Jump to content

Talk:European People's Party/Archive 1

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

PSL

I think Polish Peasats' Party should be removed from the list. They have recently withdrown their membership. Or maybe it should be just mentioned that they withdrew. Jasra 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My sense was that most of their MEPs bailed, but that the party itself remains aligned. They're still listed on the EPP website [1] The Tom 21:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Party names in national langauges

We should decide whether party names should be given in native language (with an English translations in parentheses) as we do right now for most parties, or only in English. Either way seems fine to me but we should consistent.

I'd be in favour of including native language names. —Nightstallion (?) 13:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Agree, we should include either English only or all official EU languages (but then with a hide option). --Roofbird (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

UK Conservative Party????

I thought the UK Conservative Party was a member of the EPP. Can't see them on this list, but don't wish to add them myself; maybe someone can check this out; thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.168.116 (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a complicated matter because the terminology used and understood nature of the organisations involved varies.
The "European People's Party" can refer to either the European wide federation of parties (which the UK Conservatives - now including the Ulster Unionists - and also the Czech Civic Democratic Party, are not members of), or to the grouping in the European Parliament, which since 1999 has been officially called the "European People's Party–European Democrats" and billed as a coalition of the EPP and the European Democrats. Although it's not unknown for parties to sit in a European Parliament group without being members of the relevant wider federation, the Conservatives officially sit in the European Democrats side of this, along with the Civic Democrats, the Italian Pensioners' Party and the Portugese Social Democratic Centre – People's Party.
However the European Democrats isn't really much of a grouping at all and the name was only resurrected in 1999 as a way of providing a fig leaf for the Conservative leadership and MEPs when facing internal criticism of sitting in the EPP, which is officially in favour of greater European integration. This has not worked with calls to leave having been made ever since by activists and MEPs. Virtually everyone discussing the Conservatives' options in the European Parliament (on whatever side of the debate) just uses the phrase "European People's Party" to describe this group (bar those trying to use the existence of the EDs as a get-out-of-this-mess card). Timrollpickering (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism?

In what meaning is liberal conservatism listed here? As Conservative on moral and social issues, or as more libertarian, promoting individual liberty with economic freedom? Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Liberal-conservatism in Europe is the same as American conservatism. It refers to free market conservatism or more precise, classic liberalism with regard to national traditions.

Merge from EPP Group

How is the European People's Party different from the EPP Group? The EPP Group article says that EPP is a younger "transnational political party founded in 1976 which all group members are now affiliated to", but I could not find more detail.--ilgiz (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got history as well though, mentioning the discontinuity of membership only last month, and countries in the EPP but not the group as they're not elected. Best to keep separate, as all other groups are. So long as they are interlinked and clear, then it would be less confusing this way rather than reference between them in the same article.- J.Logan`t: 08:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference is exactly what the name of the group states: it is the "Group of the European People's Party", similarly to parliamentary groups of parties in Member States or other countries. Just as MPs are elected on the list of their party and then they form their parliamentary groups, the MEPs elected on the lists of parties that are members of the EPP (the europarty) then form the EPP Group is the European parliament. Also, the leader of the EPP Group is an ex officio member of the EPP (europarty) Presidency. Furthermore, according to the EU regulation on europarties, the europarties are the ones that have the right to campaign for the European elections, not their political groups. Finally, the EPP (the europarty) similarly to national parties, has a broader political role since it deals with all the EU institutions (not just parliament) and also has member-parties with associate or observer status in countries outside the EU. Thus, the correct thing to do is to merge the EPP Group as a subsection of the EPP since it is the only group in parliament that fully corresponds to its respective europarty (not the case with Socialists, Liberals, Greens, etc.) but also proper interlinking between the two articles is also ok, though not ideal.Europarliament (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in Hungarian part

The EPP (party, not group) website lists two Hungarian parties as members, this wikipedia article has three. What gives? http://www.epp.eu/memberparties.php?hoofdmenuID=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.73.58 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Political affiliation of European Commissioners

I'm a bit perplexed to see European Commissioners spoken of like they belong to the EPP. The fact that a number of the Commissioners designate are described as "EPP Commissioners" is particularly jarring. I propose that they be described as being from parties affiliated to the EPP.

Demdem (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrius Kubilius

Kubilius is no longer PM of Lithuania, so should be removed from the Council list. The rest of the list should also be checked. User332572385 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegates -- chosen by magic?

