IndDem MEP voices support for Front Nationale

Bob FM · 01-06-2008, 07:24 AM

Charlie perhaps it's all in the translation as Gawain has so eloquently shown on another thread, the mere removal of 'the', changed the whole meaning of a sentence used to bash the IND-Dem group. I am always suspicious of those who post a foreign language, without the translation, in this context. It either means they do not speak the language either and it is a third party interpretation, or it doesn't actual mean what it's purported to say.

chikrodah · 01-06-2008, 09:45 AM

Any chance you could post the translation, Bob?

Bob FM · 01-06-2008, 10:51 AM

I have no idea, which is my point, neither do I suspect do most on here.

chikrodah · 01-06-2008, 11:56 AM

No problem, Bob:

The original blog:

Quote:

J'ai publié avant-hier un communiqué repris par l'AFP appelant à faire barrage au second tour à tous les candidats du Oui, ce qui me conduit à soutenir nommément Jean-Pierre Chevènement à Belfort aussi bien que Marine Le Pen dans le Pas-de-Calais, Vincent Peillon dans la Somme aussi bien que Marie-Françoise Bechtel dans l'Indre. Bien entendu, la presse s'emmêle les pinceaux devant un équilibre si inhabituel - lequel ne fait pourtant que refléter cette certitude bien simple que le traditionnel conflit droite/gauche est de plus en plus lourdement surplombé par l'homérique combat entre les supranationaux (les "ouiouistes") et ceux qui restent attachés au cadre national. L'amusant dans l'affaire est que Libération ou Le Figaro ne signalent que mon soutien à Jean-Pierre Chevènement tandis que Le Monde, non sans son habituelle perfidie, ne signale que mon soutien à Marine Le Pen. Dans ce dernier cas, ce n'est pas étourderie puisque hier Christiane Chombeau du Monde me demandait comment on peut soutenir en même temps JP. Chevènement et Marine Le Pen. Trop compliqué pour elle ?

My translation:

Quote:

The day before yesterday I issued a press release, picked up by the AFP, calling for everyone to vote against all the "Yes" candidates [i.e. all those voting for the Constitution] in the second round [of voting], which means I will be specifically supporting Jean-Pierre Chevènement (Belfort) as well as Marine Le Pen (Pas-de-Calais), Vincent Peillon (Somme) and Marie-Françoise Bechtel (Indre).

Of course, the press misundertands the tactics when faced with such an unlikely balance - one which not only doesn't reflect a certainty as simple as the traditional conflict between right and left, but which is furthermore, on top of that, heavily dominated by the Homeric fight between the supra-nationals (the "Yeses") and those which stay attached to national sovereignty.

The funny thing about this affair is that neither Liberation nor Le Figaro reported my support for Jean-Pierre Chevènement while Le Monde, not without its usual treachery, didn't report my support for Marine Le Pen. In the latter case, that's not absent-mindedness since yesterday Christiane Chombeau from Le Monde asked me how one could support JP. Chevènement et Marine Le Pen at the same time. Is it too complicated for her?

My interpretation of that is, yes he's voting for a FN candidate but he's doing it tactically to keep out the pro-EU lobby.

Bob FM · 01-06-2008, 05:51 PM

Given that why then is it being construed in the way it has, it simply means support a no vote, and not a yes one. How can some UKIPer's see that as a problem. It is support for the NO vote not for the party concerned. Would we turn our backs on any Tories, Lib-dems or Labour MEP's or MP's who wanted to vote no. Of course we wouldn't.

chikrodah · 01-06-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

Given that why then is it being construed in the way it has, it simply means support a no vote, and not a yes one. How can some UKIPer's see that as a problem. It is support for the NO vote not for the party concerned. Would we turn our backs on any Tories, Lib-dems or Labour MEP's or MP's who wanted to vote no. Of course we wouldn't.

Presumably to stir up anti-Ind/Dem feeling amongst the computer-literate members of UKIP.

gc · 01-06-2008, 10:21 PM

The BNP are opposed to the constitution....

Bob FM · 02-06-2008, 08:20 AM

gc, and you point is?. Their members would I assume vote no in any referendum on the Reform Treaty as would 85% of the rest of the UK and Europe, that is democracy, no one is advocating a political alliance with any of the groups mentions, as stated this is just anti UKIP stirring.

gc · 02-06-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

gc, and you point is?.

