Talk:European United Left–Nordic Green Left

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Sinn Fein(Ireland) joined this group last year, and aren't mentioned.

It's a quibble barely worth mentioning – but Sinn Fein itself didn't join the EUL-NGL, its members are merely sitting in the EUL-NGL's parliamentary caucus. QuartierLatin1968 04:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't Sinn Fein be mentioned under the UK as well? They have an MEP in NI as well as in the Republic.

[edit] Nice table!

...but what's the significance of the backgrounds red versus pink? It doesn't seem to correspond to the member/associate distinction within the European Left bloc (though I'll double-check that), nor even particularly to the degree of the party's radicalism! QuartierLatin1968 04:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Red = PEL & UEL, Pink = UEL only, Green = NGLA The Tom 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I reverted the removal of Sinn Féin from United Kingdom as it was unexplained. If there is an explaination for the edit, or some sort of verification, please accept my apologies and feel free to make the same edit again.Inner Earth 11:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complexion

Ok. Let's discuss it. GUE consists mainly of PEL and NGL parties but it has its own partnership. The coalition was founded with the participation of parties that are against the existence of the PEL, like KKE and the Portuguese CP. Take also the case of the Left Bloc of Portugal. It is a member of PEL but not a formal member of GUE/NGL. What "complexion" is about? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. NGL is not the same as NGLA, PEL is not the same as UEL. GUE/NGL is not the same as PEL+NGLA. We have to aknowledge that the intraleft relations are somewhat complicated, at least compared to some of the other main groupings in the Parliament.
    • GUE/NGL is the product of the fusion of three entities, UEL, Left Unity (KKE, PCP, PCF) and NGL. It existed prior to the formation of both PEL and NGLA. GUE/NGL is not the parliamentary wing of PEL. These are two parallell structures.
    • PEL is a 'Euro-party', which has ambitions to be a political force using the EU as its arena. 5 out of 15 GUE/NGL members are full members of PEL.
    • NGLA is not a 'Euro-party', it has no ambitions of working within the EU as a political arena. Its a solely Nordic cooperation. 3 NGLA parties are represented in the Parliament, 2 of them are member of GUE/NGL.
    • Many of the GUE/NGL members (a majority i would suppose) are members of New European Left Forum. This grouping includes both PEL and NGLA member parties.
    • Bloco de Esquerda, observer in GUE/NGL, is a full member of European Anticapitalist Left. Rifondazione, a full member of GUE/NGL, is an observer of EACL.
    • Many parties are also in the Unified European Left Group in PACE.
    • Four of the full GUE/NGL members are member of the coordinating committee for the International Conference of Communist and Workers Parties. A fifth party, PCE, is a major force in GUE/NGL.

--Soman (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I (and C_mon, likely others too) see it is as follows:

  • GUE-NGL is the group of the European communists, leftists and nordic Greens.
  • PEL and NGLA are the two European parties / party groups currently operating and notable enough for a Wikipedia article (if there are others, we can include those, too, of course).
  • "Complexion" in this case means "European parties which make up this group (mostly)". The fact that not all members of a certain European party are members of GUE-NGL is not a problem, that's the case with a lot of the nationalist parties in I/D and UEN, as well.

So, where exactly is the problem? —Nightstallion 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote Nightstallion. --Checco (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, the French Wikipedia claims (without a source) that "GUE-NGL is expected to disappear with the creation of the the <Group of the Party of the European Left> after the 2009 European elections", see this link. So we may actually see some unification on the left side of the political spectrum, which I consider a good idea, frankly. —Nightstallion 18:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a classic crystal ball error. Certainly there are parties which would like PEL on take over the role of GUE/NGL, but realistically speaking, who believes that Bertinotti will be setting the agenda of the european left for the near future? --Soman (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't ask me whether it's true, but I just wanted to mention it in case anyone was interested. Either way, has this issue been resolved now? —Nightstallion 19:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion: Right now, PEL has no absolute control in GUE/NGL but it tries to. The members of GUE/NGL in order to keep together and keep having the team have take some decisions. For example, the members can vote at free will. KKE almost never votes GUE/NGL suggestions. Due to the recent defeats of RfC and PCF in their countries, I think it's difficult for them to adopt a stricter line against KKE and, probably, PCP. Everyone is waiting for the next Euroelections. Conclusion: Right now, GUE/NGL is NOT PEL+NGL. They are two different formations with some parties participating in both of them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Let me try to put this as clearly as possible: Nobody claims that GUE/NGL = PEL+NGLA. All we're saying is that the European parties (or party-like organisations, in NGLA's case) which send all or almost all of their members are PEL and NGLA, so they make up the "complexion" of the group as we define it in Wikipedia articles on the European Parliament. Okay? —Nightstallion 20:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's ok with me. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Great! I was afraid I wasn't expressing myself clearly -- after all, English isn't my first language. ;) Soman, you okay with it, too? —Nightstallion 20:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to be a spoiler, but although I understand your arguments, I still think a differentiation is necessary. I think PEL should be mentioned, but NGLA parties listed as unaffiliated. 3 NGLA parties are in the EP, 2 of them are in GUE/NGL. Its a majority, but far from an overwhelming one. Whilst one could clearly say that GUE/NGL is the group of the PEL parties, there is no such consensus in NGLA. --Soman (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't consider you a spoiler, rest assured. However, compare the situation to Independence/Democracy: The party contains a part, but not all, of the parties in AIDE and EUDemocrats, but we list them in their complexion, nonetheless. We could, if you prefer that, state " (part)" after NGLA, AIDE and EUD, as they do only send part of their MEPs into the groups. —Nightstallion 21:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest we keep mention all other entitities other than PEL in the infobox, with the wording 'some', and explain about NGLA and other platforms in the article text. Also, another question; is there really a UEL subgroup in the group? --Soman (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
NGLA is the only really notable and large faction other than PEL, so we should mention it -- the other organisations appear not to be even notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, as far as I can see; therefore I'd mention only PEL and NGLA in the infobox. But I have got nothing against mentioning the other organisations in the text and explaining the details about NGLA, as well. —Nightstallion 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think with the new sections in the template the issues you had should be resolved now...? —Nightstallion 11:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)