Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Signs of fascism in the UK
#1
Signs of fascism in the UK

I am prompted to start this thread by this article on a Farage rally in the run-up to the European Parliamentary Elections.  

The "EU Politics" heading (it should probably be called "EU27 Politics" as the UK is still a member for the moment) also contains a thread on fascism called "No pasaran" (could this also be modified, to "¡No pasarán!"?). 

This question regarding the UK has been touched on a few times in several threads. Ajda often classifies the present UK administration as "Far Right" and, I believe it is fair to say, considers the UK to be fascist in many respects.

As a long-term UK resident I have great difficulty with this view.  The UK is a multi-ethnic country and by and large inter-ethnic relations seem pretty or very good and people seem tolerant of difference.  An interesting EU survey seems to bear this out, or at least did in 2015.  A few warm words have also been exchanged on the subject of Northern Ireland, the question of the recognition of language rights there, and whether the Irish nationalist population in the Six Counties is subject to fascist treatment by the British Government.  I think the UK govt's treatment of migrants has also been instanced as an example of justification for the label, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence along these lines.

At the same time I recognise that the political landscape after the Brexit vote has been becoming increasingly fraught with signs of a society in a "pre-fascist" condition (thanks to Viridian for this term.  Viridian also gave a link to an interesting of study of the "5 stages" of fascism).  I'm still far from sure the numbers are there though.

- support for far-right, such as the EDL, the target of which is essentially the Muslim population of the UK
Not sure whether there is any evidence that this is increasing, as yet.

- increasingly worrying demagoguery, with The Brexit Party, which obviously did well at the EuroParl elections
Farage may be a figure of contempt for many of a leftish or Remainer persuasion, but the article I linked at the start, where a journalist is told that he probably shouldn't reveal that he writes for The Guardian, shows how the culture of intolerance and intimidation one might expect from the Far-Right EDL can leach into other parties and become accepted behaviour.

- a mainstream political culture in chronic disarray, with the government unable to govern effectively, and the Tory Party seeing itself under a real threat from The Brexit Party
In some ways this is the most worrying aspect of all: the fragility and dysfunctionality of the (flawed) British system of democratic government have been made plain for all to see, and are creating a sort of vacuum into which the "No Deal" demagogues (Johnson + Farage) are now stepping. Stage 2 of the 5 stages of fascism is said to be when a fascist party enters mainstream politics. I think it's difficult to argue that Johnson and the Tory Party, or even Farage and TBP, are really anything like fascist as yet.  But it's getting to the point where I'm looking up what the requisite attributes of fascism are.

- an independent media still, but parts of the more mainstream media apparently terrified of being accused of partiality regarding Brexit
The media have also been wrong-footed by the "Project Fear" rhetoric which began in early 2016. Dire warnings of what would happen immediately after a Leave vote and thereafter were shown to be inaccurate.  To claim that this was a "phoney war" period, and that the real thing has yet to begin, is often met with howls of derision and claims of bias from the Brexiteers.

For my part, rather than the xenophobia associated with Brexit, I see the threat of fascism coming more from the extreme neo-liberal culture which is likely to be inflicted on the country following Brexit, especially No Deal Brexit.  Combined with the prospect of large numbers of people losing their jobs and then their homes, one wonders fearfully what form 2020s British fascism, if it comes about, may take.

What might incipient fascism look like? To quote from the article I linked at the start: "he wasn’t going to explain exactly how his no-deal Brexit was going to produce untold riches for everyone. Manifestos were only lies anyway. So all he was asking was that they believed and it would come true. And they did believe, because they were that desperate."

Then the question is: how many will become desperate, and how desperate?
Reply
#2
(08-06-19, 02:57 PM)CaroleG Wrote: What might incipient fascism look like?

Perhaps, revoking the citizenship of "awkward" people is an example:

"The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good ... if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40

A 15-year-old London girl was "persuaded" to travel to Syria to become an “ISIS bride”. She is now 19, and was discovered to be in a refugee camp with a young baby. Did the UK provide assistance to their citizen? No, they revoked her citizenship, saying the Secretary of State had "reasonable grounds for believing" that she was, or could become, Bangladeshi. Bangladesh disagrees.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48154781
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019...says-javid
Reply
#3
(08-06-19, 02:57 PM)CaroleG Wrote: I am prompted to start this thread by this article on a Farage rally in the run-up to the European Parliamentary Elections.  

That article was written on 13 May 2019 = a month ago. Have you not followed the EU election campaign in the UK?

