Creation of New Far-Right Group Sparks Outrage

Martin Banks, The Parliament, February 16, 2012

A furious row has flared after it emerged that approval has been granted to the formation of an alliance of seven European extreme right wing political parties.

These include the British National Party (BNP), which had two MEPs elected in the last European elections, the French Front National and Hungary’s Jobbik.

The new pan-European grouping, called the “Alliance of European Nationalist Movements”, will qualify for a reported €289,266 of EU taxpayers’ money.

The AENM may also qualify for more European money next year.

News of the new group emerged on Thursday at parliament’s plenary in Strasbourg.

Formal approval for the new group was given at a meeting on Monday by parliament’s bureau, which comprises the assembly’s president and vice presidents.

Reaction to the news was swift, with UK S&D member Claude Moraes, calling for a ‘boycott’ of the new group.

He said, “It’s a shameful week for democracy in Europe. Let’s hope this also will be a rallying cry for anti-fascists throughout the EU to work harder together to stop the pan-European far right.”

He said, “There are pan-European alliances of political parties from the centre right Christian Democrats through to the Greens, including the Party of European Socialists which includes the British Labour Party as a member, and we all respect one another’s differences and work together.

“I hope that none of the other parties work with this alliance of racists and neo-fascists.

“Two BNP MEPs were elected at the last European elections in 2009 and they are now in a close alliance with the Front National in France, who may achieve success in the French presidential elections in the summer, and Jobbik which has been a government coalition partner in Hungary.

“There are very strict rules about how this political funding can be spent. These include respect for democracy and human rights. We will keep a very close eye to make sure this new grouping stick to the rules.

“This is why we believe this decision is wrong, and we will closely monitor how this neo-fascist grouping spends their money,” Moraes said.

The BNP failed to form an alliance of far right MEPs in parliament, but it was decided by the institution that this did not preclude them from forming a pan-European political party.

Further comment came from Edward McMillan-Scott, a vice president of parliament, who said the establishment of the new group gave “cause for real concern”.

The UK ALDE deputy added, “I have been tracking the rise of the far right for a few years and in the last European elections we saw the rise of far right parties in ten of member states.

“The formation of this new group is further proof that these groups have been collaborating since that time and will present a joint platform at the next elections in 2014.”

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Oh my (insert the deity of your choice)!  The “far right” (read: real conservatives) are presenting agendas, winning elections, and now worst of all, (gasp) cooperating with each other!  How undemocratic!

  • When people vote against the Left, the Left pretends that that is a threat to democracy.  Their notion of democracy is that the Left must win.

  • These supposed “far right groups” definitely pose a threat to these far left elitists who have for to long had things their way and smearing anyone who thought different. The average European is tiring of the way these elitists are running things and the smears don’t work anymore because people can see with their own  eyes what these kooks have done to these European countries

  • The Left has had a strangle-hold on Europe for several generations.  Now Europe is circling the drain as a result of socialist welfare spending and Islamic immigration.  Europe cannot survive much longer under the circumstances.  The Right in Europe is their only chance.

  • Anonymous

    I have nothing but contempt for the EU and I sincerely wish its speedy demise.
    Having said that, the so-called ‘European parliament’ is elected by a system of proportional representation (something that is denied to British voters, for example), that allows nationalist parties to gain traction, influence and power.
     The fact that anti-third world immigration nationalists have secured a foothold in the EU parliament (incidentally, they are contemptuous of it), annoys the air-headed lefties and immigrationists who infest the EU no end.This is  a rare source of amusement and satisfaction to be had in that horrible, totalitarian dictatorship.

  • Anonymous

    ‘Claude Moraes’, despite his seemingly European name, is in fact, an Indian from Goa.

  • Anonymous

    Well said!!!

    In fact, New Labour was more capitalistic that the Tory Party of Ted Heath, for example.

  • Anonymous

    This is a step in the right direction. I hope their aren’t too many strings attached.

    But unlike the media, I have to ask: are these groups actually far right? Or are they just centrists who understand either race, religion, or culture?

    And if respecting democracy and human rights are essential requirements for parties, how did the other parties who are trying to stop and/or jail the far right get away with not respecting them?

  • Anonymous

    “My other fear is that the Muslim population of Europe is now large enough for an Islamist group to be formed within the EU.”

    Oh darn. I didn’t think of that. Now there’s a worry! Anyone who’s seen the damage Islamist parties do overseas needs to be very very concerned about this happening across Europe with government funding and full PC backing.

    We need to be ready with this argument if Islamists think about forming a Europe-wide Islamic party:
    “There are very strict rules about how this political funding can be
    spent. These include respect for democracy and human rights. We will
    keep a very close eye to make sure this new grouping stick to the rules.”


