.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
.thumb.jpeg.d2d19a66404642fd9ff62d6262fd153e.jpeg)
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
-
Latest posts...
-
1
Why Europe's Far Right Remains Untamed
Trump's policies are not far right. Tariffs are left wing. -
-
1
Why Europe's Far Right Remains Untamed
As the far-right movement surges across the Atlantic, European liberal democrats are scrambling for a strategy to contain its influence. Some argue that firewalls must be built to prevent far-right parties from gaining political power by refusing to enter coalitions with them. Others, like Manfred Weber, president of the European People’s Party in the European Parliament, have suggested that engaging with certain far-right leaders could temper their extremism by offering them a seat at the table. Still, there remains a belief among centrists that once far-right populists assume office and face the complex realities of governance, they will inevitably shift toward the center. Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s far-right prime minister, has often been cited as proof of this theory. When she took power in 2022, many feared her leadership due to her open admiration for Benito Mussolini and her party’s fascist roots. However, she quickly moved to assuage concerns, maintaining Italy’s support for Ukraine and reaffirming its commitment to NATO. Some European officials even hoped Meloni could serve as a mediator with Donald Trump, should he return to the U.S. presidency. Trump himself has praised Meloni, stating in December that they could “straighten out the world a little bit” if they worked together. However, the expectation that Meloni would moderate her stance has proven false. As the global political climate becomes increasingly receptive to far-right ideologies, she has gradually reverted to her more radical positions. There is no real evidence that governing has tempered Meloni; instead, since mid-2024, it has become clear that her centrist shift was merely a strategic move. European liberals must abandon the notion that engaging with far-right figures will mitigate Trump’s influence over Europe. Instead, they should highlight the consequences of turning away from European unity and recognize that Trump is not a reliable ally. During her decade in opposition, Meloni was a vocal critic of the European Union, advocating for Italy’s exit from the eurozone and attacking Brussels’ bureaucracy. Yet, after becoming prime minister, she appeared to soften her stance, supporting Ukraine’s EU membership and building strong ties with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. This apparent shift reassured many observers, including U.S. President Joe Biden, who praised her commitment to transatlantic relations. For some, Meloni became a model of how the far right could be integrated and neutralized within mainstream politics. As far-right parties gained traction across Europe—in Austria, France, Germany, and beyond—many traditional leaders debated whether working with them was a more effective strategy than outright opposition. Some center-right governments, such as those in Belgium, Finland, and the Netherlands, followed Italy’s example by forming coalitions with far-right parties. But this optimism was premature. Meloni continued pursuing a nationalist and socially conservative domestic agenda. In 2023, her government prohibited local authorities from registering children born to same-sex couples. Her seemingly centrist foreign policy was not a sign of moderation but a way to deflect criticism while advancing a hard-right agenda at home. Meloni’s true intentions became evident as she gradually moved further right. She sought to increase control over Italy’s judiciary, cracked down on independent media, and proposed constitutional reforms to consolidate power in the prime minister’s office. By 2024, as Trump’s reelection loomed, she pivoted further, praising U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s critique of Europe and attacking progressive ideologies in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Her shift has been particularly stark regarding Ukraine. Initially, her strong support for Ukraine helped her gain credibility among moderate European leaders. But once she had secured their trust, she began subtly distancing herself from Ukraine’s cause. By early 2025, her party abstained from a European Parliament vote supporting Kyiv, and she refused to commit Italian troops to any potential peacekeeping mission unless it was sanctioned by the UN Security Council—where Russia holds veto power. This gradual but deliberate rightward drift is strategic. Rather than making abrupt moves that would spark backlash, Meloni carefully tests the waters before proceeding further. Her approach ensures that her transformation remains largely unnoticed by those who expect far-right leaders to be more overtly extreme. The growing presence of far-right politicians in European governments has only emboldened Meloni. In 2023, Hungary’s Viktor Orban was her only far-right ally in power. By 2024, far-right parties had entered eight European governments, with more expected to follow. Meloni now feels less pressure to maintain a pro-European façade. Unlike Orban, she does not call for Italy to leave the EU, recognizing the economic benefits of membership—especially