I strongly recommend you watch the excellent report from Sky News about Farages campaign:

____________________

You just have to watch this - the next episode of the rise of fascism in the UK:


Special report: Farage - A New Populism? (15 min, 24 May 2019)  Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation  



Video URL: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvP9C7APG0

Scary. And the atmosphere is very similar to the 'meetings' (rallies) organised by Milošević during his rise to power in the late 1985s.

Excellent journalism from Sky's Lewis Goodall. He followed Farage on the campaign trail for 40 days. Well done.

_____________________

Carole, the above is a copy of my post on 25 May 2019 (on a thread which you followed):
http://debateuncensored.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=319&pid=8940#pid8940

I read the NI-GEL! article from John Crace back then in mid May when it was published (I did not find the article surprising - it is what has been going on in the UK for a long time), but I did noticed a change of tone in the comments under the article - some signs of the Brits slowly (dangerously too slowly) awakening to the reality that their country has sunk into fascism). I think that the above video report drives the message home quite dramatically. Note that MILLIONS of Brits voted for Farage.

Sadly the Brits are just watching it all. As I have said before, the really shocking thing is obedient lack of any serious protest from the Brits about what is happening to their country.
Reply
#4
(08-06-19, 02:57 PM)CaroleG Wrote: I am prompted to start this thread by this article on a Farage rally in the run-up to the European Parliamentary Elections.  

As I have pointed out on another thread, there are now slowly some articles appearing in the media drawing parallels between the current UK government (and state of the UK politics) with previous cases of the rise of fascism. Here is one today in the Guardian:

These D-day heroes evoked a glorious shared purpose. It’s now under threat (9 Jun 2019)
by Will Hutton
The anniversary events were in stark contrast to the totalitarian spirit again polluting politics, this time across our own land...
Incredibly, there are even British rightwing politicians using exactly the same language as Hitler and Mussolini. For both dictators, the popular will, expressed in referendums manipulated to produce the right result, had to override parliaments and democratic assemblies, which must be suspended or prorogued if they oppose it. Yet Tory leader hopeful Dominic Raab, deranged by the religion of Brexit, proposes just such a suspension of parliament this autumn to deliver a no-deal Brexit. It is crazed and totalitarian in its spirit, the antithesis of what the millions, including my father, fought for 75 years ago. The feebleness of the reaction – no such man should ever be entrusted with the prime ministership of Britain or even a position in its government – betokens how far we have sunk.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...der-threat

Carole, you have been serially writing comments for a long time in response to my posts in which I pointed out signs of fascism in the UK. No matter how much evidence I presented (including opinions and warnings expressed by other people), you just kept finding excuses for the fascist (or proto-fascist or pre-fascist or whatever you want to call it; it is all just whitewashing a very dark phenomenon) behaviour and attitudes in the UK while serially attacking me for being anti-British. Well, if anything, than I am certainly not pro-fascist but rather strongly anti-fascist.

As I told you before, I find it my democratic duty to call fascism fascism whenever I see it starts raising its ugly head. Being aware of the black beast before it grows too strong and spins out of control is the ONLY way to stop one's country sinking into a disaster. History teaches us that the nations which allowed the rise of fascism to power end up destroying themselves (mostly in rather catastrophic ways).

At the time of the Brexit referendum in June 2016, the only really major victory of fascism in Europe was the Leave vote in the UK. Which is why rather many continental European retro-nationalistic far-right fascist extremists flocked around Brexit declaring it a major victory. Remember that fascist summit (of the EFN group) in Vienna right before the referendum which was all about the glory of Brexit, on 17 June 2016? It was hosted by the Austrian neo-Nazi Freedom party FPO (with Hofer who ran for the Austrian president but later hypocritically distanced himself from Brexit like the rest of fascist 'great leaders' and Strache - the one of the Ibiza scandal), with Marine Le Pen of France's National Front (sorry, I forgot - that one got renamed later into 'resembling' something in a hypocritical attempt to distance itself from previous claims) and Germany's AfD. Let me refresh you memory a little:

'France's next president' calls for Brexit in Vienna (18 June 2016)
HC Strache, Marine Le Pen, Harald Vilimsky and guests from the European Parliament. Photo: FPÖ
The beer flowed and the oompah music boomed in Vienna on Friday as France's Marine Le Pen, boosted by the prospect of a "Brexit", fired up a rally of European far-right "patriots" in Austria.
The elites of Europe "are scared that the United Kingdom is regaining its liberty, its freedom to trade with whom it pleases," the National Front leader [Marine Le Pen] told a flag-waving crowd of some 2,000 people.
Introduced to cheers as "France's next president", she said: "We want all the peoples of Europe to take back these liberties. The will of the people has to be respected."...
The gathering was hosted by Austria's Freedom Party (FPÖ), which almost won presidential elections in May and which is leading opinion polls ahead of the next scheduled elections in 2018.
"We don't want Europe to be a carbon copy of the United States... We want a Europe of fatherlands," FPÖ leader Heinz-Christian Strache told the beered-up, smoky meeting outside Vienna...
The rally -- called the "Patriotic Spring" -- was a gathering of the Europe for Nations and Freedom alliance, the nine-country European parliamentary bloc that Le Pen chairs.
It included Lorenzo Fontana of Italy's Northern League, Marcus Pretzell from Alternative for Germany (AfD), Gerolf Annemans from Belgium's Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) and former UK Independence Party (UKIP) member Janice Atkinson.
https://www.thelocal.fr/20160618/frances...-in-vienna

Let Britain be free, Europe's far-right parties urge (17 June 2016)
Cheered on by thousands of flag-waving Austrians, the leaders of Europe’s biggest far-right parties railed on Friday against the European Union and Islam and urged Britons to free themselves from what they called heartless EU technocrats...
“The fear-mongering of people like (Jean-Claude) Juncker and (Martin) Schulz cannot sway us,” Le Pen told a crowd of about 2,000 at the pyramid-shaped convention center, referring to the heads of the European Commission and European Parliament.
They are worried that Britain might win back its freedom,” she added, to cheers. “We want Britons to set themselves free.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brita...SKCN0Z31K7

And after Leave won:

[Image: _90081016_0afd9a63-812b-4314-98bb-beadbe55ab2c.jpg]

With Brexit, the UK became the European stronghold of fascism.

Let me also remind you what happened in the Netherlands only a few days after the Leave vote in the UK when fascist demagogues and their supporters across the EU were riding on the Brexit victory. On 28 June 2016, the Dutch parliament REJECTED the demand of Geert Wilders to hold a Nexit referendum. A vast majority of Dutch MPs had enough integrity to do it at the most politically ‘explosive’ time – days after the Leave vote in the UK when retro-nationalistic demagogues were empowered and emboldened:

'Absolutely against' a referendum on Dutch's membership in EU, says PM Mark Rutte (29 June 2016)
The Dutch House of Representatives has rejected by majority a motion by opposition leader Geert Wilders for a referendum on the country's European Union (EU) membership...
Only 14 of the total of 150 MPs supported the motion for a 'Nexit' referendum, the 12 members of Wilders anti-EU Party of Freedom PVV and two MP's who had separated themselves from the PVV.
A Dutch EU referendum would be possible with the backing of a majority of parliament or if the prime minister would issue a referendum. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has already stated that he is against a referendum in general and also against the Netherlands leaving the EU.
"That would have major consequences for the Netherlands, our stability and the recovery of our prosperity," Rutte reacted on the outcome of Britain's vote to leave the EU. "I am absolutely against it. It would not be in the Dutch interest."
According to a poll by Dutch news show EenVandaag on 25 June, 54 percent of the Dutch people would like to have a referendum on whether the Netherlands should stay part of the EU. The same survey showed there would be no majority for a Nexit, with 48 percent voting to leave the EU.
https://www.firstpost.com/world/absolute...63092.html

Now compare the above to this - in the UK parliament on 10 June 2015:

Passing the first hurdle: History made as MPs vote in favour of EU referendum by 544 to 53 (10 June 2015)
MPs have voted overwhelmingly in support of holding a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU).
The European Union Referendum Bill easily passed during a vote in the Commons last night by 544 to 53, with support from Labour MPs giving the motion a majority of 491.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/5...referendum

People who are whingeing now for a second referendum like Starmer voted in favour of holding the idiotic referendum too. This was just after the Tories won a majority in the HoC during the elections in May 2016 on the basis of vile hate rethoric and lies. It was here that the UK kneeled down to fascist demagoguery - which prompted the president of the European Parliament Martin Schulz to hold that powerful and courageous speech in London on 18 June 2016 warning the British people that their country is sinking into fascism; I posted about Schulz's speech here:
http://debateuncensored.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=70&pid=9314#pid9314

But Carole, you even found excuses to twist the real meaning of this powerful speech. Schulz aimed his speech directly at the UK government and the UK parliament (in diplomatic speak, of course) - as I explained, this was very obvious back then when he gave the speech (which was also right after his meeting with PM Cameron). Yet your reply to my post was that Schulz was "mainly referring to the activities of the UK gutter press, not the UK government. The UK's press is remarkably free, perhaps too free".

