Talk:The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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.

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)

It appears Sinn Féin is once again listed under United Kingdom - should this not be under Ireland as that is not only how the party itself lists it, but how GUE/NGL themselves list it? - http://guengl.eu/people/meps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.128.223 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Look, the listing is made based on the constituencies that the MEP are elected from. The EP Groups are primarily constituted by MEPs, not parties as such. --Soman (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Sources

2009 president: Lothar Bisky (DIE LINKE) and vice-presidents: Eva-Britt Svensson (Sweden), Ilda Figueiredo (Portugal), Kartika Liotard (Netherlands), Takis HatziGeorgiou (Cyprus) and Miloslav Ransdorf (Czech Republic).

Just a minor criticism

I think it is a bit erroneous to list Bairbre de Brun's country as Britian given her party's opposition to the United Kingdom. Couldnt it be changed to either Northern Ireland or Ulster. Exiledone (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The delegations in the European Parliament are elected by member state. de Brun is elected as one of the UK MEPs, thus she is listed as such. --Soman (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

She may be opposed to Northen Ireland being part of the United Kingdom but that doesnt alter the fact that is (for now ??) still is. There is a difference between opposing something and pretending it doesnt exist. 86.112.69.33 (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a difference that's considered declasse' to dwell on in SF circles. 84.203.37.10 (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is factually incorrect to list the UK and Ireland as Bairbre de Brún's MEP. She is elected in Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. - Marsden4 1st March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsden4 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

By way of enlightened compromise, why don't we list SF under both UK and (Ro)I, but in two separate rows? That way Martina Anderson won't appear to be awkwardly straddling the border. 84.203.37.10 (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. 84.203.39.235 (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

SYRIZA or SYN member of PEL

According to PEL's web site SYN is a member of the European party and not SYRIZA. According to PEL's statuette membership is not inherited. See for example the case of the German Die Linke and its predecessor PDS. After PEL's 4th Congress SYN is still a full member and AKOA is an observer. No other Greek parties applied for membership between the 3rd and the 4th congress. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Zape82. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

PCE-IU

I think all 5 IU MEPs are from the communist party. If so, it should be added,as in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.167.64 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for the page to be blocked

Temporarily as people keep changing the name to SYRIZA, defying the formation of the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.167.64 (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Far left

Isn't this group far left rather than left wing? Its members are mostly communist parties or their successors, it broadly supports revolution, it is to the left of mainstream left wing or socialist parties. And there are no European groupings to its left.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European United Left–Nordic Green Left. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110517163147/http://www.kas.de/wf/de/71.4504/ to http://www.kas.de/wf/de/71.4504/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110517163147/http://www.kas.de/wf/de/71.4504/ to http://www.kas.de/wf/de/71.4504/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Marxism

Here are parties who are Marxist in the group

Progressive Party of Working People

Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia

French Communist Party

Communist Refoundation Party

Portuguese Communist Party

Not sure how some have gotten two. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

True, it's not two. Now that I look at it again, it maybe could go down to just one. As you can see, Marxism–Leninism has a separate article than Marxism, so you can't just count Marxist–Leninist parties in the same category as "Marxism" (at least in the sense you kept adding it to the infobox). French Communist Party and Communist Refoundation Party contested the elections within broader coalitions, so it would be unfair to count them as fully independent units (the ideology of the broader alliance that joined the Group should prevail, and in none of those cases is Marxism included as an ideology of such alliances). Furthermore, the French Communist Party's claim as Marxist seems clearly contested, given that there is a "citation needed" template attached to the ideology in its infobox. Only the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia contested the election in its own right, and even so, it's only in "observer" status. Given that only 1 (observer) independent bloc out of 19 within the group—not counting independents—do share such an ideology (and even if you wished to count every party, it would rise up to 2 out of 22, with one more being in dispute), what's the point in giving such a prominence to Marxism in the infobox? As far as I can see, only the most common and descriptive ideologies are included. Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninism is a form of Marxism. Marxism is a very broad term that encompasses Marxist-Leninism, Luxembourgism, Trotskyism, De Leonism etc. Why should the alliances prevail? There are members of the Frenc Communist party that represent the French people in the European parliament. Clearly there is a number of people who represent the GUE-NGL in the European parliament that are Marxists per my listApollo The Logician (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

In essence, most—if not all—of these ideologies are also different forms of socialism, yet the broader term is not used (check how "democratic socialism" is used in the infobox, which is more specific). And surely, there is some differences between Marxism and Marxism–Leninism that motivates its separate use in infoboxes. If the party infoboxes do list them separately (not using the same term for all those parties), it's not up for you to give it your own meaning and say that merely "Marxism" must be applied for all, since it's not even used as such in all sources you provide and would constitute WP:OR. You'd need true sources proving that Marxism is indeed a relevant ideology of the group.