How are delegates to the Congress--supposedly the "highest decision-making body"--chosen? This seems a rather important detail. Given that the Europarl will choose the next Commission president, and the EPP is the largest party in the Europarl, understanding the EPP Congress is rather important to understanding the EU. Without knowing who chooses the Congressional delegates (and how), we really don't know an awful lot about the EPP, IMHO--its just another black box. I realize that we have the same problem with EPP's constituent parties--that little is known about how they actually work--but we must start somewhere. For a hint at what I'm looking for, see my work on the California Democratic Party#Governance, the largest constituent party of what is known as the US Democratic Party (the national Democratic Party apparatus has a rather informal role in US politics FYI--although no one really knew that until Wikipedia came along.) The main thing that should be taken from the California Democratic Party article is that this process of selecting party officials can be quite complicated, and rather important. Int21h (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. The EPP its a Belgian non-profit that operates under by-laws adopted in that country, with the legal version in French. "The composition and the functioning of the Congress are regulated in the Internal Regulations." One of the references explains those internal regulations. The EPP will choose its candidate for Commission President at its next Congress. Int21h (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

4 Freedoms Party / EPP: European Parliament election 2014 London Region

The "4 Freedoms Party - UK EPP" is fielding a list of candidates in the May 2014 EP election. Their website makes reference to the non-allicance of the Conservatives with the EPP leading to this breakaway group advertising as the official EPP representative for the UK

http://www.4freedomsparty.eu/

This probably should be folded into the main article

--90.220.152.124 (talk) 11:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on European People's Party. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on European People's Party. 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) 11:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of international affiliations

International affiliation becomes complicated. Broadly speaking, EPP parties affiliate with the CDI, IDU or both. But some EPP parties, like the PNL, associate with the Liberal International. As there is considerable variation within the party I think it's best to remove the international affiliation section. · | (talk - contributions) 09:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The EPP as an entity is affiliated to both the CDI and IDU. The International affiliation section is for the EPP itself, not its constituent member parties.----Autospark (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see - in which case I stand corrected. · | (talk - contributions) 17:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Maia Sandu (politician from moldova and affiliated to the EPP) being added to the HoG list under observer status

Since Pavel Filip has resigned from being the Prime Minister of Moldova and has handed to a member of the PAS party, Maia Sandu. Does she classify under the Heads of government list since she is an observer party group and the Norway and Bosnian parties are included anyway.

sufyanxtreme (talk) 21:50, 14 june 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