Carole, as I tried to explain to you several times before - people with attitudes such as yours, who are attacking the people pointing to fascist rhetoric and behaviour while finding all sorts of excuses and denials for this despicable behaviour instead of critically assessing the situation and standing up together against fascism, that make it possible for fascism to rise to power. It is not a handful of fanatical supporters of 'great fascist leaders' that do it (there is always a certain percentage of people in a population prone to follow such demagoguery) but rather that silent majority that makes it happen. My grandparents have witnessed how fascism rose to power in Italy. I have witnessed how fascism rose to power in Serbia. It always starts ever so very 'innocently' - with a little hate rhetoric and lies here and there. In the meantime, the UK has sunken well beyond that very initial stage. Well beyond.
Reply
#5
What I find the most shocking at present is that there is MUCH more debate in the UK about runners for PM having committed some minor drug offences 20 years ago than about Raab's fascist totalitarian and REPEATED claims that he would suspend the parliament!!!!! Which comes after serial attempts of PM May to totally disempower the parliament - remember how she even fought in courts to grab totalitarian power, remember the Henry VIII rules, remember the constant standoff between PM May and the HoC about the agenda of the parliament, remember how in the end the HoC and HoL passed the Cooper Law in a total emergency in a few days (thus further eroding democratic legitimacy of the parliament) just to try to prevent PM May from single-handedly deciding for no deal... And after all that, Raab's intentions to completely erase democracy in the UK - with no consequences, none, and no huge outrage from the British sheeple, leave alone any serious organised protest. Hey, look, a squirrel, Gove sniffed a line...

Even Hitler was not so openly totalitarian during his rise to power (and for that matter neither was, more recently, Milošević or later still Orban) - he at least tried to pretend that it was all democratic. The political equivalent of what Raab wants to do is the Enabling Act adopted by the German Parliament in March 1933 as an amendment to the German constitution which gave the German government (de facto PM/Chancellor Hitler) the power to pass laws without involvement of the parliament. So exactly what the Tory government has been trying to do for years in the UK = give the PM to make important decisions without the parliament, and Raab now wants go continue going down this path.

The last democratic and fair elections in Germany were held in November 1932, in which the Nazis won 37% of the vote (4% fewer than in the last elections). Hitler was furious. The Nazis were again the largest party, but did not gain a majority of MPs in Reichstag, hence Hitler had to forge some sort of a coalition if he wanted to become the PM/Chancellor. In the end, Hitler used some rather dodgy methods to be appointed PM on 30 January 1933, after which he demanded dissolution of the parliament and snap elections which were scheduled for 5 March 1933 - with the aim to secure a Nazi majority this time.

Hitler got the election campaign money from super-rich German industrialists (so much for Hitler/Nazis being 'lefties'). This time Hitler embarked on serious lies and fake news, such as declaring the burning down of the Reichstag (on 27 November 1933) a start of a communist revolution, which in turn, surprise surprise, led to president von Hindenburg suspension of freedom of press just days before the elections. With all the terror and fraud (including in effect destroying the Communist Party), Hitler won some more votes, but still only 44% which left him being short of a majority (again) and having to rely on a coalition with the German National People's Party DNVP (nationalistic conservatives) for a shaky coalition of 52%. Hitler was furious - even if he did become the PM, he did not master absolute power. In his power-grabbing obsession, he forged the plan with the Enabling Act - a change to the German constitution which would allow for him to have a totalitarian rule without involvement of the parliament. 

However, the problem was that for a change of the constitution Hitler needed a special majority of MPs:
two-thirds of those deputies who were present and voting.

Hitler did not even remotely command the needed majority - even together with his coalition partners DNVP. So he counted the votes - this was the seat distribution in the Reichstag:

% of seats ... number of seats

45% ... 288 ... National Socialist German Workers' Party Nazis
19% ... 120 ... Social Democratic Party SDP
13% ... 81 ... Communist Party of Germany
11% ... 73 ... Centre Party Zentrum
8% ... 52 ... German National People's Party (DNVP)[a]
3% ... 19 ... Bavarian People's Party (branch of Zentrum)
2% ... 14 ... Others
---------------------------------
647 ... total seats
432 ... needed for the two-thirds quorum

Hitler knew that the Communists and the Social Democrats (together 24% of the seats) would vote against the sinister Enabling Act. He had all Communist and some Social Democrat MPs arrested - which made some SDP MPs flee into exile (in the end, 26 Social Democrat MPs were in prison or hiding at the time of voting). He figured out that with the votes of the Centre Party, he would get him over the line - so he embarked on negotiations with them. The Centrum kneeled down in exchange for a guarantee for a continued existence of the Centrum Party and protection of the Catholic church The Centre was a Catholic party).

