Far-right group's first seat in European Parliament
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
A former leader of the National Front with a 40-year history in far-right politics was last night elected the British National Party's first ever MEP.
Andrew Brons, a 61-year-old former politics lecturer, become one of six MEPs elected from the Yorkshire and Humber region with 10 per cent of the vote – an increase of 2 per cent on 2004. The BNP's showing was particularly strong in South Yorkshire, where it took thousands of votes off Labour. In Barnsley the BNP more than doubled its share of the vote from 8 per cent five years ago to 17 per cent.
Speaking after his victory, Mr Brons, who will receive thousands of pounds of European Union funding for the BNP, said: "I don't need to tell you that my election is not universally popular ... But despite the lies, despite the misrepresentation we have managed to win through. I regard this as the first step towards the people of the UK getting freedom from European dictatorship."
Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said the result was a "sad moment for British politics".
Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, added: "On D-Day, Britain sent an army to Europe to stop the Nazis getting to Britain. It is an absolute insult to the memories of those who fought that 65 years later Britain is now sending Nazis to Europe to represent us."
The BNP were also close to winning a seat in the North West where its party leader Nick Griffin was standing. Mr Griffin had to be smuggled into the count at Manchester Town Hall in a police van after it was surrounded by protesters.
Speaking after Mr Bron's election he said: "It is a huge breakthrough. We fought this election amid a most horrendous media campaign. We are not a racist party. We do say this country is full up. The key thing is to shut the door."
In his manifesto Mr Brons said he would fight to end the EU.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Bronzy & Griffin MEPs. Yuk. Does this mean they'll have to be given airtime on political progs to avoid bias?! They can't avoid the reality that no matter what they spout, their followers know they're racist. It's a horrible result.
But just maybe the currently self-obsessed major parties will sit up, clean out their lugholes & start actually listening to that little voice in the wilderness that comes from the electorate! Screw the think tanks & policy designed not to upset wealthy & corporate donors, they still don't have more than one vote each - we're not stupid, we don't need govt nipping at our heels like a sheepdog if we over fill a bin or park 2 inches over a line, we don't want automatic surveillance of all on-line activity any more than every snail-mail post is recorded - that's treating the public as if govt=prison warden!
Get real, offer us properly researched policies that can engage us again! Apologise properly for the expenses fiasco, pre-empt the next expose by releasing whatever it might be & offering solutions with substance to prevent, etc! Any chance of these things happening? Or will more fools turn to the BNP come the general election?
The lies that were told about Saddam Hussein, about Muslims and about the actual Western war aims in Iraq and Afghanistan, they all played their part in the victory of the fascists. In Italy, the demonisation of Romani and Romanians was part and parcel of Berlusconi's victory; but the attitude towards immigrants by all parties is no different in essence.
The way to fight the fascists is to put their ideology on the table - to emphasise that Hitler did not kill only Jews, but Romani, Slavs, socialists, communists, trade unionists and gays. However, European governments have been buying into this racist right-wing ideology, not exposing it. The 'Holocaust' is made out to have been only against Jews - and is used to justify the existence of the racist state of Israel and its brutal and ongoing 'cleansing of Palestine' (in Ben Gurion's words).
It is 100% the fault of Gordon Brown and nulablour. and the same principle applies throughout Europe where all the votes have gone against 'socialist' ruling parties towards rightist/extremists.
As for the non-socialists, well they didn't do much either. Indeed, Berlusconi is allied with the fascists; he is indeed a perfect example of a product of the media-run political circus.
Interestingly, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta seem to have bucked the trend.
Who ever said it was the fault of Israel? The point is that Nazism (the fascists of Italy, Spain, Hungary and Portugal do not appear to count!) is presented as merely a racist phenomenon, not as an ideology of elitist rule which includes racism as the most important weapon in its armoury.
It is necessary not only to be able to read, but to understand that which is being read.
It is symptomatic of the way things are that contributors to blogs hurl epithets and insults rather than resorting to reasoned argument. This breakdown in the standard of discourse is part of the problem, owing a lot to the blurted out expressions of unreasoning hate for the 'other' (and yes, love for one's own) which is such a part of the fascist rhetoric. 'Moron' is a pretty good soundbite, and does not need much justification. It is not very far from it to 'Yid', 'Nigger', 'Paki' and other such gems of the Nazi vocabulary.
I just hope that all our major political parties remember their history too - and acknowledge that there is a great danger in ignoring the feelings of the people. Doing so and even repressing these feelings via Political Correctness can lead to a growing nationalistic tendency.
Telling people that BNP are bad is not good enough - people are demanding a voice and that cry is getting louder.
