MEPs call for review of funding for European far-right

Last year, for the first time, the far-right Alliance of European National Movements (AENM) organised itself into a pan-European bloc, and has therefore recently been allocated almost £400,000 in public funding from the European Parliament. This group includes the BNP, the Front National in France and Jobbik, a far-right political party in Hungary renowned for its racist and anti-semitic views. Of particular concern is the possibility that public money could now end up being used to incite racial hatred.

Under EU regulations, parties must observe fundamental principles such as liberty, democracy and respect for human rights in order to qualify for public funding. While the European Parliament’s bureau ruled last year that there were no indications that the AENM would violate these principles, several MEPs as well as the campaigning group ‘Hope not Hate’ have argued that the alliance was not properly scrutinised and that many of its constituent parties actively promote racism, homophobia and authoritarianism.

Members of the five main political groups, including Liberal Democrat MEPs, have now signed a petition calling on the European Parliament President Martin Schulz to verify if the AENM should be entitled to this funding under EU rules. If it reaches the required 189 signatures (it is currently on 175), an independent panel will then be asked to consider whether the political party truly abides by the fundamental principles outlined above and if it is entitled to receive the funding.

For Liberals, this is a fine line to tread. We are after all a party that expressly defends the right to free speech, and believes that the best way to tackle extremist and racist ideology is to confront it head on. Yet in this case there is an important distinction. This measure would not restrict the right of xenophobic parties to free speech, but rather the possibility for them to use taxpayers’ money in order to promote a racist or fascist ideology.

Of course, any decision to restrict public funding must be based on an independent and objective assessment. It is vital that we prevent a slippery slope in which any parties which do not abide by a mainstream political ideology have their funding blocked. In addition, every party has members who at times make insensitive remarks, including our own. That is why the review of the AENM’s values should be conducted by a politically neutral and independent panel, and should be based only on official party materials such as manifestos and constitutions. If it is deemed that the AENM parties are not fundamentally racist, homophobic or anti-democratic in their ideology, then there is no reason they should not receive funding.

Liberal Democrat MEP Andrew Duff and other members of the Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs are currently discussing ways to strengthen the rules that govern European party funding in order to make them more transparent, enforceable and subject to strict, objective criteria. This should make it easier in future to determine whether European parties should be entitled to EU funding. However, the underlying principle will remain the same: parties which are fundamentally opposed to the core values of liberal democracy should not be entitled to additional public funding.

* Paul Haydon has recently completed an MSc in European Public Policy at University College London.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32964 for Twitter and emails.

2 Comments

  • … whereas on the other hand, the ALDE includes Slovakia’s HZDS, a party which, when in government, was implicated in kidnapping of its opponents, assassination of journalist Robert Remias and a raft of corrupt privatisations, actions which led to the EU telling Slovakia it would not be welcome if HZDS formed a coalition after the 2002 election. For these reasons among others the EPP rejected HZDS as a member in 2004 and the ESP suspended the Smer party when they went into coalition with HZDS after the 2006 election. Apparently there are no such compunctions in the ALDE though.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter Chegwyn 19th Apr - 1:29am
    I think the Falklands War in 82 had something to do with that turn round Bill.
  • User AvatarDuncan Brack 18th Apr - 11:46pm
    David White - you are right about Beveridge (except that 1945 couldn't be called a khaki election - unlike 1900, for which the term is...
  • User Avatarmalc 18th Apr - 10:51pm
    Mark Valladares Sorry I shouldn't have said military bases, but we do - or may be did until recently, not sure after defence cuts -...
  • User AvatarBill le Breton 18th Apr - 10:24pm
    But what be the biggest shift for a Governing Party over a period of 13 months? Try December 81 to Jan 83. If potential turn...
  • User AvatarEd Wilson 18th Apr - 10:12pm
    Let's try again. "...power 4 million homes..." means onshore wind produces a number of kilowatt hours which, when divided by the notional power consumption of...
  • User AvatarRoland 18th Apr - 9:56pm
    A scary thought has just occurred - the Pensions Minister either doesn't actually know or want us to know, just how much pension tax relief...