given Italy’s reliance on EU financial aid. However, she actively works to reshape the EU from within, opposing progressive policies and advocating for less regulation, greater national sovereignty, and weaker climate laws. The assumption that far-right leaders like Meloni can be integrated into mainstream politics and moderated is deeply flawed. Populist leaders rarely change; instead, they use gradual shifts to avoid alarming their opponents while steadily advancing their agendas. This pattern has been seen before, with figures like Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan presenting themselves as reformers early in their rule before veering toward authoritarianism. European centrists who collaborate with the far right often find themselves dominated rather than influencing these leaders. Italy serves as a prime example: once a center-right stronghold, the country’s political landscape has now been reshaped by Meloni’s far-right party. Similar trends are unfolding in Austria, France, and the Netherlands. While Meloni supports transatlantic cooperation, her vision aligns with an ethnonationalist worldview that prioritizes a Christian, white West. This ideology inherently conflicts with the realities of global politics, where nationalist movements often struggle to maintain cohesion. Trump’s second presidency is expected to further strain these alliances. His policies are already proving detrimental to Europe, with tariffs on EU goods and demands for increased European defense spending placing Italy in a precarious position. Despite her ideological alignment with Trump, Meloni faces a dilemma. As Trump actively undermines European security and economic stability, far-right European leaders will be forced to choose between aligning with him or preserving their nations’ interests. The contradictions within their nationalist ideology will become increasingly evident. European moderates cannot afford to stand by or attempt to co-opt figures like Meloni as mediators with Trump. Instead, they must expose the inconsistencies in far-right rhetoric. While these leaders claim to represent the people, their alignment with Trump’s agenda undermines Europe’s security and prosperity. Only by highlighting these contradictions and emphasizing the dangers of a fragmented Europe can liberal democrats counteract the far-right’s growing influence and protect the continent’s future. Based on a report by Foreign Affairs 2025-03-29 -
0
Democrats Secretly Planned for Biden’s Exit or Death in Office as Early as 2023
Democrats Secretly Planned for Biden’s Exit or Death in Office as Early as 2023, New Book Alleges A newly released book claims that Democratic leaders began making contingency plans for President Joe Biden’s potential withdrawal from the 2024 race—or even his death in office—long before the election year began. While public narratives from the White House and media figures like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough insisted on Biden’s capability to serve, behind the scenes, key Democratic officials were reportedly preparing for alternative outcomes. According to Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, aides to Vice President Kamala Harris were particularly engaged in strategizing around the possibility that Biden might not be able to complete his term. The Guardian’s preview of the book details how these discussions, which began in 2023, reflected deep concerns within Democratic circles. Democratic National Committee (DNC) officials were also involved in these secret preparations. The authors state that private discussions were held to explore various scenarios, including Biden stepping down before the primaries, withdrawing after securing primary victories, or even dropping out after winning enough delegates to secure the nomination. Another possibility considered was Biden leaving the race after officially becoming the party’s nominee. Two sources familiar with these talks confirmed that the party wanted to be prepared for every conceivable situation. Ultimately, Biden, 82, withdrew from the race on July 21, 2024, following significant internal pressure from the Democratic Party. His decision came after a disastrous June 27 debate against Donald Trump, where he struggled to articulate his thoughts clearly, raising concerns among supporters and party leaders. Inside the White House, Harris’ then-communications director, Jamal Simmons, played a key role in contingency planning. According to the book, Simmons had even compiled a “death-pool roster” of judges who could be called upon to swear in Harris immediately if Biden passed away while in office. Though he left his role in early January 2023, he remained involved in discussions regarding Biden’s future. The book claims that while Simmons never informed Harris about the list before leaving his position, he insisted on being notified immediately if anything happened to Biden, as he had developed a comprehensive communications strategy for such an event. Simmons later made headlines following Trump’s victory in the 2024 election when he publicly suggested that Biden should resign before the inauguration, allowing Harris to make history as the first female president. “Joe Biden’s been a phenomenal president, he’s lived up to so many of the promises he’s made. There’s one promise left that he could fulfill: Being a transitional figure,” Simmons told CNN at the time. “He could resign the presidency in the next 30 days, make Kamala Harris president of the United States.” However, Biden did not follow that advice. Despite the fallout from his debate performance, he initially intended to remain in the race. But the intense reaction from his party and the broader public ultimately forced him to step aside, bringing an end to his reelection campaign. Based on a report by NYP 2025-03-29 -