Some more 'tweaking' of the rules was needed, such as lowering the needed two-third presence (quorum) a little and counting any MPs not present as, well, present  - and the parliament kneeled down to this Nazi tweak. And some more intimidation - when the Reichstag convened for the vote, the place was swarming with Hitler's paramilitary SA Brownshirts, just in case there were still some 'rebellious' MPs who did not get the message. 

The vote took place on 23 March 1933 - In the end, ALL parties voted in favour of the Enabling Act except the Social Democrats SDP (and the Communist MPs who were arrested and never took seats):

444 MPs in favour of the Enabling Act
94 MPs against = ALL Social Democrats present
------------------
= 538 MPs were present = 83% of all MPs

444 MPs =
= 69% of ALL 647 MPs (including those not present due to arrest or exile)
= 83% of those present at voting

So in the end, that additional tweaking of the rules was not needed - everyone except the Social Democrats bowed to Hitler. Hitler largely used democratic means, with some tweaking and a lot of intimidation, for this final thrust for absolute power. And his dictatorship was enabled by serial failures of other parties to strongly stand up against him - with the exception of the Communists and the Social Democrats (so much for Hitler being a 'lefty'). Hitler did not grab all that power in one go - he climbed over serial failures, indecisiveness, horse-trading, hypocrisy and opportunism of others. Failure of MPs to do their duty - put their country first.

Let me repeat this - Hitler did NOT have enough Nazi seats in the German parliament (i.e. his did not have a majority of the votes at elections) to either become the Chancellor or for the Enabling Act. Both needed support from other parties.

The next free and fair elections in Germany only happened in 1949. The rest is history.

Now in the light of the above historical events re the Enabling Act, remember the statement of the leader of the far-right ECR group Tory MEP Syed Kamall at the plenary session of the European Parliament on 24 October 2018. Kamall said that the Social Democrats are like Nazis - and failed to properly apologise for it.

Tory leader offers alternative history lesson on Nazism (24 Oct 2018)
MEPs were treated to a bizarre lesson in alternative history in Strasbourg on Wednesday.
Riled by warnings about the rise of ‘right-wing extremism’ in Europe, Syed Kamall, the UK Conservative who leads the ECR group of MEPs, claimed that Nazism was ‘a strain of socialism’, directing the remark towards Udo Bullman, the German leader of the Socialist and Democrat group.
The row, which brought to mind Silvio Berlusconi’s comparison of Martin Schulz to a concentration camp ‘Kommandant’ back in 2003, provoked outrage and demands for an immediately apology from all sides of the chamber, except from a nodding Nigel Farage.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politic...on-nazism/

Here is the video - click CC under the video for subtitles:



Video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LfnbusMd_0&feature=youtu.be


'Shameful': German MEP condemns Tory's Nazi remark (25 October 2018)
MEP Syed Kamall’s comments insult memory of Social Democrats who fought Nazis, says socialist leader
The German leader of the socialist group in the European parliament has told of his personal anguish at a link made by the Conservative party’s most senior MEP between his party’s political philosophy and that of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.
Udo Bullmann accused Briton Syed Kamall of tarnishing the memory of Social Democrats who fought national socialism, often at the cost of their lives.
“What Kamall said was outrageous, it is outrageous to the memory of the Social Democrats who fought the Nazis and died for it”, said Bullmann, who leads the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats to which Labour’s 20 MEPs belong. “He later apologised for it, but only half-way, how he did not want to hurt our feelings. It is unacceptable. I am personally offended by the ignorance Kamall has shown. It is shameful”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/o...o-bullmann


As usual, the British sheeple were just watching it all (hardly taking notice, actually).