My point is, Bob, that my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.

If we accept FN, then it would be assumed that we accept the BNP.

The FN and the BNP are quite close. the BNP were involved in the discussions that led to the forming of the short-lived fascist ITS group in the EP. FN were also members of the ITS. They have a great deal in common... both their party leaders have been in trouble for holocaust denial, etc, etc,....

One might argue, that if we do accept this (tenuous) link between Ind Dem's French member and FN, but don't accept the BNP as allies insofar as they are also our "enemy's enemy", that this must be simply because FN are not our rivals in British electoral politics and the BNP are.

What the hell does that make us?

chikrodah · 02-06-2008, 11:10 AM

I agree that UKIP needs to choose its bedfellows wisely. It is my view that UKIP would be better off grouping with the Conservatives and some of the Danish/Dutch eurorealists than with any other grouping. That could be of benefit to Cameron's eurosceptic credentials as well as UKIP's need to be seen as a political party with real influence and maturity (Bob, don't take offence at that phrase, I'm referring to the perception of UKIP outside the party).

I was never convinced that the Ind/Dem group makeup would sit well with UKIP's aims, but that's what happens when EU policy insists that you only get an increased budget if you band into cliques.

UKIP gets labelled 'BNP-lite' by the media because it suits them to remember the formation of the National Front in the '60s when the Tories went centre-left in a bid to attract voters. It took Thatcherism to get the NF to splinter. It's possible that Cameron will try to do the same sort of thing, but he needs at least one term in office before he would try that.

In the meantime, banding with the Tories in the EP would help UKIP's MEPs network and possibly turn Tory eurosceptics towards UKIP policies.

Tactical voting is one thing. Publicly supporting a party whose aims are anathema to many of your own party members is something else entirely.

01-06-2008, 10:51 AM	#13 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,013	No Idea I have no idea, which is my point, neither do I suspect do most on here.

01-06-2008, 05:51 PM	#15 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,013	Agreed Given that why then is it being construed in the way it has, it simply means support a no vote, and not a yes one. How can some UKIPer's see that as a problem. It is support for the NO vote not for the party concerned. Would we turn our backs on any Tories, Lib-dems or Labour MEP's or MP's who wanted to vote no. Of course we wouldn't.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-06-2008, 07:24 AM	#11 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,013	Charlie perhaps it's all in the translation as Gawain has so eloquently shown on another thread, the mere removal of 'the', changed the whole meaning of a sentence used to bash the IND-Dem group. I am always suspicious of those who post a foreign language, without the translation, in this context. It either means they do not speak the language either and it is a third party interpretation, or it doesn't actual mean what it's purported to say.

01-06-2008, 09:45 AM	#12 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,331	Any chance you could post the translation, Bob?

01-06-2008, 10:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
gc Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 439	The BNP are opposed to the constitution....

02-06-2008, 08:20 AM	#18 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,013	gc, and you point is?. Their members would I assume vote no in any referendum on the Reform Treaty as would 85% of the rest of the UK and Europe, that is democracy, no one is advocating a political alliance with any of the groups mentions, as stated this is just anti UKIP stirring.

02-06-2008, 11:10 AM	#20 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,331	I agree that UKIP needs to choose its bedfellows wisely. It is my view that UKIP would be better off grouping with the Conservatives and some of the Danish/Dutch eurorealists than with any other grouping. That could be of benefit to Cameron's eurosceptic credentials as well as UKIP's need to be seen as a political party with real influence and maturity (Bob, don't take offence at that phrase, I'm referring to the perception of UKIP outside the party). I was never convinced that the Ind/Dem group makeup would sit well with UKIP's aims, but that's what happens when EU policy insists that you only get an increased budget if you band into cliques. UKIP gets labelled 'BNP-lite' by the media because it suits them to remember the formation of the National Front in the '60s when the Tories went centre-left in a bid to attract voters. It took Thatcherism to get the NF to splinter. It's possible that Cameron will try to do the same sort of thing, but he needs at least one term in office before he would try that. In the meantime, banding with the Tories in the EP would help UKIP's MEPs network and possibly turn Tory eurosceptics towards UKIP policies. Tactical voting is one thing. Publicly supporting a party whose aims are anathema to many of your own party members is something else entirely.