    Every week is a shamefull week for democracy in europe,because there is none,it was designed to be anti-democratic.Griffin however is a crook,an elite plant,who is only interested in the destruction of nationalism in England,for his masters.This “parliament”is purely a rubber stamp,a fig leaf, to lull the gullable into believing that thier wishes count for something,when our own administrations completely ignore the rights and wishes of thier constituents,why would any–one believe that the euro-fascist “parliament” is any different?the question is ,who put this third world retard up as a front man for the commies,and it speaks volumes that this invader is the only one they could find who is stupid enough to open his mouth in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    You can sure that most of this “outrage” about the creation of this new party comes from the institutionalized leftists that infest corner of the EU bureaucracy. Just like lefties in America, their true numbers and influence are greatly magnified by their media mouthpieces. The trouble in Europe is that generally the political dynamic isn’t left/right but left/further left. Right-minded Europeans – and there are many – don’t have a political outlet for their ambitions and often the only choice is a small, so-called “far right” party. The growing success of such parties across Europe suggests that the stigma of supporting them (long cultivated by the left) is disappearing bit by bit. Let’s hope so, anyway.

  • jeffaral

    These  Nationalist parties are NOT far-right; They simply put the interests of the European indigenous population above the interests of the globalist financial oligarchies!

  • Anonymous

    Correct. I read a while back of one Tory grandee (think it was Malcolm Rifkind) describe the BNP as “Labour, with racism”. His point was that the BNP might be anti mass immigration, but in economic matters, especially, it is actually quite left wing – and it is.

    It appears that regardless of a Party’s stance on economic matters, if you’re anti immigrant you are in the “far right” camp. Well, I sincerely hope that this new grouping of “far right” politicians grows in strength and influence, and get’s to knock some stuffing out of the laughably corrupt and undemocratic Soviet Brussels machine.  

    • Johnny English

      Rifkind is correct in describing the BNP as resembling Labour just as long as you bear in mind that he means “Old” Labour – i.e. the party as it existed up to the late 1970s or very early 80s (essentially ending with the resignation of James Callaghan in 1980). This was social democratic in its economic philosophy but generally moderately socially and culturally conservative. It is true that it had introduced some liberal reforms in the 1960s, almost certainly against the wishes of most of its grassroots support, such as the abolition of capital punishment and the decriminalisation of abortion and private male homosexual acts, but the momentum for such reforms in the postwar period was already strong, and would probably have been introduced sooner or later by any administration. 

      Callaghan’s successor, Michael Foot, was a figure too close to the Marxist far left (and also too much of an intellectual) to resonate very much with the general public, and his electoral failure (along with the purge of the Militant Tendency and the formation of the breakaway Social Democratic Party) essentially heralded the beginnings of New Labour. Foot’s failure to win the 1983 General Election followed from the enormous fluke for Margaret Thatcher – until then increasingly unpopular because of the immense structural unemployment brought about by her Friedmanite economic policies – of the Falklands crisis.It is worth reading the works of the dissident political commentator Robin Ramsay (himself something of an Old Labour figure) on the rise of New Labour (his little Pocket Essentials volume is a good place to start, although it is now very out-of-date). Certainly by the time that Tony Blair was leader of the Labour Party it was well to the right not merely of Edward Heath (who was actually fairly uninterested in economics, although because of this he made some early concessions to the free-market right) but of Margaret Thatcher herself.

      The economic philosophy of the BNP is very close to that of Old Labour, as described above. Rifkind gives the game away in characterising the other main part of the BNP’s programme as “racism”. The free-market right and the politically-correct left have both enthusiastically embraced mass immigration; the former in line with its belief in “flexible labour markets” (i.e. cheap labour or a permanent labour surplus of benefits dependants), the latter in line with its utopian belief in multiculturalism (arising out of an internationalism which entails a visceral hostility to settled, culturally and ethnically homogeneous nations states) and its desire to replace the socially conservative white working class with a new proletariat (ethnic “minorities”, women, gays) who will form the client base/footsoldiers for its politically correct social engineering.

      • loyalwhitebriton

        An interesting and detailed response. Thanks for posting.
        I know that the momentum to abolish Capital Punishment and to decriminalise Homosexuality was pretty strong during this period, but this momentum was driven by politicians, not necessarily by the White working class. I live in a traditionally Labour voting city, and many of the people I know, and work with, would gladly bring back Hanging for murderers, and think that Homosexuality is a ‘not exactly perfect’ union, if you know what I mean?.
        The Labour Party was founded by Methodists, not Marxists. And I concede that many of the early Labour leaders would have been absolutely abhorred by the direction that the modern Labour Party has moved over recent decades. Clement Atlee, for example, may well have been a socialist, but he was also a patriot. Can the same be said of Tony Blair?.
        I also agree that both laissez-faire capitalists on the Tory right and Multiculturalists on the Labour left both support mass immigration – though for different reasons. The answer to this is the establishment of a genuinely pro-British Political Party which is neither enamoured with Multiculturalism nor ideologicallly obsessed with laissez-faire Capitalism. Perhaps some pro-white social-democrat party?. An interesting concept, but I just don’t see such a Party in the current political scene. The BNP, by the way, are too socialist for my liking, and UKIP are, to all intents and purposes, a single issue party – though laudable in their wanting the UK to leave the Soviet Brussels machine.

  • Anonymous

    While the Greeks are throwing temper tantrums it’s the Hungarians who are in the true vanguard of the struggle against the EU: 

  • Anonymous

    “Democracy for me, but not for thee.”