__________________________________

Added later:

I posted a graph showing how Hitler managed to grab power in March 1033 further down the thread here:
http://debateuncensored.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=368&pid=9523#pid9523
Reply
#6
(09-06-19, 01:23 PM)JacquesG Wrote: Perhaps, revoking the citizenship of "awkward" people is an example:

"The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good ... if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61/section/40

A 15-year-old London girl was "persuaded" to travel to Syria to become an “ISIS bride”. She is now 19, and was discovered to be in a refugee camp with a young baby. Did the UK provide assistance to their citizen? No, they revoked her citizenship, saying the Secretary of State had "reasonable grounds for believing" that she was, or could become, Bangladeshi. Bangladesh disagrees.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48154781
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019...says-javid


"In 15 EU countries, citizenship can be revoked on grounds of treason or disloyalty. The actions covered by these grounds include: committing serious crimes against the country (Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark and the Netherlands); acting against a country's constitutional order and institutions (Denmark, Estonia, France, Latvia and Lithuania); showing disloyalty by act or speech (Cyprus, Malta and Ireland); and, more generally, acting against national interests (Greece, France, Romania, Slovenia and the UK). In Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Ireland, Lithuania and Malta, these grounds for revocation apply only to naturalised citizens. Involvement in terrorist activities are explicitly mentioned as reasons for withdrawal of citizenship in France and the Netherlands."
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/et...116_EN.pdf

Am I right to believe that you believe that grounds used in withdrawing this woman's citizenship were particularly fascist, compared to the other EU27 countries, including France?

More generally, I'm not sure you can point to one thing and say "this makes this country a fascist country".  Deprivation of citizenship "for the public good" is worrying because it is vague, therefore allowing arbitrary criteria to be used.  But "showing disloyalty by act or speech (Cyprus, Malta and Ireland)" also strikes me as pretty draconian.
Reply
#7
(09-06-19, 08:48 PM)CaroleG Wrote: Am I right to believe that you believe that grounds used in withdrawing this woman's citizenship were particularly fascist, compared to the other EU27 countries, including France?

I am the Secretary of State and I am satisfied that it would be conducive to the public good if people who wear green ties with blue shirts have their citizenship revoked. Knowing that both Anglia and Saxony are regions of Germany, I have reasonable grounds to believe that all people of Anglo-saxon descent (many English people) have a right to German citizenship.

You may consider this nonsense, but I don't have to prove anything. I only have to be "satisfied" and "believe".

Yes, it is an example of how a fascist state behaves (cf. Reich Citizenship Act).
Reply
#8
(09-06-19, 01:26 PM)Ajda Slovenia Wrote: That article was written on 13 May 2019 = a month ago. Have you not followed the EU election campaign in the UK?

I strongly recommend you watch the excellent report from Sky News about Farages campaign:

____________________

You just have to watch this - the next episode of the rise of fascism in the UK:


Special report: Farage - A New Populism? (15 min, 24 May 2019)  Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation  



Video URL: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvP9C7APG0

Yes, I followed it but probably not as closely as you.  I had seen that video by Lewis Goodall before.

If the referendum had not happened I'd perceive that in a very different way.  Can you not put yourself, for a moment, in the shoes who voted Leave in 2016? They feel completely betrayed by the political process.  

Quote:Scary. And the atmosphere is very similar to the 'meetings' (rallies) organised by Milošević during his rise to power in the late 1985s.

For you then it must evoke some very horrible things.  But it is possible that it looks the same but is actually rather different.  I don't know how the various ethnic groups in Former Yugoslavia got on before the 1980s: all I have is some rather uninformed notions about WWII ghosts (Ustasha, etc.), general dominance of the political scene by the more numerous Serbs, and even more atavistic resentments sometimes directed at Muslims.

You're probably going to say that is me being an apologist again.  But I'd say that that level of passion is to do with people feeling, above all, betrayed because their votes in 2016 appear to have been disregarded.  There may be things going on there that are just as serious as 1980s Yugoslavia.

Quote:Excellent journalism from Sky's Lewis Goodall. He followed Farage on the campaign trail for 40 days. Well done.

_____________________

Carole, the above is a copy of my post on 25 May 2019 (on a thread which you followed):
http://debateuncensored.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=319&pid=8940#pid8940

I read the NI-GEL! article from John Crace back then in mid May when it was published (I did not find the article surprising - it is what has been going on in the UK for a long time), but I did noticed a change of tone in the comments under the article - some signs of the Brits slowly (dangerously too slowly) awakening to the reality that their country has sunk into fascism). I think that the above video report drives the message home quite dramatically. Note that MILLIONS of Brits voted for Farage.

Sadly the Brits are just watching it all. As I have said before, the really shocking thing is obedient lack of any serious protest from the Brits about what is happening to their country.

I'm glad those questions were starting to appear in the comments.

