Would you vote for a pollitical party that...

[JeroenS]

Would you vote for a pollitical party that...

...has in it's plans to break up a country (and go on with several independent regions/republics) OR has plans to step out of international organizations?

Question comes to mind because here in the Netherlands we will have elections next wednesday and some of the politicians are strongly against the European Union and want the Netherlands to cancel our membership to the EU (I am in favor of that...).

Next, in Belgium they will have elections next sunday and the N-VA of Mr. Bart de Wever will probably be the biggest winner in Flanders, part of his program is to cut Belgium in 2 pieces (Flanders-that will become a republic and the Wallons can decide what they want to be -a republic/monarchy or join with France)

Two other Flemish pollitical parties (Vlaams Belang and Lijst de Decker) have same idea...

My question is now, if you can vote would you vote for your countrt stay in 1 piece or vote for "repairing" some of histories mistakes?

 

[smallsleepyrascalcat]

I would not vote for a party that wants my state to leave the Federation. After 54 years being a part of Germany, my state could not survive on it's own.
Back in the 50s there was a referendum about being autonomic under european control (we would be Brussels if the Sarrois agreed) or being runified with Germany. The Sarrois refusing the European Status of the Saarland was the beginning of the end.
Today, there's only one party that wants to split Germany. A Bavarian party that wants the Bavarian independency... how ridiculous... though it would be nice to have them out of Germany

 

[ritsuka]

I would vote to leave the EU, if I lived in a European country. As for Belgium, I don't know myself, but it seems rather wrong in my opinion for a wealthy region to split off into it's own country, leaving the poor (french speaking) region to drown. As for here in the US, I would vote to secede and/or split up. I think imperial conquests like Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico should be their own independent nations again, and mainland US would be better broken up, with the entire military/security apparatus dismantled completely, and the UN reformed to be one-vote-per-nation with no security council. I would vote for that...

 

[set123]

Well since I voed for the Scottish National Party last election(they want an independent Scotland) yes I would.

 

[XMan101]

I wouldn't vote for any break up, it's a backwards step.

Although tempting to do so I don't think I'd even vote to leave the EU (at the moment) but I would prefer slightly less integration. At least we had a sensible government ( ) well they didn't really have much choice actually) and we kept our currency. I suspect if anything splits the EU it'll be a currency issue.
I would vote for the removal of the Commission and create a full democratic parliament without them, remove the appointed undemocratic chamber! That is my big gripe against the EU , total lack of accountability and nobody able to pick them up on the complete waste of money and exhorbitant payouts!

 

[smallsleepyrascalcat]

I would vote to leave the EU, if I lived in a European country. As for Belgium, I don't know myself, but it seems rather wrong in my opinion for a wealthy region to split off into it's own country, leaving the poor (french speaking) region to drown. As for here in the US, I would vote to secede and/or split up. I think imperial conquests like Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico should be their own independent nations again, and mainland US would be better broken up, with the entire military/security apparatus dismantled completely, and the UN reformed to be one-vote-per-nation with no security council. I would vote for that...

Puerto Rico is a bad example. As far as I know they had a referendum some years ago and the people of Puerto Rico voted to stay in the USA.... though I don't understand why they didn't want to become the 51st state ^^

 

[JeroenS]

I wouldn't vote for any break up, it's a backwards step.

Although tempting to do so I don't think I'd even vote to leave the EU (at the moment) but I would prefer slightly less integration. At least we had a sensible government ( well they didn't really have much choice actually) and we kept our currency. I suspect if anything splits the EU it'll be a currency issue.
I would vote for the removal of the Commission and create a full democratic parliament without them, remove the appointed undemocratic chamber! That is my big gripe against the EU , total lack of accountability and nobody able to pick them up on the complete waste of money and exhorbitant payouts!

Sometimes a break up can lead to positive things (just look at Czech Republic and Slovakia, they are both better off as independent countries), not to mention the Baltic States

The Euro is one of the 3 biggest problems in the EU (in my oppinion) we "lost" our "strong currency" (Dutch Guilder) and what did we get in return???

