Jump to content

Talk:Freedom and Solidarity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Freedom and Solidarity isn't eurosceptic

Freedom and Solidarity is a classical liberal party, which is ELDR observer. Its Youth movement already member of LYMEC and IFLRY: it's hard to say that euroscepticism is one of Freedom and Solidarity's main ideologies. If someone criticizes Bruxelles, this doesn't mean that this person opposes the european integration. In fact, Richard Sulík refused Ganley's approaches and opted for joining ELDR, not ECR.

Francescov1988 (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Except they are Eurosceptic, having opposed the Lisbon Treaty, demanded the EU budget be cut by €10bn, opposed harmonisation of tax policy, etc. See [1]. You should note that affiliation doesn't necessarily reflect ideology, particularly when you consider the Europarties to which the other Slovak parties belong - the nationalist HZDS are in the EDP and the left-wing nationalist Smer are in the PES. Bastin 13:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all I can't open this link, secondly I've read the program on the Relationship with the European Union and they don't oppose membership, nor the Euro adoption. They just want more involvement of the Slovakian Parliament in the partnership with the EU, they demand the Slovakian Parliament to be asked band the Constitution to be modified everytime the E.U. increases its powers towards the national competences. This is not euroscepticism, but the basis of every federal state. Yes, they demand cuts in the E.U. Budget and opposes EU Taxes: but also many other liberal parties wants to cut expenses and to improve the quality, the transparency and the efficiency of the spendings, liberal parties which aim more integration (e.i. the german FDP and the dutch VVD). You can check it here: [2] Do you want another proof? They don't oppose the European Foreign and Security Policy, but they write they want to enforce slovakian diplomacy within it, and within a NATO-EU strenghtened partnership. [3] From this point of view, I don't understand why your reference should be more valuable than these ones. Francescov1988 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Because you're interpreting 'Euroscepticism' by your own definition, which is not supported by the references that you provide. It does not require that a party opposes EU membership. VVD and FDP supported the Lisbon Treaty, support the bail-out of Greece, do not want to cut the EU budget, nor do they want to return control of taxation policy and home affairs to the member states. They don't want a 'lock' on the transfer of further powers, either. Those are all positions where the SaS's policies disagree with the VVD and FDP, and are the hallmarks of anti-federalism (they are, indeed, pretty much exactly the policies of the Conservative Party in the UK), so your own representation of their policies is flawed. We thus revert to the source that states ideology, and that states they're Eurosceptic. Bastin 15:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explain it well. It's not my own difinition. It's true all you've written: all the ELDR Liberal parties supported everything you've quoted (but trust me, on the EU tax-harmonization there isn't any agreement. I just say that on the basis of their program, SaS is not an eurosceptic party. They didn't mentioned they want to stop the transfer of further powers, not in such an assertive way. If you can proof me that they're anti-federalist in the conservative way as you wrote me, well I'll apologize and recognize you were right. Francescov1988 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I just listed all their policies towards Europe, and they're exactly the same as the British Conservatives' policies. Except, instead of a 'referendum lock', they want a 'constitutional vote lock'. I have listed the policies, and they agree with classic Euroscepticism. Indeed, on the budget, they're more Eurosceptic than the Conservatives! You've yet to name one where they prove themselves not to be Eurosceptic, so I think abiding by the reference's explicit statement that they're Eurosceptic will have to do. Bastin 20:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom and Solidarity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom and Solidarity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservative libertarianism/Libertarian conservatism

Why can't we list the party as libertarian-conservative? It's clearly cited that the party is both libertarian and conservative-liberal. Therefore, it's libertarian-conservative or conservative-libertarian, too, even though there aren't any sources saying that word-for-word. Let's add this! 108.16.238.64 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No, let's not, because that's WP:SYNTH.--Autospark (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Soft Euroscepticism

I think we should discuss the issue here on the talk page instead of edit-warring and trying to discuss in the edit summaries. Here's my take: ​​​I think that the distinction between "soft" and "hard" Euroscepticism is a legitimate one that has appeared in academic sources. For example, I added sources that state that SaS is "soft Eurosceptic" (these sources appear in the #Ideology section). I understand that the distinction may be controversial because there is a very vague line between the two (see Euroscepticism#Terminology), so we have to be careful when using the term. However, I think that in SaS's case, there aren't any sources that dispute whether the party is "soft" or "hard" Eurosceptic. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We should not list subjective descriptors such as "hard" or "soft" before any ideology – that makes as little sense as writing hard liberalism, soft libertarianism (etc). Euroscepticism is euroscepticism, and any ideology (or philosophy, or policy, which arguably is what Euroscepticism is) should precedence before any sub-ideologies. Perhaps the best bet would be to move "Eurosceptic" out of the introductory sentence.--Autospark (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I think Euroscepticism is a bit different from the other examples you mentioned. The distinction between "hard" and "soft" is legitimately used, with "hard" representing a desire to leave the European Union and "soft" representing opposition to further integration/expansion/etc. Hopefully, the other two editors can comment too. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I do not think "Euroscepticism" should ever be mentioned as ideology in a party infobox as it is not an ideology per se. Even more strongly, I believe it makes no sense to add "soft" or "hard" to "Euroscepticism". I agree with User:Autospark's proposal. --Checco (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_and_Solidarity/Archive_1&oldid=1123811552"