Alliances should prevail because the group is an alliance in itself. And as you see, the national alliances don't necessarily list all the ideologies of its member parties. So, why should that be the case for a trans-national grouping of parties formed by both parties and alliances, if the national alliances don't follow such a criteria?

And still, and related to the previous points, even if we were to apply to your own reasoning, you'd still have to explain how an ideology that you argue is a reference to 5 out of 22 parties (given that you want to consider the parties as separate without considering the broader alliances) is representative of the whole alliance to the point of adding it to the infobox over other minor ideologies that are also present in other parties. Not all minor ideologies are added. So, why should Marxism be given such an undue weight? Impru20 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Seat count

@Centrist1: If you have something to say please write it here and let's stop this war. The source by the press room of the EU Parliament is of course more reliable than the polling aggregator Europe Elects twitter account that you cited. So we should go with that (and also with what math and arithmetics would suggest, if you take the time to do the count with the table and seats per country). The phrase "possible scenario" is obliged because nothing is certain until the Parliament meets again, so of course no reliable source will tell you that it's certain (meaning again that the Europe Elects is another projection, of course not certain data). --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Look I am not interested in a war either, I will agree with you, I will say this, let’s keep it as because possible scenario doesn’t mean exact. When the political groups meet and on the EU website it will be revealed how many MEPs are in a political group, it will be changed. - Centrist1 (talk) 10:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I am in favor of sources and I expect everyone to be but, possible scenario is not good enough. - Centrist1 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Another source here. Your desire to want something without "possible" is utterly meaningless, since no RS can be certain about it! So we have to rely on what the press release says, and then see afterwards what actually happens. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Here you even have a totally different estimate, and even your source Europe Elects in another article at the same time here gives a different count (notice the other groups too) than in the tweet you used. So let's just fix it at the official estimate by EP sources, and then see. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It’s not meaningless and my desire is to maintain a source of exactness not possibility. Possible scenario is not good enough of a source and reliable that’s why I said let’s keep it as it as and then see, but you refused that because you want your preferred option. - Centrist1 (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not possible at the moment to have a source that says what it's still not yet defined, i.e. a definite post-Brexit composition by political groups. Any source stating the contrary (i.e. that it's not a projection or a possibility) is factually and obviously wrong. So it makes no sense to use your Twitter source to justify the data here just because it doesn't mention "possible", while in fact obviously that is also a projection in the realm of possibility. Denying that is just dishonest. So if we have to choose between projections, let's use what arithmetics tells us (if you wish, do the maths with the table of composition per country in this article) and what's given in a reliable source like the European Parliament press room. And by the way, I agree with keeping the number as it is at the moment (it's backed by official sources , it's consistent with the rest of the article(s) on WP, and it's not completely off w.r.t. other estimates), and update it as soon as the new Parliament session is open. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, in the version of Centrist it counted the seats of all the member-parties and come to 40, while his total is 39. The version of Ritchie gives a county of 40 and a total of 40. The given sources also points to 40 members. Where comes that difference from? The Banner talk 14:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The Left vs GUE/NGL: Name Change?

With the recent change in Logo, combined with changes in its social media and website, it appears that the group is changing its name from the "GUE/NGL" to simply "The Left". In addition, the European Parliament's website now refers to the group as "The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL", and abbreviates it simply as "The Left". I suspect this indicates that their formal name has changed in the European Parliament. Should this change be reflected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendanww2 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brendanww2: Looking over the sites, both The Left and GUE/NGL seem to be used together in official contexts: the European Parliament portal refers to the group as "The Left - GUE/NGL" or "The Left group in the European Parliament - GUE/NGL". The group itself uses the old name in some places: the new logo still features "GUE/NGL" alongside the new name (though much less prominently), its website is still located at guengl.eu, its official email is still "guengl-communications", and the name "European United Left/ Nordic Green Left EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY GROUP" can be found at the bottom of the site. It also uses and defines the name "GUE/NGL" on its The Group page. On the other hand, it has fully rebranded to "The Left" across social media, and refers to itself as such in news and publications. The Left is clearly its new brand and the name it seeks to be known by. However, it's worth noting that media outlets have not made the switch: recent articles from euractiv, Politico, and The Parliament Magazine all refer to GUE/NGL without making mention of The Left. I'm not sure the article should be renamed at this point, until The Left name gains wider usage and recognition. I would be in favour of recognising and using the new name within the article itself, though, and updating related articles to include The Left name alongside GUE/NGL. It's probably also a good idea to update the /meta/color page to the new colour - it seems to be a dark cyan. Erinthecute (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)