Eurosceptics, eurocritics and (more?)

For me, the definition of the typical eurosceptic, is a person who oppose any form of political, social and economic integration between European "nation-states" A person thats not willing to see any pragmatic, democratic or economical benefits from integration.
The typical eurosceptic is often found in nationalistic movements and in very romantically, conservative groups where yesterday is more important then tomorrow and institutions are more important then people. Those movements, groups and individuals are blinded by an idea of how things are, instead of how things really are. Often delusionalised that they are above everything that is surrounding their isolated perception on how things are or should be and that there is a threat in everything that is new, different or partly in opposition to their worldview.

As you see, I don't mention criticism towards EU systematics, democracy or politics in my definition at all. Why? To be critical, you must be constructive in your criticism and you must also offer constructive solutions or alternatives to what you are critical about, eurosceptics don't do that at all, according to my definition above.

If you want change and reforms to better things of state, you must search elsewhere.

Then there's the rest, fans of status qou.

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.

Get12vote

Imagine if everyone who woted in the European elections in 2009 could convince just one person who didn't to vote in this year's election the turnout would break the roof.

Does it sound like a crazy idea? Maybe, but imagine how the idea of European elections would of sounded in 1950. You get the point!

EP2014 will probably have a impact and consequences far beyond the mandate of the European parliament. So if we can make this happen I'm certain that the impact and consequenc will be positive for the voters and therefore for Europe.

Let's show the world that Europeans care about democracy and that European values are worth saving.

#Get12vote

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!

The most important election this century

This May it is time for Europeans to go to the polls in an election that in many respects is special and maybe even critical to Europe's democratic future.
For the first time , the voters have the opportunity to directly influence who will become the European Commission's next president. This is done by the major party groups in the EP in advance nominated its candidate for the presidency, which roughly means that the post-election largest party group's candidate becomes the next Commission president.

It is a commendable initiative to strengthen European level democracy by the EU party groups and to give the Commission greater legitimacy among the European citizens without any major reforms that would require new treaties between the national governments.

There is allot more to be desired when it comes to democratic reform of the EU but it is above or "below" the powers of the Parliament. It is in the hands of our national governments and parliaments. 
Unfortunately, the resistance at national level about giving more power to the voters over European politics are great.

Parliament elections in May, however have a great potential to bring democracy much needed focus and put it on the agenda for future national elections in Europe.

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.

A democratic foundation

Europe's transformation and success in the postwar period must not make us naive, we aren't safe and secure from internal threats to our democracy and stability.
There are still obvious weaknesses and cracks in the foundation of the European construction, which allows negative forces to cause fundamental problems and democratic obstacle in Europe.

Some recent examples are Victor Orban's weakening of press freedom and the rule of law in Hungary. Another example is David Cameron's attack on freedom of movement and on civil equality in the Union.

So how can Europe strengthen the democratic foundations and ensure stability over the long haul?

The best way would be a common European constitution that clearly establishes the framework for democracy, rule of law and civil rights.
There are several non-governmental organisation's in Europe that actively promotes the debate on a European constitution and which has led to several proposals and drafts on a constitution.

It is clear that the fundamental democratic principles must be ensured for all Europeans and that foundation must be built together. This is the biggest and most important issue to debate before upcoming elections. Who is afraid of more and better democracy?

Cameron and Europe

British Prime Minister drives a European policy and a campaign that means that a number of common rules would be scrapped. Cameron have repeatedly turned against Europe's environmental rules governing the minimum standards in environmental protection. Cameron also criticized Europe's labor rights and freedom of movement.

The conclusion is that the conservative Cameron does not believe that European environmental policy is too lame and that the big losers of Cameron's European policy is without a doubt, the environment, labor laws and the free movement of citizens .

Cameron also wants to renegotiate the British membership. It's primarily about the membership fee and the British rebate. It's not about saving necessary pounds to the British exchequer but in practice what Cameron believes that Britons should contribute with to the smaller economies in the Union. In other words, solidarity and one of the Union pillars are under attack.
This is what Cameron calls British leadership in Europe.

At home, Cameron plays on nationalist winds by criticizing the EU and especially the forces that want to reform by democratizing and federalazing Europe.

A internal borderless Europe is far from a reality in 2014

Schengen is in reality nothing more than a loose agreement between some European "states" which means increased freedoms for their citizens to move freely and without passport checks still exist. During the last few years we have many examples on how arbitrary this agreement is. 

The excuses could be and has been many for the states to break or improvise with Schengen, but no excuse has been particularly reasonable. Too often, it has been an expression of a power struggle at the expense of the citizens.

Truthfully, Schengen is a half hearted attempt from the beginning to bring the people of europe closer and to create a sense of citizenship, atleast it would appear so on paper. 

Here is why:

• Schengen don't include all EU states and therefore not all citizens.
• The Schengen area don't have a common border authority.
• Some EU states want to limit the freedom of movement all together for all or some citizens. 

A internal borderless Europe is far from a reality in 2014 and the freedoms of the citizens are more or less constantly being attacked by national leaders. 

Federalism is about securing democracy and diversity in Europe.

"Federalism means sharing of sovereignty and dividing power and competences. Federalism means no monopoly of power, no unique power center, but a number of power centers. Hence, federalism means democracy." - Herbert Tombeur

Most Europeans needs to be informed and educated on the essence of federalism before they can fully take part in the debate about European future, because the debate is largely about federalizing the union or dismantling the union. Sadly, sceptics still compere a federal Europe to a imperialistic super state. Nothing could be further from the truth but it works well for them and will do so until federalist manege to reach out to the masses and educate. 

Thanks to internet and social media the possibilities are greater then ever. Federalists have a unique opportunity to get the message out all over Europe and this in times when the future of Europe more then ever is open for the people to build there own future. 

Federalism is about securing democracy and diversity in Europe. 

Cameron calls for limit on European freedom of movement

Eurosceptics, with Cameron at the frontline are attacking the foundation of the European Union, the Citizen’s, as a strategi to slowly dismantel the union.' Freedom of movement is the perfect exempel of this and if Cameron succeeds with his attempt to discriminate against certain European citizen’s, we won’t have a true European citizenship to fight for anymore.

Who could of thought that European leaders in 2013 seriously want to take back freedoms claimed by the people. If we let this happen, it will be the beginning of the fall, not only for the Union but also for many other of our citicens rights.
I say we have taken to much crap from Cameron and it is time that we stand up for each other against this kind of compromising with our rights.

Eurosceptics biggest fear

American Steven Hill writes a great article about the democracy deficit in the EU. http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/06/europes-democracy-deficit-putting-some-meat-on-the-bones-of-habermas-critique/
One piece especially captivated me.
"Many of the ‘less Europe’ critics of the democracy deficit are scared to death that European governance actually might become more democratic, since that would confer greater legitimacy, and what they really want is for each European country to retreat further inside its own castle walls."
It confirms my own experience and the feelings I have from my debates with Eurosceptics.
There 'arguments' are very seldom constructive. They lay all there energy on what is bad and on what needs to be dismantled. Eurosceptics often use very strong words, just to be extra clear that there message comes across.
In lack of arguments many sceptics turn to comparing EU with Nazi Germany or the Soviets.
My experience from debates in social media, tells me that most Eurosceptics are more interested in the romantic picture of a nation state, that no longer exists, then about pragmatic solutions and the common good of the people.
To quote my self: Nation states are about what's good for the nation. Federalism is about the common good of the people.
A rather provocative assertion that Eurosceptics to often confirm in debate.