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.

Download The European federalist papers from ITunes

https://itunes.apple.com/se/book/european-federalist-papers/id855220576?mt=11

USE

The time has come but can we think of a better name :-)

We are Europe

We can't option ​​out of Europe without deselecting large parts of ourselves. Europe are in many ways just as integrated as most of its member states are, in terms of culture, trade, economy, science and higher education.

Something we rarely think about when we are talking about European integration is that its not comprehensive or complete in any political, cultural or geographicall area.
European integration "in deversity" is best illustrated as a quilt or as number of rings that are more or less integrated in each other.

European integration is much older then our union and much older than our nation states.
The democratic integration, however, is a creation during the postwar period with the aim to pick up where nationalism and the nation state failed, to bring Europe stability and a peaceful development.

The aim of European integration has never been to create a homogeneous Europe where regional and local cultural differences are blurred or weakened, but to strengthen diversity through democratic collaboration. It has influences of cultural federalism, which is in direct contrast to the goal with the nation-state, a culturally homogeneous society witch is organizational characterized by central government, replacing local and regional self-governance.

Nation states set limits and build walls for culture, commerce and people in Europe. Nationalism created more organized unrest and division in Europe than there ever was before. Sadley the nation-state quest lives on in Europe and even within our Union, where we see how nationalism acts against bringing down walls and barriers for culture, commerce and people.

What if the borders and walls are built again? We can only learn from the past, walls do not create stability and peace!

Short-term priorities for reform in Europe

Ten short-term priorities to create and implement the necessary reforms and changes in Europe. (In no particular order)

1. Electing federalists into EP and NP in coming elections.

2. Electing more women and youth into parliaments and governments.

3, Mobilise the European voters to increase turnout and legitimacy.

4. Nurture debates in schools, workplaces, streets and on squares.

5, Strengthen Pan-European party organisations.

6. A joint election authority for the European elections.

7. Pan-European TV
debates between the presidential candidates.

8. Introduction of Pan-European political reporting. (Public Service)

9. Facilitate the ability of  voters to vote in the EU state they are resident in. including NP elections!

10, Require a political and national independent committee to review European democracy and systematics.

I call for a PAN-European referendum

Europe needs to move forward! but it wont happen if we continue with the national battering we have in the council.

I call for a PAN-European referendum on a democratic federal European constitution. Let the people decide about their future. This referendum should be followed by national, on or off referendums in every member state.
This is the federal way, more democracy and in some cases more Europe and in others less Europe.

This would put an end to the unions within the union, it would mean no more first and second class citizens and it would mean that we could see the creation of a European federation of citizens. 

Comment on paper No 4. European federalist papers

To the paper

Paper No 4 is a very inspiring paper for all of us who wants to see change in how our Union functions.

Just as paper No 2,  paper No 4 really don't present any special  ideas but it gives a good educational base for the reader. It also builds up expectation for what's to come.

I have chosen to quote and comment on the following passeges from paper No 4.

"States are indeed no longer independent. More than ever they are economically interdependent due to the explosion of international trade, led by the multinationals. They have bound each other politically to many international rules, especially in international agreements and treaties, including the power to enforce the execution of that which has been agreed upon."

The author argues against the nationalist idea of the independent state and he is right. There are now independent nation-states in the modern world if there ever has been one.

Independence comes out of the possibility for citizens to influence policy and politics that affects them and the power to demand accountability on how the policy is implemented.
This is where the federal organization comes in.

"We must learn from the past but we should not plainly accept the consequences, nor let our head hang down. We must fight the crisis of intergovernmental Europe. A tragic culmination of this crisis is the inflation of four presidencies, one on top of another."

Yes, something can and must be done! But it needs to be done by the people of Europe. On the foundation of our union, we the citizens must build a new European house. And it must be a strong house supported with a democratic constitution, by and for the citizens.

"I believe that this teleological paradigm of the European treaties has put the germ of Euro-skepticism into the institutions, resulting in the Union’s political inability and the widening of the fault lines between Member States. Hence, it has become even easier for national politicians to portray the European Union as a threat to their respective societies, even though they themselves have contributed to this effect of European decision-making. Apparently, the intergovernmental, if not hybrid, decision-making in the Union leads to schizophrenia in some policy makers from the Member States – as a result of which they run from one raging fire to another. Each time for short-term relief, but without a final solution."

This passage of the paper deeply reflects the political crisis of Europe and its member-states.
We all recognise the inability of EUCO to present a common (European) solution to the crisis, at the same time the EUCO members play the blame game before there voters on there home base. Creating nothing but division.

"‘Integration’ is usually a sympathetic word, but not in this context. Protecting the autonomous individuality of the constituents in a desirable cooperation cannot be realized through intergovernmentalism, but exclusively through federalism."

To me, the word integration always is a positive. Integration is what happens when two or more,
voluntarily comes closer together for pragmatic reasons and for the common good.

Nationalist often see this as a betrayal against cultural identity and the 'romantic' ideals of the homogeneous nation-state.

Integration cannot happen, with a top-down approach, it can't be forced (that is something different). The last century gives us many examples of that in Europe alone.
Integration happens spontaneous and starts at the roots and grows with the tree, to the crown. My point is that integration happens when there is a need for it and can therefore not be a negative.

I know the author don't sympathise with nationalists and I do strongly agree that autonomous individuality is necessary from a democratic/independence perspective.
I also believe that the history of Europe and our diversity is what makes Europe great and our future bright.

P.s. Traditions (identitys) are great, we create new ones all the time out of a need, but when they don't serve there purpose anymore, we should forget about them and once again let new traditions take there place.