Our thread leader (as you put it) wrote:
"WHEN HITLER WAS DEFEATED HE WAS REPLACED BY AN EVEN MORE SAVAGE DICTATOR, OH BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT, BECAUSE HE WAS A SOCIALIST. HYPOCRITES."
How you can bend this to mean that he's expressing concern about political correctness defies logic. It's a mindless right wing rant. First, the claim is simply not true (as you yourself now seem to accept, so I'm waiting for your apology about my lack of research) and second, lefties who have sympathy for Honnecker and friends are even rarer than right wingers who think Hitler was a decent sort of chap who was a bit misunderstood.
However (and maybe you should sit down before you read the next part) I actually agree with your second point. One of the great problems with British democracy is that it is so damned unrepresentative. Labour got an absolute majority last time on less than 35% of the vote, and the last time we had a majority government was in 1945. That can in no way be described as democracy. Where else can this lead to but smug, self satisfied governments out of touch with the will of the people, when all they have to do is throw some red meat to their core supporters and then appeal to a small minority of swing voters in marginal seats.
But voting for the BNP is not the answer, any more than Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour. Whatever happened to the Independent's electoral reform campaign?
I would never vote BNP but I was trying to point out the rough logic of the original statement (not mine by the way) - and its associated anger and how that anger grows if it is not acknowledged.
I for one would like to see not just electoral reform but a means of 'testing' our representatives for honesty, integrity and display a healthy regard for openess and truth. But most of all for a system that does consider the wishes of the people.
It might be argued that we needed representatives many years ago when it was impossible for every matter to be voted on by the people - the technology was not there then so MPs were/are needed to do this on our behalf (and off course they can be bought by the 'whips'for the good of the party - and that is where democracy falls down). These days we do have the technology for every person to vote on every major issue facing our society so maybe that is where electoral reform needs to be taken?
"The best argument against parliamentary democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
He stood up to Thatcher, which was more than Labour did. Had he won, Britain today would probably still be a decent place to live in.
Unfortunately Thatcher won that fight. Britain today has no industry and is one of the worst countries to live in - which is why it needs immigrants from the Third World, it doesn't get many from the developed countries.
Incidently, Scargill was all for electoral reform - he called for a system of proportional representation three decades ago.
i) UNHEALTHY because they have no health service to speak of in their home countries and therefore present a massive burden on public health services. Immigrants are IMMEDIATELY allowed the same level of medical treatment as UK citizens - without having paid a penny in taxes. In New Zealand Canada and Australia prospective immigrants have to take a very stringent medical which includes a HIV test. Any member of the family that does not pass this medical is refused residence. The philosophy here is they would pose too high a burden on medical services. And also why would you have an unhealthy immigrant when you could have a healthy one! The UK does not ask for ANY (yes, ANY!) medical exam - it does not even require an HIV test. It is also interesting to note that immigration activists have successfully demanded that all HIV-positive immigrants be given the same standard of medical treatment as UK citizens.
ii) UNSKILLED and require support by social services. Again, New Zealand Canada and Australia only allow immigrants who are skilled and who fit within certain skills categories. Most immigrants have to have a degree.
iii) VERY POOR and require social housing - in the past immigrants who had been in the country months were places at the top of the housing queue, ahead of UK citizens who had been waiting for YEARS. This fact is often (brazenly) denies by trendy-lefties.
iv) HABOURING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WHICH ARE STRAIGHT OUR OF THE MIDDLE AGES - including immigration due to so-called 'arranged marriages'.
Labour's irresponsible (some would say treacherous) immigration policy has changed the very character of the UK - you only have to walk down any street to see evidence of that. Labour has become so politically correct that it does not even deport FAILED asylum-seekers. How contemptible of the British people is THAT!
Labour has brazenly refused to set any targets for immigration - even when the economic situation demands it. Look at the the response of Australia to the current financial crisis. It has cut its immigration intake by a significant amount because it places the rights of its people - its citizens above any PROSPECTIVE immigrant - that is just a fair and common-sense approach. Remember, Australia does not accept ANY unskilled migrants so one can appreciate the massive extra burden imposed by continuing unfettered immigration in the UK by people I have listed above.
For too long trendy lefties, in their houses in Hampstead and Islington, have stiffled all debate about immigration by labeling people as "racists" who dare to question it. This might have worked very effectively 10 or 20 years ago but people have become aware of this disgraceful strategy and it will no longer work. Trendy lefties are partly responsible for the failure of entire immigrant communities (more noticeably the Muslim community) to integrate into our society. Trendy lefties, for example, led Hate campaigns against any person who dared to criticize the wasteful practices of councils in printing information leaflets in all known languages under the sun. Now we are paying the price for this. Just look at the treatment of British soldiers returning from battle in Afghanistan by SOME Muslims - they were abused and screamed at when they paraded down the street in what should have been a celebration of their contribution.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. The reason why the BNP have gained such inroads is because of these things. We MUST have a sensible immigration policy where only those who can contribute can have residency.
