Taking this now...oh man first question is a killer: "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."
Why on Earth is this a killer? Did you really have to think about this one? The answer was so easy, I think this frain makes asking bias. No, I favour transnational corporations rather than humanity, sorry.
Country: The United Kingdom
Party in office : The Conservatives
Opinion: I hate them and I hate Cameron.
Next election: I will vote for labor
Most dangerous party : UKIP
^Mostly my choice if I lived in Britain; UKIP are on the verge of fascism (Foreigners - out!) We are not European anymore, we are Atlantic, sorry. We're converting our armoury to harpoons as we speak.). Labour is, I think, the best party, but it's only the smallest evil. It's still pretty right, but who is left? The "drugs are cool" party and "Respect" party?
What really you see UKIP as dangerous? I track British politics pretty closely and they seem to have the best interests of British working and middle class folks. The massive influx of immigration has long term negatives associated with it that politicians and EU social reformers and progressives cannot begin to foresee and imagine. And I am not being a racist here...it doesn't matter the religion or ethnicity of the immigrants. The scale currently allowed by Germany, the EU, and the last liberal government before Cameron took over are going to fundamentally transform Europe and England. I hope UKIP pushes hard for UK to leave the EU.
Let me start off by saying that most every party says that they have the best interests of the middle class. That's where the vote is supposed to come from. Now, immigration supposedly causes negatives. Really? This is just a myth and it's been disproved so many times. Immigration is a net gain to a population; there's been so many studies done on this, here are a few:
https://hal.inria.fr/file/index/docid/800617/filename/13013.pdf (survey on 22 OECD countries)
http://www.cebi.ox.ac.uk/fileadmin/documents/PDF/wp25_Economic_effects_of_immigration.pdf (specifically relating to Britain)
http://www.oecd.org/migration/OECD%20Migration%20Policy%20Debates%20Numero%202.pdf (OECD talk)
Immigrants? Get as many as you can. What long-term negatives does it have associated with it, other than perhaps "cultural collapse"? You can't see a nonexistent obstacle, so just pretend it doesn't exist. The scale allowed by Germany is normal. The scale allowed by Britain and most OECD countries: statistically negligible (10,000 is nothing. To put it in perspective, Jersey has 100,000 folk; Mann has 85,000; Guernsey has 65,000; Tortola (in the British Virgin Islands) has 20,000).
What's the point of leaving the EU? Leaving from a free market of other countries, to co-operate with France and Germany to get their economies as strong as possible, and for what? The Commonwealth? A shipping nightmare?
If the EU would solidify, it could become more powerful than America; but the nationalist UKIP would never be bit of that project.
Most dangerous: Greens (won't get significant powers for a long time (or ever hopefully)) and SNP have some fairly crack policy's one threatons national security and the other threatens the unity of the UK.
Greens aren't dangerous; they're just going to legalise some weird things, and lower the authoritarianism. As for SNP, I agree with most of their policies, but I don't agree with Scotland leaving Britain.
The SNP is dangerously incapable of handling their own finances in my opinion, but I agree with self-determination sentiments. Catalonia, Flanders, Scotland, Transnistria, Donetsk and Luhansk, Kosovo, etc should all receive referendums on independence. The only reason they've been placed within their native countries is because of WWII and Cold War map divisions.
Well, Pridnestrovia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kosova are independent, voted to be independent already, declared independence; it's just recognition. Also self-determination hurts everyone involved in the long-run. In unity, it's stronger; would America be so strong as 51 independent countries?
And also, for obvious grounds: it won't matter. No country will let go of their land for naught.
My country: Belarus
Ruling party: Lukashenka:
Party-independent (fits most to national socialism)
Opinions: Fine as far as parties go; he pulled Belarus out of the dashing 90s road that Russia went down, and now Belarus has one of the lowest nonworking rates (<0.5%), and very high income equality and is somewhat stable, in a mild economic slipspace.
Vote: Lukashenka. He's not great, but communist party, nationalist party, far-right party, mild-right party...he's definitely the best.
Dangerous: United Civic Party and various exopartisans.
And no, Belarus is not the only country in Europe to have the death punishment, against folk's belief.
My score on this compass:
-2.75; 0.1 (right on the line); a socialist
Edited 11/8/2015 05:12:35