Then second the European parlement/European Comitee is NOT democratic at all, the European Comitee is appointed by the different countries WITHOUT elections being helt, yet they decide what is "best for the EU", the european parlement has such limited power, it is a disgrace

And third, in terms of abosolute numbers Germany pays the most to the EU, yet the Netherlands pay most per citizen and as a "thank you" we are now controlled by some "garlic republics" :-(

Please do not get me wrong I am willing to help other European countries but if they not keep their part of the deal and just spend soend spend and give the bill to us I say "thanks but we must step out...".

 

[Tjerk12]

I can understand that people have reservations to big "pacts". But we also should keep one thought in mind: the EU is the continuation of the "kolen en staalgemeenschap". It was established pretty soon after world war II, with the intention that the European people should live in peace, not make war. When they live in a community war is less likely. That goal is achieved, thank God. I think it is worth the money we pay. On the other hand we should think about the goal of any government. Nowadays they have the habit to interfere with everything. That makes organisations extremely large, generates high costs and is in the end a limitation of the individual freedom. But, despise that nasty aspect, I prefer larger conglomerates, even to the level of a World government related to a real worldwide declaration of human rights.

 

[ritsuka]

Puerto Rico is a bad example. As far as I know they had a referendum some years ago and the people of Puerto Rico voted to stay in the USA.... though I don't understand why they didn't want to become the 51st state ^^

No, not quite--there has yet to be a real, official vote on what the Puerto Ricans want. Puerto Rico's current status is colonial, outside of international law; there is a current bill in congress which would allow them to vote on either independence, statehood, or free association. I can certainly understand why they wouldn't want to be ruled over by mainland US politics and culture which has nothing to do with their history and way of life, and would only erode their ability to go a different way than the crashing US has.

 

[JeroenS]

I can understand that people have reservations to big "pacts". But we also should keep one thought in mind: the EU is the continuation of the "kolen en staalgemeenschap". It was established pretty soon after world war II, with the intention that the European people should live in peace, not make war.

Hi Tjerk and all members, yes that is right the EU is continuation of the "Kolen and Staalgemeenschap" for non Dutch/Flemish speaking members it was a pact between 6 European countries to stabilize prices of (black and brown) COAL and STEEL, but (and that is what you forgot to mention) the "Kolen and Staalgemeenschap" was a continuation of the BeNeLux (a small pact of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg) which was formed when these 3 countries were occupied by Nazi Germany in 1943 to improve the "delivery of goods" to Nazi Germany, and to "stabilize prices" for these 3 occupied countries when they trated goods among them.

But after WW2 all 3 countries are still in this pact and it has indeed been prosperous for all 3 countries.

Anyway the Dutch elections are over and it has left the country in great problems, unlike in the USA we need at least 2 parties to form a government, with the results of last wednesdays elections it seems the Netherlands made a "right-turn" (the right-side parties have won more then the left-side parties)
so it will be extremelly complicated to form a government, especially if we see the biggest winner was the PVV, a Neo Nazi party (lead by Mr. Wilders) but (thank God) he did not become the biggest party in the House of Parlement.

It will be a long (political) summer in the Netherlands, hope things in Belgium after their elections will be easier

 

[Tjerk12]

Integritas (I suppose that is Latin for integrety) this time I must defend Jeroen against you. You can be a Nazi without killing people. In Germany there were millions of Nazi's, but not millions who killed people. There were even nazi soldiers who refused to kill people and got shot for that. Hitler was a Nazi before he was able to murder people.
I don't think that the PVV, the political Pary of mister Wilders, is a Nazi party. The main reason is that it is a party without visible principles. Normally you have a party who stands for principles. They represent the working people; a religion or even the interests of very rich people. Whatever. Mister Wilders is only against things, mainly against the Muslim people. He sees them as a threat for our society. Fear is his principle. His main argument is that Muslims will destroy our society who is based on Christian traditions. But our society found his roots not in Christianity. That is only since pope Leo brought Christianity to northern Europe (a bit more than 1000 years ago). Before that the religion in our region was for thousands and thousands of years completely different.
The name PVV means party for freedom. His freedom means that we all have to think the way he thinks. Even when all my fellow Dutchmen vote for him, there will still be one Dutchman who doesn't. And that's me.

 

[BugsyB]

yes

it was a simple question babes hahahahaha

 

[XMan101]

The name PVV means party for freedom. His freedom means that we all have to think the way he thinks.

That was my exact view of him too. He wants anything but freedom. If he got his way with this who is his next scapegoat??

