Anti-EU populism seems to be gaining in Europe
The same trends that led to Trump’s election and the recent results in countries as far-flung as Brazil and Australia appear to be building in Europe—in particular, the European Parliament—as well:
…[P]opulist candidates might win almost one-fourth of the seats in the new [European] parliament…
In a fractured parliament, control over roughly one-fourth of the seats can give a faction substantial influence. Erlanger says that, with this level of representation, populists could “create serious delays and difficulties in the next parliament.” Moreover:
“In addition to passing or rejecting laws, European lawmakers have new powers that could allow populists to block trade deals, approve the bloc’s budget and play an important role in determining who will replace the European Union’s most powerful leaders.”
Mujtaba Rahman, the Eurasia Group’s managing director, puts it this way:
“For the first time, we’ll see meaningful populist representation at the European level, so there is at least a risk of a populist insurgency trying to take over or paralyze institutions from within, with implications for Europe’s capacity to act.”
Call it Euxit. And because Britain has yet to actually exit from the EU, the Brexit forces can be part of this movement within the EU.
Claremont Review: Hungary and the Future of Europe
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/hungary-and-the-future-of-europe/
Christopher Caldwell on Victor Orban.
The EU went anti-native, and the response has been pro-native.
“… European lawmakers have new powers that could allow populists to block trade deals,…”
I didn’t realize until several years ago that a bazillion different treaties and agreements exist between nations. I pay a Euro tax on a Euro investment, but the U.S. gov. pays that tax back to me because of a treaty transfer. My friend’s wife got seriously ill while touring France and he only paid a couple $K in bills; because of the Medicare treaty transfer back to France. And so on.
The EU anti-trust org. has been extremely aggressive in attacking U.S. corp. interests over the years. I wonder if it will get worse. They blocked the GE Honeywell merger many years ago, for example.
The formation of the EU was a bad idea frought with unitended consequences. It is unraveling because many people in indiviual national cultures are tired of the EU bureaucrats meddling in their daily affairs. They resent the 3rd world invasion wrecking their social fabric. The EU is toast.
Eurasia group sees democracy pushing back against bureaucracy, and sees “risk” of “takeover” or “paralysis” by the sovereign people?
Boy does Ian Bremmer have a bad attitude.
The EU anti-trust org. has been extremely aggressive in attacking U.S. corp. interests over the years. I wonder if it will get worse. They blocked the GE Honeywell merger many years ago, for example.
Given the US efforts over the years to protecting beyond its own borders what are seen as US interests, I’m not sure that Americans can be too critical of them.
At least the EU haven’t invaded anyone else in such a quest. (Although the breakup of Yugoslavia was an epic omnishambles at least in part due to EU interference.)
The EU & “Brussels” is very PC. To be anti-PC requires at least a little anti-EU.
The EU was a reasonable idea, like the US Articles of Confederation BUT with free trade between nations. Free trade, on both sides, really is better “globally”.
Then the EU bureaucrats got more envious of the US gov’t power and wanted a “EU power”, but without really getting rid of the nation-states. It’s not clear that democracies work over generations when they are not nation states.
With US led NATO, the EU has no really separate military — and many, at times most, of the EU countries don’t even devote the 2% of GDP they’ve agreed to spend on defense.
The socialized medicine really does work OK for workers and gov’t — similar health results at lower GDP % cost, plus much less paid by those sick. Since few people really want to get treated by doctors, the subsidization of costs has not led to lots of over use (as is one of the key problems of socializing things). It’s still a hassle to wait, and get re-directed, and wait. But low immediate costs to the sick patients.
High regressive VAT taxes (20% is common) help pay for too much gov’t.
The EU is pretty generally pro-abortion, and do NOT like that Poland’s anti-abortion laws have hugely reduced abortions there. Christians and most pro-life folk support many econ policy ideas of the EU, but not so much the cultural ideas.
There’s also always a good amount of corruption the distribution of EU funds.
And, of course, anybody who criticizes the EU on immigration or abortion is called “far right”, and often “neo-Nazi” if there is any nationalist patriotism.
“The EU went anti-native, and the response has been pro-native.”
Instead of “response”, “backlash”. Or perhaps “push-back”.
The major question is: How is it possible that the political, media, intellectual and academic elites in Europe—true of the US and now, Australia, as well—were UNABLE to anticipate that there WOULD—or even MIGHT—be a backlash against their bizarro (to be kind) pro-immigrant and anti-indigenous policies?
So enamored were they of their “project”; of their intellectual prowess, of their moral superiority, of their extraordinary wisdom, of their far-reaching vision (and perhaps most importantly—of their control of the media)….they believed that they were TOO VIRTUOUS, TOO SMART, TOO GOOD not to persuade the lesser and greater unwashed of their transformation vision (or should that be “sleight of hand”?).
That they could only succeed.
That everyone would be compelled to agree with them, sooner or later; to agree that THEIR WAY was not only THE BEST WAY but THE ONLY WAY.
(Well, everyone except maybe a few hard-core “populists”…. A few IQ-challenged, ethics-challenged, vision-challenged or in-bred—or all of the above—holdouts JUST MIGHT have a few idiotic objections to the fundamental transformation of their societies, of their countries, of their lives.)
– – – – – – – – –
Which brings me to the word “populists”.
This particular weasel term, currently used to describe ANY opponent of the self-proclaimed elites and their “transformational” project, has come to mean anything from the unscrubbed and unenlightened to the “fascistic” (tending toward the latter). It is purely derogatory, scurrilously tossed about and generally egregiously wrong.
As such it should, if used at all, be placed within quotation marks: “populists”.
(Hence the title of your post really should be, ‘Anti-EU “populism” seems to be gaining in Europe’)
Meislin,
Just because the elites don’t know what populism means, does not mean we should put the word in quotation marks. WE know what it means.
Populists, who have popular policies, will win democratic elections, and deserve democratic power.
The elite snobs who are anti-populist are often also anti-democratic. Not accepting the Brexit vote, nor the Trump vote. We should embrace being popular “populists”, supporting the popular policies which help normal folk,
Against the elite PC-Klan snobs, who want to create eLynch mobs to enforce their own versions of “liberal fascism”.
A bit funny how the conservatives in Australia are the Liberal Party, vs Labour. Many EU Libertarians describe themselves as Classical Liberals.
Many pro-life folk do NOT like the “Liberals” who support abortion, euthanasia, and a consumer sex culture (“culture of death” – Pope John Paul II).