EU: Will Populist Parties Run (Ruin) Europe? - by Judy Dempsey

Populism and Nationalism, two destructive political forces

Populism is on the rise in Europe but is unlikely to win enough votes to run Europe. Yet the risk that populism will run Europe by proxy is real if mainstream governments do not address the phenomenon’s underlying causes.

Leaders of the center-right and center-left are racing to embrace right-wing populist demagoguery in the hope of catching a few votes. This tactic does not pay off, as Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico discovered in Slovakia’s parliamentary election on March 5. His embrace of the right-wing anti-immigration card boosted far-right parties more than his own. If voters want xenophobia, they will choose the real thing.

But Fico’s experience does not seem to be persuading mainstream politicians to stop chasing right-wing populism. Governments’ responses to the refugee influx are paralyzed by a fear of populism’s rise in upcoming elections.

Worse still, populists are framing the way in which the refugee challenge is debated. These fears are blocking the emergence of alternative solutions, in turn giving populists even more ammunition. If mainstream politics does not recapture the debate with alternative proposals and a vocabulary that reflects its principles (those that have held Europe together), it will put itself at the mercy of a populist minority.

Contrary to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s boldest dreams, illiberal national populists will not run Europe anytime soon. In many countries, the shrinking center still just about holds. But this should provide little comfort. Populists don’t need to run Europe to ruin it. Of course, the poison works best in countries where authoritarian populists control the government. The proudly illiberal regimes of Orbán and Jarosław Kaczyński, leader of Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party, would fail to meet the Copenhagen criteria for acceding EU states.

But populists do not need to control the government to feed on and fuel a new age of fear in Europe: fear of the Other (especially Muslims) and fear of global competition. Populists’ seemingly easy answers—pull up the national drawbridge to keep Muslims and competition out—put pressure on terrified establishment elites and drag political culture to previously unseen lows, depriving policymaking of the oxygen of reason.

This trend is now also threatening to engulf Germany, so far one of the last islands of liberal democratic normalcy. If you want to know what a neurotic Germany feels like, take Bavarian Minister President Horst Seehofer as a harbinger of things to come. Not a pretty prospect for the dream of a self-confident liberal Europe in the twenty-first century.

Populist parties already run many European countries. Look at Central and Eastern Europe, where populists formally make up the government, or at France and the UK, where they set the tone of the political debate to a greater or lesser degree. There are reasons to believe that populist and other fringe political forces will increasingly shape Europe’s political landscape and polarize it along liberal versus illiberal or globalist versus territorialist dividing lines.

But the real question is not whether populists are likely to grab power in one or two more EU member states—although a French presidency led by the far-right National Front’s Marine Le Pen would be the end of Europe as we know it. The real (and currently materializing) threat is that so-called mainstream parties will gradually give up their fundamental principles of human rights, civil liberties, equality, and openness out of panic fear of a populist surge.

The rise of populism is sometimes a high but inevitable price to pay for a firm policy of not bowing to external pressures. The right-wing Alternative for Germany versus Chancellor Angela Merkel is a case in point. Perhaps Europe needs to accept this price. And instead of seeking to accommodate populists, Europe should try to mobilize those large parts of society that have lost not only confidence in the elites but also the belief that the stakes in today’s politics are high. If liberal democracy and open societies fall in Europe, it will happen by default, not because of an outright rejection by the people.

Read more: Judy Asks: Will Populist Parties Run Europe? - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

EU - Not all is bad: 5 great laws the EU nailed down in 2015 for its citizens

Divided we fail, United we gain

The EU is probably the most popular scapegoat for politicians. For some, it is a symbol of neo-liberal economic politics, for others, a bureaucratic nightmare that issues self-preserving legislation at a record pace.

David Cameron and the Christian Social Union even want to introduce a national veto, illustrating the trust that Brussels has haemorrhaged in "certain circles".

But not all is bad, As a matter of fact - if we did not have the EU, things could be quite awful for all of us, as we would not have any more controls over corporate manipulations, affecting our daily life, and even the food we eat. Also, local government's hanky panky in making "under-the-table" tax deals with multi-national corporations, already quite a problem, would probably go completely out of control.

1)  Every year, around 30,000 people are killed in traffic accidents on European roads. New EU legislation will require car manufacturers to build their vehicles with devices that automatically notify the emergency services in the event of an accident.

2) Use of Internet Data and privacy laws: EU data-protection reform comes into force in the spring and is implemented by member states over the next two years. Companies like Google and Facebook will now have to provide clear terms and conditions, with understandable symbols. In this way, citizens will have more useful information that will let them decide what information they want to make available. "Simple symbols will make it clear for everyone what companies can and cannot do with your data," said MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht (Greens), rapporteur for the data protection directive.