It's very easy to play on people's inner prejudices, we all have them to a certain extent, but reasoned thought usually moderates them in most. The objectional minority is often held up as being the norm for a whole society - which it isn't! This is why the more exposure our BNP get the less credible they become

 

[Tjerk12]

I will give you some examples. Modern society is characterized by a variety of different races and believes. People travel all over the world and establish them all over the world. The Dutch did so since about 1600. Wherever they went they brought Dutch culture. Even in Manhattan you still have Dutch names for streets. Look to South Africa. Even the language sounds Dutch. For me there is noting wrong with that. But nowadays we get in The Netherlands a lot people from abroad. Refugees, and also people who just search for a better future (we name them “economic refugees”). When it comes to Mr. Wilders they are forbidden to bring their own culture. They should behave like Dutch people, speak like Dutch people and clothe like Dutch people (so no headscarves, no burke’s, no Mosques, no foreign language in public). All because of our so called Christian history, and culture.
The most of them have two passports. It gives them a feeling of freedom and safety. They can go back to their roots, return to their own country, when there is a possibility, or when they are old. Wilder will force them to choose, or a Dutch passport, or their own. But then they have to leave The Netherlands.
The Netherlands used to be a nice free country. Open minded and hospitable for foreigners. I am afraid that comes to an end. I would feel ashamed of that.

 

[Tjerk12]

Dear IntegrasO. It's clear you read a lot about these matters. And good stuff too. I have to read your text lines with a little bit more attention, because my English is not that good. It is important that every brain-step is correct to "keep on the road". But one reaction I can give you now. Of course immigration has a great economic impact. And certainly under the latest economic crisis cirstances it is balancing on the tightrope for many governments. Left or right must limit immigration. But I was talking about people who live for many many years in The Netherlands. They have children who were born in The Netherlands and are now 14 to 18 years old. It is not proper to treat them suddenly as strangers. Many of them have the Dutch nationality. But he still wants to throw them out of the country when they don't want to give up their second passport and nationality.
But you are right on the point that this is not only a problem in The Netherlands. But we have a history in this problem. We could know better. After WWII we had in The Netherlands a problem with the "Molukkers". Indonesian people who had chosen the Dutch side in the conflict with Indonesia. They had to flee from their homeland to The Netherlands. We offered them money to go back. Some did. Do you have any idea what such means to children who were born in The Netherlands. Lived there all their life. Had their roots in The Netherlands. During a difficult and vulnerable period in their life they were suddenly cut of of everything they loved and felt safe with.
Life is insecure. Misery can happen (the flood in Arkansas). But we should not organize it.
This as a first answer. Your words are so interesting that I will try to understand them properly. So when this evening comes to an end and the household here is quiet I will take a bottle of beer and study your words properly.
Thanks for your reaction.

 

[Tjerk12]

Hi Integ.
I know this debate. I watched it on television. Bolkestein is one of our so called intellectuals. He was a former member of the direction of Shell. I like the way Noam debates and his vision. Is he still alive? I would be interested how he thinks about the recent problems with Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. He is a Jew, isn't it? A great man.

 

[XMan101]

Damn the philosophy, I just want one one of those omelettes

 

[BugsyB]

don't dam philosophy X babe but lets ask it in a new thread.....hmm think ill post something

 

[JeroenS]

Tjerk thanks for your wise words


For me a party that EXCLUDES a group in society and want to take away their basic rights (like freedom of religion or freedom, freedom to build their own schools, freedom to buld their own places of worship etc. and freedom to whom they want to marry), a party that wants to put a TAX for women who wear traditional muslim clothes, a party that wants to send people back to the land to where their fathers/grandfathers/great-grandfathers came from if they have some (minor) problmes with the police because they still have 2 passports (note for Morocans -and that is the group Wilders talks about- it is impossible to give up their nationality even i7 they are 7th generation living outside Morocco) can be called NeoNazi (even if they do not built gas-chambers...).

Anyway now they try to form a new government, it will be hard since, and that is when I say maybe the word Neo nazi was not right choosen, the economic ideas of Wilders are socialist, the left wing (socialist/communist) parties NOT want to form a government with him, the right wing parties have doubts about his "left wing" economic plans...

It will be a long formation of a new government...

As for Belgium the NVA has won in Flanders and has become the biggest party in Belgium, so now wait and see what wil happen there