Again, the vote of 2016 was a huge democratic exercise.  It's the elephant in the room, the raging bull in the china shop, and nobody knows how to stop it break every plate!  Who unleashed it... ah yes.  We can complain about that, examine that, analyse it and get furious about it till we're blue in the face.  But: it happened.  It is now part of European history.
Reply
#9
(09-06-19, 02:59 PM)Ajda Slovenia Wrote: As I have pointed out on another thread, there are now slowly some articles appearing in the media drawing parallels between the current UK government (and state of the UK politics) with previous cases of the rise of fascism. Here is one today in the Guardian:

...

Carole, you have been serially writing comments for a long time in response to my posts in which I pointed out signs of fascism in the UK. No matter how much evidence I presented (including opinions and warnings expressed by other people), you just kept finding excuses for the fascist (or proto-fascist or pre-fascist or whatever you want to call it; it is all just whitewashing a very dark phenomenon) behaviour and attitudes in the UK while serially attacking me for being anti-British. Well, if anything, than I am certainly not pro-fascist but rather strongly anti-fascist.

As I told you before, I find it my democratic duty to call fascism fascism whenever I see it starts raising its ugly head. Being aware of the black beast before it grows too strong and spins out of control is the ONLY way to stop one's country sinking into a disaster. History teaches us that the nations which allowed the rise of fascism to power end up destroying themselves (mostly in rather catastrophic ways).

I don't oppose your views for the sake of it, but because I sometimes feel you interpret things unjustifiably to suit your purpose.  As it happens your purpose is admirable, i.e. to prevent fascism (or destroy it if already present).  But if we're talking about the "start" of fascism, we're likely to be able to convince people better if we call it the "start" rather than the fully-fledged and rampaging black beast, if doing the latter just makes people laugh (not in this forum, but in the UK, where it also matters).

Warnings presented by other people are not "proof" in themselves, however high-profile or convincing the speaker.  For example, although I agree with some of the Will Hutton quote above, I actually hate Hutton (!).  He's a pompous vainglorious journalist who managed (allegedly) to destroy the Industrial Society (rebranded by him as "The Work Foundation") when he was head of it by (allegedly) diverting lots of money into his own self-promotion.

I think your anti-Britishness does in reality go beyond Brexit-related matters: you have sometimes said you feel the British Empire was worse than (or the same as) the Nazis, for example.  You've certainly given the impression that you think the British colonialists were frankly worse than all the others.  You never have a kind word to say about British good deeds in their history (active in stopping the slave trade and then abolishing it, or choosing to fight Hitler in June 1940 when they could have come to an agreement of some kind, cleaving to a set of values which may be atavistic in many ways, but which also include a simple and therefore robust idea of the value of free speech, and more...).

Quote:At the time of the Brexit referendum in June 2016, the only really major victory of fascism in Europe was the Leave vote in the UK.

...

Sorry! But I just find that a crazy thing to say.  You can say the funders of Leave (people who wanted to avoid financial regulation of The City, etc.) were right-wing, even fascist, neo-con/neo-liberals, for example.  But do you not accept for one second that those who voted Leave just genuinely saw in the EU something which they didn't like and no longer wanted to be part of?

They may have been being stupid, manipulated, childish, isolationist, anti-federalist, unrealistic, xenophobic, short-sighted, naive, and many, many other things.  But just because genuine fascists in the UK and other countries were happy with the result does not make that a victory of fascism.

Quote:"We don't want Europe to be a carbon copy of the United States... We want a Europe of fatherlands," FPÖ leader Heinz-Christian Strache told the beered-up, smoky meeting outside Vienna...

...
And after Leave won:


With Brexit, the UK became the European stronghold of fascism.

That's a grim line-up of parties you mention there.  But the one (stronghold of fascism) doesn't follow from the other.

Quote:"That would have major consequences for the Netherlands, our stability and the recovery of our prosperity," Rutte reacted on the outcome of Britain's vote to leave the EU. "I am absolutely against it. It would not be in the Dutch interest."
According to a poll by Dutch news show EenVandaag on 25 June, 54 percent of the Dutch people would like to have a referendum on whether the Netherlands should stay part of the EU. The same survey showed there would be no majority for a Nexit, with 48 percent voting to leave the EU.

Pretty close by that poll result!  That figure of 48% shocks me.  It'll be about 18% by now I think.  Thank God for those sensible Dutch politicians.

Quote:But Carole, you even found excuses to twist the real meaning of this powerful speech. Schulz aimed his speech directly at the UK government and the UK parliament (in diplomatic speak, of course) - as I explained, this was very obvious back then when he gave the speech (which was also right after his meeting with PM Cameron). Yet your reply to my post was that Schulz was "mainly referring to the activities of the UK gutter press, not the UK government. The UK's press is remarkably free, perhaps too free".

