Talk:European Free Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logoudb.png

Image:Logoudb.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mebyon kernow.jpeg

Image:Mebyon kernow.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:RainbowPartyLogoGreek.jpg

Image:RainbowPartyLogoGreek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expulsion of Valdotanian Union

Does anybody know why Valdotanian Union was expelled from EFA in 2007? --Checco (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows? --Checco (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically, because it had ceased to pay its bills and cut off all contacts without formally leaving. --Arskoul (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that information. Was it an expulsion or a suspension? --Checco (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Definitely an expulsion, albeit I doubt the Valdotanian Union cared. They had dropped out long before.--Arskoul (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-member parties and other changes

I copy a discussion about this article between me, C mon and Nightstallion below. --Checco (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your edits. First, listing non-member parties is fairly useful to make the article more complete: examples help! Second, EFA has generally limited its membership to progressive parties, which are the majority of the party, but there are also conservative parties as members, notably Liga Fronte Veneto and Bayernpartei. --Checco (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Third, the sentence has no meaning and, however, EFA never expelled xenophobic parties because no xenophopic party ever joined it. Fourth, why does "observer members" is not ok? --Checco (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can live with Progressivism (Majority) [although I hate both the term progressivism and using majority/minority]. But the EFA has expelled parties for being xenophobic or suspended their membership, examples are the Italian Lega Nord, Union Valdôtaine and Union für Südtirol. But I can also live with the current version. C mon (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good compromise, but don't make me joke: none of these parties is xenophopic! Only UfS has a taste for nationalism, but both Lega Nord and UV are centrist parties, both pandering to the centre-left. Finally I don't understand why you oppose yourself to listing of non-member parties. It is very useful to explain to the reader that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA. --Checco (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why did you put "separatism (minority)"? Most of the member parties are separatist... --Checco (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same Lega Nord? Well at least my source (the sole source on the EFA article) calls it a "Nationalist parties of the right" and Gallagher, Laver and Mair in their handbook on European politics have listed it under the "extreme right".
The point is when we start listing what a party is not, and not what it is we will be busy for very long, because more parties are not a member of the EFA, than parties are member.
We could which parties are separatist, I think it is the minority. Give me a sec. I'll count. C mon (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please continue here. It is fairly inadequate to classify "Lega Nord" as nationalist or extreme-right, but there is such a disinformation on the issue that I won't try to explain what Lega Nord is. In any case I continue to think that any reader should know that European leading parties, except PC, SNP, ER and BNG, are not members of EFA: Lega Nord, SVP, UV, PNV, NVA... --Checco (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've counted 13 separatist parties out of 31, so you're right. However these 13 separatist parties include all the relevant ones: those having parliamentary or regional representation. --Checco (talk) 07:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to list all non-member parties, but simply give some examples. --Checco (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see only 8 of the 26 parties are explicitly separatist (PC, SNP, AF, MK, BP, ERC, EA, Moravané). Of six I could not determine their stance. But 17 are definitely regionalist.
If the article would be longer, I could accept one or two sentences about which parties are not a member, but now it gives undue weight, because the article is already this short. Note that in the section European_Free_Alliance#Former_members we already discuss which parties have left the EFA. C mon (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not about those parties which left EFA, but that most of the leading regionalist parties in Europe are not members of EFA: some of them were formerly members (Lega Nord, UV), but most of them never applied for membership (CDC, UDC, PNV, CC, SVP, NVA...). Note that some of these parties have been or are members of ELDR (Lega Nord, CDC and CC), some others of the EPP (PNV, UDC, SVP and NVA). --Checco (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This argumentation only works if we have a standard of which parties are leading regionalists. I don't think f.i. that the SVP, UV or NVA are good examples of leading regionalist parties. You've also not mentioned the Vlaams Belang, electorally, the most succesful separatist party in the European Union and not a member of the EFA either. BTW the Lega Nord is not a member of the ELDR, but of the UEN. The NVA is also not a member of the EPP, but only sits in their group. C mon (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lega Nord has been member of ELDR from 1994 to 1997 and wins 20-30% of the vote in Veneto and Lombardy, 8.3% nationally: probably the most successful regionalist party in Europe as it is also a mainstream party, frequently in government (its deputy-leader is now Minister of the Interior!). PNV, UV and SVP all obtain 40-60% of the vote in their regions. No problem about mentioning Vlaams Belang. --Checco (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Could we settle on just mentioning thoser regionalist parties that have gained over 10% nationally? C mon (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say 20% regionally or 5% nationally because only Vlaams Belang, a regionalist party in a small country, would fit the category. Do you agree with this? --Checco (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Notice that regionally Vlaams Belang is far less strong in Flanders equally stronger than Lega Nord in Veneto (Liga Veneta actually stronger than VB) and Lombardy (Lega Lombarda) and far less stronger than PNV in Basque Country, CiU in Catalonia, SVP in South Tyrol and UV in Aosta Valley. --Checco (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of listing notable regionalist parties which are not members of EFA, but we'd have to discuss which ones to mention, I suppose. —Nightstallion 10:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with may proposal of listing those parties which have a consistent share of votes in their region (20-25% would be fine), or which have a notable share of votes nationally (above 3-5%), or that have an important role in the government of their region or the whole country? --Checco (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me, yeah. —Nightstallion 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd settle for share of the votes nationally over 5% or participation in government. C mon (talk) 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Bad idea: only Lega Nord would fit into the category. It is fairly better what I proposed. --Checco (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Three parties would fit the category: Vlaams Belang (Belgium, NI), Lega Nord (Italy, UEN) and Swedish People's Party (Finland, ELDR). I don't see the problem. C mon (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Swedish People's Party is hardly a regionalist party, while on Vlaams Belang you're obviously right. I don't agree with you in listing only two parties and also Nightstallion seems to agree with me. --Checco (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Checco that there are more parties which are important enough to be specifically listed; could we simply compile a list of all parties which might be listed and then decide on a case-by-case basis? —Nightstallion 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here you have the list:

Name Country Region EUparty  % Regionally  % Nationally in last EU elections Number of MEPs Government participation
Lega Nord Italy Northern Italy UEN 27% in Veneto, 22% in Lombardy 5% 4 Yes 2002-2006 2008
Movement for Autonomy Italy Sicily n/a n/a 0 0 Yes 2008
Vlaams Belang Belgium Flanders NI 24% 14% 3 No
NVA Belgium Flanders EPP-ED ran on combined list ran on combined list 1 No
Valdotanian Union Italy Aosta Valley N/a 47% 0.1 0 No?
South Tyrolean People's Party Italy South Tyrol EPP-ED 56% 0.5 1 No?
CiU Spain Catalunya EPP-ED 31.5% 5.2 (on combined list with PNV) 1 No
Basque Nationalist Party Spain Basque country EPP-ED 45% 5.2 (on combined list with CiU) 1 No
Swedish People's Party (Finland) Finland Swedes ELDR n/a 5.7 1 Yes
Party of the Hungarian Coalition Slovakia Hungarians EPP-ED n/a 13.2% 2 Yes (currently)
Sinn Fein United Kingdom Northern Ireland UEL-NGL .6% 26% 1 No
SLPD United Kingdom Northern Ireland PES .6% 16% 0 No
Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania Romania Hungarians EPP-ED 5.5 n/a 2
Anyone can add what party he wants. --Checco (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about Christian Social Union of Bavaria? It is a regional party of course... --Checco (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Another proposal: since this about the EP why don't we just mention those that have more than 3 MEPs? VB & LN? C mon (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the parties you included in the table are not clearly regionalist. I would mention in the article about EFA: LN, MpA, VB, NVA, UV, SVP, CiU and PNV or at least the majority of them, not simply VB and LN. --Checco (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious! The MpA and UV haven't even got representation in the EP, the NVA hasn't got EP representation on its own. You can't argue that we are missing prominent regionalist parties if we don't include those. Moreover you insist on just including parties from Western Europe, what about eastern European regionalists? Can't we find some sort of compromise. C mon (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider EP representation as a fundamental issue. However MpA has a MEP and there are not such big regionalist parties in Western Europe. Both UV and SVP are very strong regionally, and all three (also MpA) have the President of the Region (Province in the case of South Tyrol). We are speaking about examples and more examples is better. I canlive even without NVA, UV and MpA (for evry different reasons), but all eight parties is the best solution for me. --Checco (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Sinn Fein? The SDLP? SFP? And the Hungarian Parties in Rumenia and Slovakia? Why exclude those? C mon (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion list

