably don’t want to associate with them. Unfortunately, this has a chilling effect on debate. But it’s not the anti-racists’ fault. What do you want us to do, turn a blind eye to racism? Start a campaign about how the BNP are lovely to make up for the party’s failings?

“You’d get denounced as a fascist, even if the group was quite mild mannered and non-fascist.”

Pff. I get denounced as a Marxist all the time. There’s always someone who’ll demonise you. In fact, you’re about to do it right now…

“But I have found out (really, after nearly two decades) that silly anti-fascism is a cornerstone of the left and they really don’t know of another way. Having OPEN wide-ranging debate would be just too ”dangerous” – so they have to stick with the ”lowest common denominator” that is most easily understood.”

I have noticed that lazy, brush-tarring attacks are a cornerstone of Damon and that he really doesn’t know of another way. Addressing people’s actual issues would just be too “dangerous” – so he has to stick with blaming the group for the actions of its stupider members.

Hmm?

“The anti-racism that tries to make racists seem like WW2 German Nazis, as us plucky Brits were solidly against them during the war. So it’s an easy hook to rest your position on.
”Do you support Nazis?” you can demand.
What could any decent person say?”

You could say “no, and that’s a ridiculous ad hominem”.

@FlipC #21:

So this is the EU deciding that it will use our money to only fund groups that support its values. So no political bias being put into place there then?

Do you really have a problem with these values:

respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities

Are they really politically controversial as the pretty minimal basis for a democratic system? Even the BNP would claim to accept them.

@ 26 Robin Levett

“Do you really have a problem with these values?”

I like those values.

However, I DO have a problem with the expression of values being silenced just because I, or anyone else, disagrees with them. Only giving funding to “acceptable” parties is a subtle version of that.

@Chaise #27:

I’m not defending the EU decision; I’m warning FlipC to be careful with that knee, he might hurt himself.

The decision is due to overzealous concern for democracy, not some kind of conspiracy to establish a supranational EU government.

I do though disagree that refusing to fund those who hold certain ideas is equivalent to attempting to censor the expression of those ideas. The entitlement is to express the ideas; it is not to have a platform or an audience.

I can see (but not necessarily agree with) an argument that to get extra benefits from a democratic club one can be required to sign up to the rules of the club; and that a democratic institution is entitled to refuse to fund those who would use the funds overtly to seek to turn it undemocratic. The dangers come in making those rules too broad; and allowing other political organisations to go behind the express declaration of the parties taking the funding that they observe the rules.

But the BNP would claim to subscribe to the values set out, so the point becomes moot.

@ 28 Robin Levett

“The decision is due to overzealous concern for democracy, not some kind of conspiracy to establish a supranational EU government.”

FlipC didn’t say anything about the latter. He/she said, quite correctly, that the EU is trying to push its values through its funding system.

“I do though disagree that refusing to fund those who hold certain ideas is equivalent to attempting to censor the expression of those ideas. The entitlement is to express the ideas; it is not to have a platform or an audience.”

Agreed, and when I said it was a “subtle version” I knew that wasn’t le mot juste. Rather that there are certain things that should be apolitical, and in some cases, when these things are not apolitical, this damages free speech.

Now, it doesn’t directly breach free expression. You’re right there. But it has a chilling effect. If you support a party that falls foul of the guidelines, you face one of two things. 1) Your party will be weakened in relation to on-message competitors, or 2) Your party will decide to change its message – essentially eliminating your representation – to fit the guidelines.

“I can see (but not necessarily agree with) an argument that to get extra benefits from a democratic club one can be required to sign up to the rules of the club; and that a democratic institution is entitled to refuse to fund those who would use the funds overtly to seek to turn it undemocratic.”

You’d have to stop referring to it as “democratic” though.

“The dangers come in making those rules too broad; and allowing other political organisations to go behind the express declaration of the parties taking the funding that they observe the rules.”

Surely, if anything, the problem is when the rules are too narrow? Imagine a mostly democratic state that happens to have a constitutional monarch. That state conflates the monarch with the people and monarchism with loyalty, so it decides that political representatives must swear fealty to the monarch to participate in parliament. As a result, republican representatives have to either lie or lose their votes. How reasonable is this to the representatives, their electors, and republicanism in general?

@Chaise #29:

FlipC didn’t say anything about the latter. He/she said, quite correctly, that the EU is trying to push its values through its funding system.

The values are not “EU” values; they are democratic values which we all as democrats share. Labelling them “EU” values suggests that there is something about them that is specifically “EU”; and that advancing them advances a specifically “EU” agenda.

As for the rest, I’m not sure if I’m playing devil’s advocate here, or whether I do accept the arguments as valid. I don’t think that this is as open and shut a case as people seem to think.

If you support a party that falls foul of the guidelines, you face one of two things. 1) Your party will be weakened in relation to on-message competitors, or 2) Your party will decide to change its message – essentially eliminating your representation – to fit the guidelines.

But while the guidelines are restricted to acceptance of broadly held democratic values, a party that explicitly opposes them seeks to weaken democracy. If you oppose democracy, it is difficult to see how you can consistently argue that you are being denied your “democratic” right to (in the ultimate) destroy democracy.

