Thursday, 5 June 2014

What lies behind the successes of right- wing populism and extremism in Europe

What lies behind the successes of right- wing populism and extremism in Europe? The financial crisis is most frequently mentioned as a reason and it is also a likely reason that i'm not in position to question. But are there more explanations and are there examples where it can be argued that the economic crisis isn't the foundation of this populistic rampage across Europe?
In the elections to the European Parliament, the member-states that stand out the most are not the ones that are hit the hardest by recession and austerity. France, Denmark and the UK are 3 of those member-states in which extremism and right-wing populism reached its greatest successes. None of these member-states are among the worst affected by the financial crisis. Denmark and the UK are additionally outside the eurozone, if one would argues that the crisis was a currency crisis. In Sweden, which is a member-state with strong finances and also a member-state outside the eurozone, the far-right populists gets its highest result ever in a public election.
Could the election result and the populist winds that are blowing in Europe be a protest against European integration it self, the EU system or systematics if you will or is it a protest against politicians in general or even a protest against the member-states national governments and their handling of the crisis in Europe? Is it the dream of a united Europe in which people stand united in solidarity that now has been partially ruptured and questioned? Could it just be a cry for help?

The trends are the same across Europe and is therefore a European problem that we must face at a European level.
It requires first and foremost that people can rally and mobilize around something that is exclusively European, like the Parliament and by the Parliament, the appointed president of the Commission. ( Provided its not stopped by EUCO. )
European problems and opportunities must be managed at the European level and with a mandate from the citizens. That is not the case in reality. What looked like it was the EU handling the crisis was actually handled by the affected nation states and their lenders. The EU has, at its best, acted as a moderator and facilitator. ( Listed in order to use the EU as a scapegoat. )
I am convinced that the crisis of confidence between the EU and the voters is the first breeding ground for the election results that we got and the crisis of confidence is rooted in the fact that EU has no mandate of its own to deal with any problem, at the same time as the EU are the perfect scapegoat for national governments.
The European council's intergovernmental negotiations behind closed doors is a hotbed for contempt against both EU and against European politicians. In the member-states, the national leaders from the European Council can emerge as the nation's representatives against opposing forces in other national leaders. When opinion at home are showing displeasure they have there scapegoat.
When voters are kept in the dark at the same time as they feel the consequences of the politics, they get confused and angry. this nourishes all extremism and Europe got its judgment in the election.
Paradoxically, the results show how integrated and depended we are by one another in Europe.


  1. Quite an impressive example of euro-solipsism to write a post on this without once mentioning the word "immigration."

  2. As long as humanity exists the immigration will be there. The point is to deal the problems with it and that only a united Europe can do.