3)  Booking holidays and weekend breaks on the web continues to increase in popularity. Travel agents and providers have recognised this trend and have started to link their flight deals to car rentals, hotels and other deals. The total cost of the package being bought is not always clear to the consumer and there is sometimes a lack of protection.

Come the spring, new rules will mean that such offers are classed as package holidays. That means that consumers will be better protected. A standard 14-day return policy will be guaranteed and there will be more transparency and comparative deals on offer. If travel providers go bankrupt, then customers will always be paid back their money.

4) Banks often like to keep their customers in the dark about fees and Brussels has moved to make that a thing of the past. New legislation will now mean that customers will be given more clear information about the fees charged when making purchases with credit cards. The maximum charge for credit cards will be 0.3% of the value of the transaction and the maximum for debit cards will be 0.2%.. You are encouraged to question your banks about their charges and if you don't like what they tell you contact the European Ombudsman.

5) In the EU, around 100 billion plastic bags are used annually, about 8 billion of which end up being carelessly dumped in the oceans, where they have a huge impact on the environment and eco-systems. "In the North Sea, 94% of birds' stomachs contain plastic," reported the European Commission.

Brussels decided in 2015 to make the member states massively reduce their production and use of plastic bags, giving the 28 countries the choice of binding targets or pricing. EU states were given the choice of either ensuring that no plastic bags are given away free by 31 December 2018 or reaching the goals of 90 bags maximum per person per year by 2019 and 40 bags maximum by 2025.

Divided we fail, United we gain .

EU-Digest

EU’s Fate After Paris: A Dark Scenario - by Daniel Stelte

The EU: United we stand divided  we will fail

The terrorist attacks from Paris, inhuman and brutal, serve as an accelerant for already ongoing processes that have been weakening the European Union’s bonds.

Now they combine in a dangerous mixture and react with each other:

• The “third world war”, as labeled by the pope, with radical Islam, which is intensifying for years and in which peaceful solution seems more and more utopian.
• The wave of refugees flowing into Europe, trying to escape war, suppression and poverty.
• A depressing lack of cultural will for self-defense of the West, serving like an invitation to intolerant people to become even more intolerant.
• A European Union that shows more and more that it is not build on shared values but on the generation of economic gains and prosperity. Once Union stops being financially beneficial politicians come under pressure to explain the benefits to their national electorates.
• European governments not sticking to agreements and rules. Declaring themselves incapable of returning to the order of law.
• Governments and private sectors having lived beyond their financial means for years, unable to deal with the hefty debt load and unfunded promises for retirement and health care of an aging society.
• European leaders who have instead of addressing these issues and the ongoing Euro crisis heads on have played for time – without making use of this time.

All of this – and the list is not complete – is now mixing and reinforcing each other.

Note EU-Digest:  Only unity in purpose and joint European action can overcome the dangers that lie ahead.  If the EU breaks up the enemy, which is not only terrorism as such, but also corporate greed and manipulation, will slowly but surely pick away and destroy democracy and liberty individually in each European state without mercy. The EU is worth fighting for !

Read more: EU’s Fate After Paris: A Dark Scenario - The Globalist

Europe's Future Is Federal - by Jean Tirole

Numerous Europeans view Europe as a one-way street: they appreciate its advantages but are little inclined to accept common rules. An increasing number throughout the Union are handing their vote to populist parties – Front National, Syriza, Podemos – that surf on this Eurosceptic wave and rise up against “foreign”- imported constraints.

Embroiled with the Greek crisis, European policymakers will soon have to step back and reflect on the broader issue of the Eurozone’s future. Before envisaging an exit or, on the contrary, more sustained integration, it’s right to reflect upon the consequences of each option.

Oversimplifying, there are three strategies for the Eurozone: a minimalist approach that would see a return to national currencies, while keeping Europe perhaps as a free trade area and retaining a few institutions that have made a real difference such as common competition laws; the current approach based on the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and its fiscal compact update in 2012; and, finally, the more ambitious version of federalism. My own clear preference is for the federalist version but I’m not at all convinced that Europeans are ready to make it work successfully.

Note EU-Digest:  Federalism is probably the only way to go if Europe does not want to become subservient to the presently ruling superpowers, China, the US, and even Russia. Populism and nationalism is not the way to go, as it has always turned sour in Europe's history. True federalism would certainly require finding another historic shining political star like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who has the ability to get the EU reorganized, and all the EU member states moving in the same direction. Let's hope we get blessed soon in finding that "needle in the political haystack" to rescue the EU out of the iron grip of the Wall Steet dominated financial community.