This was the heart of his speech:
"Now there are attempts to create new barriers between countries.
Stirring a feeling of panic over so-called benefit tourists from Romania and Bulgaria wanting to plunder the social systems of the host countries.
Facts are twisted. Sweeping generalisations made. Outright lies told. Then those lies are repeated, again and again until people start to believe them.
What makes me sad and angry in all this debate is the undertone of national resentment.
Hatred is spread. People are used as scapegoats."

Looking at the speech again I was struck by how unspecified the target was.  Then I found this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic...urism.html - Dr Hans Peter Friedrich is CSU, Schulz is SPD.

What is rather unique is the UK is the power of the gutter press.  The Tories may have spread hatred on this subject, but more likely is that they were responding to the DM / DE / Telegraph etc., where some of the real power lies, certainly when it comes to spreading messages of hatred.

Quote:Carole, as I tried to explain to you several times before - people with attitudes such as yours, who are attacking the people pointing to fascist rhetoric and behaviour while finding all sorts of excuses and denials for this despicable behaviour instead of critically assessing the situation and standing up together against fascism, that make it possible for fascism to rise to power. It is not a handful of fanatical supporters of 'great fascist leaders' that do it (there is always a certain percentage of people in a population prone to follow such demagoguery) but rather that silent majority that makes it happen. My grandparents have witnessed how fascism rose to power in Italy. I have witnessed how fascism rose to power in Serbia. It always starts ever so very 'innocently' - with a little hate rhetoric and lies here and there. In the meantime, the UK has sunken well beyond that very initial stage. Well beyond.

I hear your warnings loud and clear.  I don't attack you for pointing to what you consider fascist rhetoric and behaviour but claim my right to question whether that adjective is right.  When you rubbish my contributions by saying "I can't debate with you" I almost feel like saying, isn't such dismissiveness a rather sinister sign in itself?  Please don't rubbish my scepticism.  It is not pro-fascist or fascist-apologist to question assertions, the truth of assertions, and the bases on which assertions are made.

To take one small example: I think I learnt that one common attribute of fascism is "the cult of tradition".  But does a "cult of tradition" by itself imply fascism? My view is that such a cult is a necessary but not sufficient quality to recognise fascism.  If it is sufficient in itself, clearly the UK, with its horribly archaic system of "democracy", must be by far the most vulnerable country in Europe to such a charge.  There is no question in my mind that this cult is harmful, impairs democracy, fosters atavistic evils, such as nepotism, opposes progress (as you have said, implementing democracy is a never-ending process: in the UK this process arguably ground to a halt in 1832).

But does this cult make the UK fascist?  To me, the fascisms which I know a little of have always had to invent such a cult, and positively set it up in opposition to progressive movements.  I'm not complacent: the UK's fascism in the 2020s might be a new type, using a pre-existing cult of tradition.  That might be making it more dangerous, as more difficult to recognise as constituting fascism.  But it is not sufficient on its own, in my view.
Reply
#10
(09-06-19, 09:24 PM)JacquesG Wrote: I am the Secretary of State and I am satisfied that it would be conducive to the public good if people who wear green ties with blue shirts have their citizenship revoked. Knowing that both Anglia and Saxony are regions of Germany, I have reasonable grounds to believe that all people of Anglo-saxon descent (many English people) have a right to German citizenship.

You may consider this nonsense, but I don't have to prove anything. I only have to be "satisfied" and "believe".

Yes, it is an example of how a fascist state behaves (cf. Reich Citizenship Act).

You argue the point powerfully.

In UK legalese (= legal language) "reasonable grounds" (usually) means lawyers can challenge these grounds as unreasonable. For a fee.

In fact it isn't as simple as you represent it: see this, for example: an assertion of "conducive to the public good" by the Secretary of State can also be challenged.  In your example the Secretary of State would have to have a case for claiming that these people who wear green ties and blue shirts (and are incapable of taking them off???) are "bad"... not just arbitrarily "awkward to him/her".  The 19-year-old in question got herself into a lot of trouble, as I recall, by continuing to spout murderous Islamist rhetoric whilst simultaneously asking to come back to the UK.

At this point I have zero knowledge of how France (for example) exercises its rights to withdraw citoyenneté for acting against its constitutional order and institutions or involvement in terrorism.  But obviously these are more specific grounds, and also sound like they can be challenged in a court. 

More intriguingly, check out this: how the relevant article in British law matches up against Article 8 of ECHR, which will presumably be struck off the UK statute book at some point, at least if the Tories rather than Labour deliver Brexit.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)