    This is the underlying message, and of course it’s contradictory and makes no sense.

    It’s amusing how the politically correct types always think more democracy is the answer, up to the point when average people start voting for politically incorrect representatives.

    Then all of a sudden, democracy is “shameful.”

    It reveals their not very well concealed elitist side. They’re not as much pro-democracy as they are smugly self-assured that they know what’s better for average folk than people know themselves.

  • i want to go to europe

  • loyalwhitebriton

    By “too socialist”, I mean BNP policies such as encouraging domestic protectionism by banning foreign imports, and it’s insane policy of renationalisation of key services and utilities.
    On protectionism, buying British goods only helps the British economy when the goods purchased represent the best value for money. Where this is not the case, buying cheaper foreign imports is ultimately better for the economy as it helps to rationalise the economy as in terms of sound economic principles – that is, the global distribution of scarce resources is more efficient if the underlying principle is affordability, and therefore, value for money. This also helps to rationalise the international division of labour, maximising world productivity, thus further increasing the rational distribution of scarce resources. Furthermore, protectionism can have unforseen cosequences. For example, before the UK joined the EEC, we imported a considerable amount of our beef from Argentina. However, when we entered the EEC, a tarrif of 70 pence was imposed on each pound of beef imported from outside of the EEC bloc. This brought the price of non-EEC beef in line with EEC beef. This not only increased the price of beef considerably, but caused a massive reduction in cheaper foreign imports of beef, including from Argentina. Would Argentina, so dependent on her trade with Britain for her prosperity, have cut off that trade by invading The Falklands?.
    ‘Farming in the Clouds’ (1984) by Richard Body explores this idea thoroughly.
    As far as the re-nationalisation of our key services and utilities, doesn’t history say enough about this point. Between the end of WWII and 1979, our nationalised industries were a joke. And not a very funny joke at that. They were grossly inefficient, wasteful, and always running at a loss. It’s historically proven  that government’s are bad at running businesses.
    I agree with you about Common Purpose. It is an evil and sinister organisation which needs to be exposed and banned.
    From your last paragraph, can I conclude that you’re an English nationalist?. I seem to be moving in that direction myself these days.
    Anyway, I’ll stop typing now, before I go on and on.

  • My gas and electricity bills have skyrocketed in real terms since privatisation

    That’s mainly because of the “climate change” paranoia-hysteria, not necessarily market forces.  But even if it were market forces, then forcing price controls on a market that wants the price to increase for the laws of supply-and-demand will only mean supply shortages.

  • You can’t shield electricity from market forces any better than you can shield yourself from the laws of physics.  Setting a price ceiling below the supply-demand equilibrium can only result in supply shortages.

    • No such thing as economics…a pseudo-science.

      Now I’ve heard it all.

      And I thought I read AR to avoid vacuous nonsense like “our diversity is our strength.”  Silly me.

      My pseudo-teachers and pseudo-professors always said that the essence of the non-existent entity was to reconcile the virtually unlimited desires of human beings with the limited supply of goods and services.  If you think economics is a pseudo-science, then you must not believe that we human have unlimited wants and desires, and at the same time you must not believe that there is only so much of any and every thing to go around.

      As far as your communal model of energy distribution, even when you seemed to think that “market forces” (according to you, they don’t exist) didn’t apply, they really did apply.  I’m sure that even in your self-contained model when the UK could meet all its energy needs based on natural resources available under UK jurisdiction, the people who worked in white and blue collar jobs relating to that industry needed to be paid; they didn’t want to work for free.  They couldn’t give away the finished product (electricity, natural gas) for free, otherwise you’d run out of supply quickly. 

      Then again, I forgot — None of that really existed.  Because you don’t think some mysterious people who worked for some mysterious non-governmental entity should be able to make a profit, then the coal miners shouldn’t be paid either.

      I’m getting the eerie feeling that this kind of thing has been tried before, and failed massively.

  • I’m not arguing economics with you any longer.  Any other topic, fine.  There’s probably not much grounds for argument between the two of us beyond economics, though.

    But this conversation is over for two reasons:

    1.  I must be the stupidest man on the face of the Earth, to try and argue economics with someone who calls economics a “pseudo-science.”

    2.  Then there’s this wise crack from you:

    Once again under this new, over-moderated dispensation on AmRen I cannot
    reply directly to “Question Diversity”, who comes on more and more like
    a shill for the very economic system that has done so much to foster
    the very “diversity” that he (?) claims to “question”.

    I should have known, and I should have figured out where you were coming from before now.  This only confirms it.  I know exactly where this would lead if we continued, and I don’t want to go there.

    If you’re trying to say that economics as well as all social sciences are improperly titled “science” in any way, because their study and development cannot possibly make use of the scientific method or formal proofs, then you’re right.  But it doesn’t mean economics is the same kind of psychobabble malarkey like the highly malleable and politically volatile “field” of psychology.  Just call the social sciences something other than “science,” and maybe we’ll be cool.

    BTW, my degree is in accounting.  I guess I’m going to hear now that accounting is pseudo-scientific bunk.