0
Labour MPs Push Starmer to Rein in ECHR Powers in UK Courts
Labour MPs are urging Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to implement stricter immigration controls by curbing the influence of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in British courts. Red Wall backbenchers are pressing for reforms that would prevent human rights laws from obstructing the deportation of failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals. Their calls for action coincide with a review led by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, following a series of controversial tribunal rulings that have prevented deportations. Many of these cases have relied on Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees the "right to respect for family life." Critics argue that judges are interpreting this clause too broadly, allowing individuals with criminal records to remain in the UK under dubious circumstances. One such case involved an Albanian criminal who was permitted to stay because a tribunal ruled that his son refused to eat foreign chicken nuggets. In another instance, a Nigerian fraudster who swindled women out of nearly £200,000 avoided deportation on the basis that his wife and children were receiving treatment from the NHS. These rulings have sparked concerns that the courts are stretching the application of human rights laws to an unreasonable extent, undermining the government’s ability to enforce deportation orders. Labour MPs are now supporting calls for the government to issue new guidance restricting how Article 8 is applied in immigration cases. Jonathan Brash, MP for Hartlepool, stressed the need for tighter controls. "It’s a perfectly in-order thing to do and to me it’s the right thing to do. They should be looking at all avenues," he told The Telegraph. "The asylum system is broken, immigration is far, far too high and they’re right to look at all the options to get the level of control we want." Brash emphasized that voters expect their government to have full control over immigration and asylum policies. "The British people want the government they’ve elected to be able to decide asylum policy and for that policy to be enacted," he said. He also noted that "a huge number of Labour MPs" are determined to deliver on voter demands for stricter immigration and asylum measures. "It’s not an extreme view to say that we’d like good border control and sensible, proportionate levels of immigration," he argued. "Anyone who thinks that’s an extreme view frankly is out of touch with what the British people want right now." Although Brash clarified that he does not support leaving the ECHR altogether, he believes the UK should tighten its interpretation of human rights laws, as other European countries, such as Denmark, have done. His remarks reflect a growing movement within the Labour Party to reconsider how the ECHR is applied in immigration cases, with many MPs backing reforms to ensure that UK courts prioritize national interests over expansive human rights interpretations. As pressure mounts within Labour ranks, the government faces a crucial decision on whether to reshape how British courts interpret international human rights laws, particularly in cases that affect the country’s immigration and asylum policies. Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-03-29 -
0
Starmer Signals Potential Trade Retaliation as UK Braces for Trump Tariffs
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated that the UK may retaliate against tariffs imposed by Donald Trump, stating that “all options are on the table” as officials engage in urgent talks with the White House to prevent car tariffs that could amount to £25 billion. These tariffs pose a significant threat to the British economy, potentially forcing Chancellor Rachel Reeves to introduce a new tax raid in October. The looming tariff crisis comes as concerns grow over the Chancellor’s diminishing fiscal headroom, which has already been halved due to higher borrowing costs. Speaking in Paris on Thursday, Starmer emphasized the importance of working with industry while keeping all potential responses available. “The industry does not want a trade war, but it’s important that we keep all options on the table,” he said. The UK is racing to secure a deal before Wednesday, a day President Trump has dubbed Liberation Day, when he plans to impose new tariffs on trading partners. Experts have warned that Britain could face a tariff equivalent to VAT, potentially reaching £25 billion. There is increasing speculation that the UK might drop its digital services tax as part of negotiations. This levy, which imposes a 2 percent tax on revenues from search engines, social media platforms, and online marketplaces that benefit from British users, has been a longstanding point of contention with the US. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has not ruled out revising or eliminating the tax in exchange for relief from US tariffs. “We have always been of the view as a country that this has to be something ideally agreed on an international basis, but it’s not that DST has been put in place as something that can never change or we can never have a conversation about it,” he said. Reynolds was in Washington last week for discussions with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and Trump’s UK envoy Mark Burnett. A government source indicated a strong mutual interest in finalizing a deal before Wednesday, stating, “There is appetite on both sides for a deal. We are keen to get it done.” On Wednesday, Trump announced a 20 percent tariff on vehicles imported into the US, set to take effect on April 2, a move that could be devastating for the UK automotive industry. With approximately 80 percent of British-made cars being exported and 16.9 percent of those going to the US—amounting to over 101,000 units worth £7.6 billion—the impact could be severe. Data from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders confirms that the US is the UK’s second-largest car export market after the European Union. Mike Hawes, the society’s chief executive, called the tariff decision “not surprising but, nevertheless, disappointing” and urged both governments to reach an agreement to minimize damage. “If, as seems likely, additional tariffs are to apply to UK-made cars, it’s a blow to a long-standing and productive relationship,” he said. Following the announcement, shares in Aston Martin dropped sharply, falling approximately 6 percent when the stock market opened on Thursday morning. Starmer acknowledged the gravity of the situation but maintained that he would not rush into a trade war with the US. “I think tariffs are very concerning, there’s no doubt about that. And I’m really clear in my mind that the sector, the industry, does not want a trade war,” he stated. He emphasized the need for a measured approach, working closely with industry to formulate a response. “Rather than jumping into a trade war, it is better, pragmatically, to come to an agreed way forward on this, if we can, and that’s why we’re intensively engaging in the way that we are,” he added. One potential resolution could involve modifying or removing the digital services tax, which Trump has long considered an unfair burden on American companies. On Wednesday, Chancellor Reeves echoed Reynolds’ sentiment, describing the tax as “temporary” pending a broader international agreement. However, Reeves clarified that the UK is not currently planning retaliatory tariffs on US goods. “We’re not at the moment at a position where we want to do anything to escalate these trade wars. Trade wars are no good for anyone. It will end up with higher prices for consumers, pushing up inflation after we’ve worked so hard to get a grip of inflation, and at the same time will make it harder for British companies to export,” she told Sky News. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, speaking on the Telegraph’s Daily T podcast, suggested that trade deal negotiations should include discussions on the digital services tax. “A trade deal is always about negotiating a plethora, a plethora of issues,” she said. “I can’t remember specifically what the digital services tax is. I don’t like taxes. Generally. I like us to trade freely. If it’s something that is up for debate, it should be part of a bigger package with UK-US trading.” Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have urged the government to take a tougher stance, calling for retaliatory tariffs on US car manufacturers such as Tesla, owned by Trump ally Elon Musk. Daisy Cooper, the party’s deputy leader, accused the government of being overly passive. “The Government strategy so far seems to be to cower in the corner and just ask Donald Trump to be nice to us, and just to hope that he doesn’t do anything nasty,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. The proposed import tax on cars is part of a broader set of reciprocal tariffs set to take effect on April 2, potentially including a general 20 percent levy on UK goods in response to VAT rates. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that a full-scale tariff war with the US could slash 1 percent off the UK’s GDP next year, jeopardizing Reeves’ fiscal plans and potentially forcing deeper spending cuts or tax hikes. Richard Hughes, chairman of the budget watchdog, underscored the risks, stating, “This represents the crystallization of one of the risks that we highlighted around our central forecast, which was one of escalating global trade tensions.” He explained that in a worst-case scenario, where the UK retaliates in kind, the economy could suffer substantial losses. “The UK exports, in terms of goods to the US, around 2 percent of GDP,” Hughes said. “Car exports are about 10 percent of that. So that’s affecting directly UK goods exports of around 0.2 percent of GDP. So what Trump’s announced overnight is not the whole of that worst-case scenario, but it’s elements of it, and it’s the beginning of that risk side.” Based on a report by The Telegraph 2025-03-29
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
.thumb.JPG.af3fc4787879dbae30aac5c35eaca779.JPG)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now