Surely, if anything, the problem is when the rules are too narrow?

We’re actually saying the same thing. When I talked about the rules being overbroad, I was referring to the areas they cover. There is a narrow minimum of values that could be said to be the irreducible core of democracy; making rules that go beyond those values would be improperly broadening (the reach of) those rules.

@29 Chaise – Thank you. I have to admit to being surprised that anyone would argue that having a democratic taxpayer-funded organisation limit its funding to only those who agree with it wasn’t a potential flaw.

Consider that the values the EU uphold are determined by the EU itself; with only those members who uphold said values receiving funding and being more likely to be elected. We would no longer have a democratic sounding board, but an echo chamber.

@ Robin

“The values are not “EU” values; they are democratic values which we all as democrats share.”

No they’re not. It’s quite possible to believe in democracy but not equality, for example. You’re playing No True Scotsman, I think.

“As for the rest, I’m not sure if I’m playing devil’s advocate here, or whether I do accept the arguments as valid. I don’t think that this is as open and shut a case as people seem to think.”

I’ve yet to hear any justification for the move. You’ve said that it’s because the parties in question are in themselves anti-democratic, but they’re not. Or the BNP isn’t, at least. It’s because they have unpleasant views and therefore have been deemed to have less democratic right than you or I.

“But while the guidelines are restricted to acceptance of broadly held democratic values, a party that explicitly opposes them seeks to weaken democracy.”

Based, it seems, on your personal agreement with the EU’s values. Again, you’re conflating “democracy” with your own political preferences.

“We’re actually saying the same thing. When I talked about the rules being overbroad, I was referring to the areas they cover. There is a narrow minimum of values that could be said to be the irreducible core of democracy; making rules that go beyond those values would be improperly broadening (the reach of) those rules.”

Oh, ok. With you.

@FlipC #31:

Thank you for making my point so concisely.

Which of the values referred to in the OP do you consider not to be core democratic values; and which are specific to the EU institutions?

To put it another way: which of the values do you not hold? and which do you believe are not shared by all those in favour of democracy?

@33 Robin – As Chaise said you’re still not getting the point that this is supposedly a democratic institute determining for itself what values it itself wants to hold and giving only those members who agree with those values a better chance of joining it.

Personally I have no problems with any of the values listed as they currently stand however if one were added that I didn’t agree with then by definition I would not receive any funding from the EU which would put me at a disadvantage to join and try have it removed.

Equate that to “democratic”.

@ FlipC and Robin

I have a feeling here that FlipC and myself are defining “democracy” as something like “government by the people”, and Robin is defining it as something like “government by the people, plus dedication to human rights, equality etc.” If so, we’re at cross-purposes.

@Chaise #35:

Precisely right; I am defining democracy as, I suppose, constitutional democracy as she is uncontroversially practised in the West.

#33:

No they’re not. It’s quite possible to believe in democracy but not equality, for example.

It’s possible to believe in many more inconsistent things than that; that doesn’t make them consistent. Western political thought has agreed, generally, that equality before the law is necessary for true democracy; or, to put it differently, the fact that someone has a vote is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the existence of a true democracy. Defining democracy by its etymology, as you appear to do, ignores much of what is of value in a democracy.

I’ve yet to hear any justification for the move. You’ve said that it’s because the parties in question are in themselves anti-democratic, but they’re not. Or the BNP isn’t, at least. It’s because they have unpleasant views and therefore have been deemed to have less democratic right than you or I.

I’ve actually said that I believe that the BNP would say that it qualifies under these rules; which rather cuts the ground from under your view that:

Again, you’re conflating “democracy” with your own political preferences.

I really don’t think that I am exaggerating when I say that these values are pretty universally held within Western democracies. FlipC, even while still claiming that the values are something special to the EU, still agrees that he subscribes to them.

@FlipC #34:

Personally I have no problems with any of the values listed as they currently stand however if one were added that I didn’t agree with then by definition I would not receive any funding from the EU which would put me at a disadvantage to join and try have it removed.

And at that point I would stand with you; read my dialogue with Chaise about the breadth/narrowness of the guidelines.

@ 36 Robin Levett

“Defining democracy by its etymology, as you appear to do, ignores much of what is of value in a democracy.”

I define it by how it normally seems to be used. Note that the EU appears to agree with me and FlipC; if its concept of “democracy” included equality and human rights, then its list of “human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights” would be redundant.

Now, I’ve no interest in a “my definition’s better than yours” game. I just want to make it clear that I’m not being a smartarse, and nor am I one of those amateur linguists who think that the oldest definition wins. I’m just using it the way it’s generally used around me. By the same token, I’m not “ignoring much of value”, just using slightly different labels to you. I value equality just as much regardless of what I call it.

I think it’s important to distinguish between government by the people and modern Western values like equality. Mainly because they can exist in the absence of each other (although they do correlate), and sometimes contradict each other. In this debate, the two values are at odds: a party wants equal rights under the gov-by-people system, but is against race equality.

Regardless of what words we use, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that egalitarianism and government by the people are different concepts.