Let's see. Of the full list of parties, I think we can all agree that we'll have to include: Lega Nord, Vlaams Belang, CiU, PNV, and the Democratic Union of Hungarians. Can we at least agree on those for starters? —Nightstallion 17:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pointless. I'm working on another solution an expanded EFA article which has a separate part on all regionalist parties that are not included, like the Dutch wikipedia. I will finish it tonight. C mon (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's great, too. :) —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Next item: I'd personally also include both Valdotanian Union and Sinn Fein, as the former is simply too strong regionally not to merit inclusion, and the latter is clearly a very important party which still has ultimately separation from the UK as one of its program cornerstones. —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally not include the following:

  • MpA -- negligible influence when compared to others in Europe, the UDC is more regionalist in Sicilia and the rest of the south than the MpA is
  • NVA -- not as important as the Vlaams Belang
  • SFP -- not really regionalist in the ultimate sense of the word, as there's no clearly defined Swedish region on mainland Finland; I would possibly include some of the parties on Åland, though...
  • SPLD -- not really THAT regionalist, actually

What would you say? —Nightstallion 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes for SF, UV and also... SVP! About MpA you're wrong: we are talking about a party which scored 22% (combined of three MpA lists) in the last regional election and has the President of the Region.
If C mon does what he said our discussion is over. That would be the best solution: a spearate and complete listing of regionalist, regional and minority parties. In that case also SFP, SDLP and CSU should be included. Great C mon! --Checco (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Great work. When you have time, can you create a table for all these parties? --Checco (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! —Nightstallion 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few bits of informations

Well, I was the official delegate of the UDB at the last congress of EFA, so Iknow a bit of the inner working of the organization. Normally, only rather left-wing can join, the key word being rather. There are clear limits, however. I, as a delegate, would have stormed out in the minute if Vlaams Belang or Lega Nord had joined, not that anybody ever raised the idea. Another pointis that there can be only one member by region, unless the representative of the said region allows it. For instance, we can keep any other breton party from joining.

Now, regionalist parties, when they are regionalist first and left-wing second can drift to the moderate or even not so moderate right wing. That's why the UDB proposed a declaration last year at Bilbao stating that Islamophobia was a kind of racism and therefore unacceptable. It was passed but when the Union for South Tyrol split, the majority decided not to ratify the declaration and was expelled as a consequence--Arskoul (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that, differently from what you think, Lega Nord is not right-wing, while Liga Veneta Repubblica, an EFA members, is a right-wing split from Lega Nord and also Bayern Party is right-wing. Union for South Tyrol has ever been far-right from the beginning (actually, after the split, is more moderate), so why did you welcome it in the party? Very strange. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
However, thank you very much for your edits. --Checco (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I wasn't there for their admission, so I cannot tell, but they were expelled because they refused to condemn islamophobia and stated Europa should based upon "Christian values". That's indeed prety much far right for me. Of course all goes down to what is considered far right. Down here in France we associate this word with the refusal of Third World immigration and intolerance toward minority religions, mostly Islam in practice. If a party is ant-Islam and/or advocate "christian values" it is far right. By the way, from what I have read, Lega Nord pretty much fits this definition, as does Vlaams Belang. I have not heard of any EFA member who does but I may be mistaken Europa is big and information about some party are hard to come by), in this case I would value very much any information on the subject.--Arskoul (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Also Christian-democrats defend Christian values. Anyway, Lega Nord is a different, more complex sort of party. --Checco (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The message well I hear, my faith alone is weak. ;) —Nightstallion 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Arskoul, can you check if everything is all right in the "history" and "organization" section? In particular can you update the "history" section clearly stating what parties were EFA-members sat in the European Parliament in the different terms? I was asking to myself if and when did PNV join and leave EFA... in the article it is not clear. --Checco (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated the article. A check is anyway welcome and also an explanation about PNV. --Checco (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard about the PNV joining, but it might have done it before I was politically active. I will ask people who were around then. Note it would have been around the time the PNV split, so the PNV MEP could have become EA MEP. I will check. The organization section is OK. I specified that the Danish Euroskepitcs were left-wing as there could be a confusion with the Danish People Party.--Arskoul (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
EA was founded in 1987 by a split from PNV, but PNV was member of the Greens-EFA group with one MEP (there was another one for EA) in 1999-2004, so it was not around the time PNV split (12 years later!). Maybe PNV simply was accomodated in that group after its explusion from EPP... --Checco (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that PNV was a member? Maybe it was simply an affiliate to the sub-group... --Checco (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I got the confirmation from the guy in charge then. Didn't like it at all, by the way.--Arskoul (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you know also the exact years when PNV was a member? What don't you like? --Checco (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)