Unfettered immigration policy? Go tell it to the marines! It is difficult to see how it could get any stricter without preventing all Third World citizens from visiting the country.
The kind of immigration policy advocated by the likes of the BNP would leave Britain with none of the doctors, nurses, postmen, bus conductors other workers that it needs. Society would just collapse.
As for the religious beliefs of the immigrants, I know there are quite a few native-born Christians who believe that God created the World in the seven days ending on October 3rd 4004 BC (or some such date). Does richardm30 want to consign them into the gas ovens as well?
What an utterly preposterous statement. Did you actually read my post? Gas ovens indeed. This statement is an example of they types of accusations ordinary people have fput up with for years when they have dared to criticize immigration and Labours open-door policy. Completely over the top and daft.
Let me say this again, in plain English. Australia has an immigration policy that should be implemented in the UK. Anything less is a betrayal of the British people. The contempt that the Labour party has shown towards the British people by ignoring their concerns about unfettered immigration is shocking. Its immigration policies are bordering on treason. They have betrayed the British people and no amount of Orwellian bleating by people like you is going to alter this fact.
Having said that, who is richardm30 trying to fool when he talks of an 'open door policy'? My point was exactly that it well nigh impossible for a Third World person to get into Britain without undergoing the most stringent procedure.
Richardm30 does not appear to realise that migrating to Australia is a great deal easier than getting into Britain, and has been so since Gough Whitlam removed the White Australia policy in 1973. The Australians are scrupulously fair in their treatment of applicants (notwithstanding the Howard government's barbarous treatment of refugees), which is more than be said for Britain (alas).
As for Labour betraying the British people, I think it did so by participating in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but not by trying to fill the gaps left by the annual emigration of a large part of the indigenous population.
Now onto your point. You are factually incorrect when you make the assertion that Australia is easier to get into than the UK. It has only in recent months the UK has instigated a point-based system for immigration which is a very weak replica of the Australian model. People can see the stringent requirements for Australian residency at www.immi.gov.au/immigration/ People will also see that a medical is required for Australia. This is NOT the case for the UK. As I said, the UK does not even test immigrants for HIV or even hepatitis b or c. Immigrants are automatically rejected for residence in Australia, Canada and New Zealand if they are HIV-positive or have any other medical conditions that will pose an unfair burden on Australian citizens. So people can come to the UK even if they ill - and receive medical treatment of the same terms as citizens who have paid taxes for years. This is grossly unfair on the British people.
My comments on immigration also relate to "Family Reunion" immigration. Now this is where the UK really does let anyone into the UK. This includes rights of immigrants to bring their extended families here (outside of the stricter rules immigration points system) and also includes accepting spouses whose marriages have been arranged under medieval religious customs. In Australia marriage does not AUTOMATICALLY mean residency rights.
The UK has no quota for immigrants where Australia has EXACT quotas which are strictly adhered to. These quotas are regularly reviewed according to current economic and skills requirements. So immigrants can flood into the UK through the Family Reunion category - thus bypassing all skills tests. And there is NO UPPER LIMIT! And the British people pick up the bill.
Recent statistics reveal the true scale of crime related to immigration. Australia deports any resident who has committed a criminal offense - even relatively small ones. The UK has failed to deport convicted murderers who have killed British citizens.
Failed asylum-seekers and other illegal immigrants are permitted to remain in the UK. Australia deports ALL illegal immigrants (including, rightly, the ones from the UK). Even if illegal immigrants have managed to avoid the authorities for years they are still deported when they are caught. Contrast this with the UK, where trendy lefties and members of the "asylum industry" argue that illegal immigrants should not be deported because they have formed ties with the UK.
The list goes on and on. The failures go on and on. The betrayal of the British people goes on and on. But this Labour Government MUST NOT and WILL NOT do the same.
This is apart from your basic racist premise, which I disagree with - the same kind of racist rubbish was thrown at Irish immigrants, Jews and even Welsh immigrants!
We are a long way from a BNP government, but suddenly this has started to bring larger issues into focus.
Many on the Left have refused to criticise the surveillance state when it was NuLabour's work and while NuLabour are in power; now it's time to recognise the civil liberties issues.
Hopefully a couple of BNP MEPs will help keep the other parties on their toes, counterbalancing the dreadful politically-correct antics of the trendy lefties and make the complacent mainstream parties take seriously the needs and wishes of the silent majority.