restore to consensus on Fidesz

There was a stable consensus for the use of the phrase "Controversy over the undermining of rule of law in Hungary by ruling party Fidesz and its leader Viktor Orbán caused a split in the EPP in the run-up of the 2019 European Parliament election" which had the word "supposed" inserted by user KIENGIR. Place Clichy reverted to remove "supposed". I then proposed a compromise wording, which was not accepted, so I revert to the status quo which I also support. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Support the compromise ("Concerns that [...]") — the current phrasing assumes as true that the undermining of the rule of law took place, which is controversial. As for the coalition issue, from the sources I'm aware of, it seems clear that, formally, the coalition exists and both parties are in government. But I don't think it would be wrong to state that Fidesz is the ruling party, which it really is. Therefore, I support preferably the phrasing: "Concerns that Fidesz, the largest party in the governing coalition, and its leader Viktor Orbán were undermining the rule of law in Hungary", but I also accept the phrasing: "Concerns that the Hungarian ruling party Fidesz and its leader Viktor Orbán were undermining the rule of law in Hungary". LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue:,
your representation is again not accurate, your rephrasing ([2]) was accepted, the only recent issue was about "ruling party", so in case you should have returned on a revision on that section like this ([3]). I would be very much happy if in the future you would strictly think twice before acting, reverting, etc., not to run in such flaws.
I concur LongLivePortugal's first suggestion, the section was just made by sloppy insertions, without expert review, we have to remain serious, a coalition rules, if we expressed which is the dominant one, should satisfy anybody.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC))
KIENGIR, the word "supposedly' was introduced by you in this diff, on the 19th of March. It was removed in this diff, less than 24 hours later, you then reverted it back in. My post was intended to break this impasse, but could not be agreed, so I have reverted to the consensus ante. The idea that the Hungarian government is a "coalition" is controversial, they are in fact an electoral alliance and it is possible to be a member of both parties simultaneously. The degree to which the junior "coalition partner" has an independent existence is a matter of opinion, and an electoral alliance is not the same thing as a coalition. So to avoid discussing all that, the only logical thing to say is that they are the "governing party", which does not preclude them being part of a coalition as hundreds and thousands of RS do.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, there is a source here which states that KDNP is "considered by many to be a satellite party", also here and here. The controversy is documented, and as LongLivePortugal correctly stated, being the "ruling party" does not preclude being part of a coalition, even if we were to consider the KDNP to be an independent party. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue:,
you are really tiring, why don't you mind what I said about thinking twice?
the dicussion was not about the "supposedly"-issue, just becase you erronously suggest if it was once reverted would mean ultimate rejection...unless it is not reverted the second time or in talk page a case is not opened, you have to assume it is accepted, as many of us reconsider ourselves by even edit log arguments. Hence, you rephrasing has been accepted - obviously by me as well -, since my futher edit did not touch those edit of yours, hence the situation is as I explained in my previous answer (you reverted more backwards as necessary this case).
On the other matter, sorry facts are NOT controversial, it is official, a mandatory formula even before, meanwhile and after the elections, and because of that even more advanced and even restrictive requirements are bounded by law for that formations. I am really not interested much that you wish to fight the facts with lame sources, or other POVs, again not understanding the most important aspect of WP:NPOV that we should not represent opinions as facts. You may add sources to opine about KDNP or anything else, but it is a FACT that a colation governs, Fidesz–KDNP, and yes KDNP is a sovereign party. Deal with it.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
I have a large number of reliable sources which describe KDNP as a satellite party, there are quite a few academic ones I could add too. I know your control of English is not that of a native, but "lame sources" is an inappropriate description of the sources I added, if it is meant as written, you would need to explain the way in which you consider them to be "lame".
As it goes, I am happy to reinstate the compromise wording, which excluded the controversial claim that the Hungarian government is "the lead party in a a coalition" which is disputed, as you well know, even by members of that very government. The leading Fidesz politician Janos Lazar stated "It would be good if the KDNP (Christian Democratic People’s Party) would face the fact that this is not a coalition government." You really haven't got a leg to stand on here. Will you accept the restoring of the compromise version?Boynamedsue (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue:,
again, the issue is NOT about if KDNP is described as a satellite party or not. The issue is that a government is based on a party-coalition rule. We should not use sources that contain bogus or inaccurate information, but we need amend them, etc. Lázár's statements are completely irrelevant, the Parliament and the legislation has it's own rules, and by it the Fidesz-KDNP is the governing colation, by law. Again, mind opinions VS facts. I ask you to avoid such ridiculous remarks like "You really haven't got a leg to stand on here", especially when you reccurently demonstrate lack of understanding of our guidelines and policies, etc. To avoid any misunderstanding, please present here first what would you change to what in a (before -> after) format.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
We are bound to use WP:NPOV, if there are multiple views, they all need to be included. Stating the Hungarian government is a coalition is a point of view, a point of view not shared by some of its own members. A legal formality (which is not proven here, as an alliance is not the same as a coalition) can be objectively false, and many RS consider it to be so. This is why we need wording that neither includes nor excludes the idea of a coalition existing. It is simply a matter of neutrality.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