Read more: Europe's Future Is Federal » Social Europe

The Netherlands: "if we don't watch out, we might all soon be working for the Chinese

In an interview, during the European parliamentary elections, with the Dutch daily Volkskrant, Anette Nijs, a retired Dutch politician of the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) who also was the State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science in the Dutch Government of  Balkenende I and II  from 22 July 2002 until 9 June 2004, and also Member of the Dutch House of Representatives from 30 January 2003 until 27 May 2003 and again from 7 June 2005 until 30 November 2006, expressed her concern about weakening of EU and US economic power as opposed to that of China.

"I'm not afraid of China, but emerging countries, with China in the lead, have two engines: the market and the state. We can not compete with that. If China is a large contract in India close to the electrical infrastructure, then the command to Chinese companies. I'd rather not see that happen in Europe. We must therefore ensure that Europe remains at the economic summit. I travel a lot and see what the Chinese do. They build new ports, which will hit Rotterdam directly. They build huge airports that goes Schiphol brands. Their technology is very advanced, which Philips will notice. "
 
" At the Shanghai Asia Summit, and I suggested to the Chinese PM that China include research questions to combat air pollution put on the Internet. China needs to develop the best proposals and solutions available to the rest of the world. 

China is still not soing the right things as a developing country. But in the Netherlands and the US, they are already talking about the 'new poor'. Labor costs in the auto industry in Detroit are lower than those in China. As the Netherlands and the other countries in the EU are not careful we will soon be the new low-wage countries and probably working for Chinese companies " 

She also stressed the fact that the political elite within the EU member states should abandon their focus on just their own national interests but instead  focus on broadening and strengthening the unity among EU member states.

EU-Digest

European parliamentary elections: better together

Divided we fall - United we win

This week's European parliament elections are the most important of their kind for years. Since the last vote in 2009, Europe has been buffeted by banking failures and sovereign debt crisis, while Europeans in and out of the eurozone have been compelled to undergo prolonged austerity programmes.

The social damage of these measures, however necessary some may argue they were in economic terms, has been profound, lowering living standards and calling into question the long-term sustainability of European welfare and employment models. Hostility to the European Union has increased to new levels in many nations, fuelled by tensions over migration, and often matched by a wider domestic disillusionment with the national political classes of the member states, whose authority has rarely seemed more compromised.

Meanwhile, the EU is confronted with a foreign policy crisis in Ukraine which exposes the limits of Europe's influence in its own near-abroad. This is resetting relations with Russia into a more confrontational form at the same time as a relatively weakened United States redirects its principal focus towards Asia, and hopes of greater stability in Turkey and the Arab world recede. Europe's defence response is in disarray, with a poll this week showing four Germans in five opposed to future military missions. In such circumstances, elections to a parliament which has just acquired new powers might logically seem a moment of importance, and the way we cast our votes this week a matter of consequence, not least because the parliament can shape the next European commission, which must wrestle with these issues, one of which may include Britain's future in the EU.

In some respects, Europe's politicians have tried to rise to the occasion, although their efforts have been ignored in Britain. Elsewhere, the main European parliamentary blocs have attempted a pan-European debate, in which differing approaches to austerity and its legacies have been clearcut. But the elites' worthy attempts to connect with the public in Europe founder on the reality that the elites are widely and in some ways rightly perceived (the ludicrous Strasbourg-Brussels shuttle, for instance) as part of the problem.

Most of the main party blocs favour shifting more authority to the centre, to the Brussels institutions, the parliament prominent among them. The problem is that the elite debate excludes growing numbers who want far less power at the centre (or none at all), and overlooks the 70% or so of the population in many countries, including Germany and France (where a poll this week found only 39% support for the EU), who do not want more power at the centre and who favour significant reform of the EU.

Read more: European parliament elections: better together | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

Leaving the EU will mean economic disaster for UK or for that matter any other EU member copy-cats - by RM

Whatever your views are about the EU, the first thing that happens when your local political establishment decides through a referendum or other manipulation to get out of the Union, is economic disaster.

In the case of Britain getting out of the EU big companies and financial conglomerates will decamp from London to Frankfurt or Paris. The pound will immediately  fall.. Many of the British exporters have no idea what's going to happen to them, and the banks will not be keen to stick out their neck in their favor.

In general if Britain leaves the EU it would become an economic storm so big it could overshadow anything else the British public would have ever experienced.

In connection with the above, just imagine how any member country which steps out of the EU could handle the NSA spying revelations on European countries and their leaders if they had to do this just by themselves? 

Unfortunately in the case of Britain and the NSA the question which obviously arises and which has not been addressed by the EU Parliament or the Commission is how Britain, a member of the EU, has (is) participating and supporting the NSA spy program on Europeans, without the EU Commission/Parliament or the EU member states having any knowledge of it?

With friends like this who needs any enemies? 

Almere-Digest