My proposal remains: "Concerns that the governing Fidesz party and its leader Viktor Orbán were undermining the rule of law in Hungary caused a split in the EPP in the run-up of the 2019 European Parliament election" Boynamedsue (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: and @KIENGIR: — I have a suggestion that attempts to reconcile both of your preferences: "Concerns that the Hungarian ruling party Fidesz (formally, the largest party in the governing coalition, together with the KDNP) and its leader Viktor Orbán were undermining the rule of law in Hungary [...]". It recognises that the coalition in fact exists, as KIENGIR wants (information which I personally also believe shouldn't be omitted), but describes it as a mere formality, which is the point that Boynamedsue is making. I think it addresses both of your concerns. What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I would leave out the comma after "formally", or possibly drop the "formally" and use "electoral alliance" instead of "coalition"? It's a possible solution, but I don't want to commit to it immediately. I would like to hear the opinion of another involved user, Place Clichy, before agreeing the change.Boynamedsue (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I suggest placing in a footnote the comment about the coalition and KDNP, if kept at all. Clearly, the whole proceedings of the EPP about the Fidesz membership were motivated by its role in Hungarian politics, not its coalition status. Place Clichy (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the footnote is a great idea, which has the advantage of allowing us to elaborate on the questionable nature of the coalition itself, using reliable sources. As such, the footnote could say something like "Formally the Fidesz is part of a coalition government, together with the KDNP. However, the KDNP is often accused of being in practice no more than a satellite party of the Fidesz." And, of course, adding sources for this statement on the footnote. @KIENGIR: What do you think? LongLivePortugal (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue: I only do not agree with using "alliance" as a replacement for "coalition" because, as far as I know, the proper descriptor for this kind of government is really the word "coalition". Do you accept the suggested footnote and main text? LongLivePortugal (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Support both the original stable version and the compromise version proposed by User:Boynamedsue. Sure we should avoid presenting opinion as fact. Precisely, the opinion that the suspension of Fidesz by the EPP was not a sanction, was in fact a consensual solution agreed to by Fidesz or more generally was not a hostile gesture is probably the only opinion not worth focusing on here. EPP acted to sanction Fidesz, full stop, and we should not weasel around to present it otherwise. There are plenty of mainstream reliable English-language sources attesting of that. Per WP:RSUE policy, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Therefore, looking out for Hungarian-language sources which reliability and neutrality cannot be easily established by English-language users is not a good way to proceed, especially to support edits changing the meaning of the article to state that the decision to suspend Fidesz was a "common agreement". Reliable sources The Economist and Politico undeniably state that only Orbán publicly called this decision a compromise rather than a sanction. Place Clichy (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the English sources I've seen universally describe it as a sanction rather than a consensual solution. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue:,
- simply stop fantasysing an alternate reality. The coalition is a FACT, not a point of view. I won't argue on this further, it is very suspicious what is your true interest to identify the reality different as it is, quite interesting you do not go to edit Slovak or Romanian government related articles dismissing they have as well coalition goverments, and deny these facts (just two examples, come up there with such and you will be ridiculed as well). Stop at once!
- your proposal made at 13:54, 24 March 2021 by default is ok, however we are still discussiong the governing-issue which is a separate thing.
- @LongLivePortugal:, your proposal is not bad, however I agree to leave out formally as well, since it is not just formally the largest parts, however still I think the largest party of the governing coalition is the shortest best form, already consensused in another article, and may add wikilinks better. Please also enlight Boynamedsue that it has been not just and electoral alliance, but as well a permanent party colation inside the legislative framework in the Hungarian Parliament, like as Olano-We Are Family-Freedom and Solidarity-For the People in Slovakia, or like PNL-USR-PLUS-UDMR in Romania, and if anyone in the future try to hide this and deny reality, it has to be considered at this point as a willful distortion and highly disruptive. About the footnotes you asked, this article is not the right place to opine neither Fidesz or KDNP's alleged influence in the Hungarian politics, even if you try to appease the other editors, you have to see the premise is the problem, which very strange an unserious trial. Call the spade as a spade, Hungary is governed by Fidesz-KDNP, this is not a matter or debate. So we should further form/shorten your proposal to be perfect.
- Place Clichy, possibly you are not an expert rearding Hungarian external and internal politics, I am surprized (however I don't sense bad faith from you at this point), that you come up with this. So I repeat, it is a fact that Fidesz offered in 2019 that they should form a solution to the misunderstandings that they retreat by a self-proposed suggestion, which would be mutually agreed, and they assign more observatory members meanwhile, who would analyze and perform a scrutiny in Hungary about the situation (charges, accusations vs. reality). Just because many of the traditionally anti-government stance media tried to sell it as a one-way suspension, it does not mean that is was like that, since these are officially documented as an agreement, etc. Opinions vs. facts again. I think noone should enter in this isssue without necessary knowlgedge, analysis and scrutiny, especially when in the wake of the contemporary political shoapboxing between left and right in international level, fake or distorted knews are sometimes prevalent. Everyone who has just a little insight of the events, know it was a common agreement, even reinforced my multiple RS, language does not matter, even that phenomenon is discussed how this was distorted by some media.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC))
LongLivePortugal The footnote is fine for me (following text, per your suggestion: "Formally the Fidesz is part of a coalition government, together with the KDNP. However, the KDNP is often accused of being in practice no more than a satellite party of the Fidesz." Boynamedsue (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Lower and Upper Houses

The European Lower and Upper Houses need a new number check! For exemple, the numbers for representatives in the lower houses in the first table and second table don't match. If we add them we have a 61 difference. Not to mention that the number is very differenet from the one in the infobox. This whole thing must be resumed. And if we are at it, we must also check if those national parties still have that number of representatives. I suggest one edit per party and a very detailed description. NO BIG EDITS so others can check and help the process. - Barumbarumba (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have started with Belgium. We will add them in the infobox at the very end. Be sure to also check if the house still has that number of seats. - Barumbarumba (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Party colours

Are there any official sources that confirm the party's official colours? And, if not (assuming the official colours are based on the colours commonly used by the EPP in its material), where does the reference to 'sky blue' as a 'customary' colour come from, because as far as I can see the EPP primarily uses dark blue? - ATeaAddict (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_People%27s_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1146767766"