Sunday, November 23, 2014

Europe Is Still Standing

BRUSSELS – Judging from the headlines, one might get the impression that the 400 million citizens eligible to participate in the recent European Parliament elections voted massively against the European Union. True, anti-establishment, mostly Euroskeptic, parties won about one-fifth of the vote. But to characterize the election result as a rejection of Europe simply is not quite accurate (or fair).

For starters, although much has been made of the argument that the EU is too far removed from its citizens, opinion polls have shown consistently that public trust in the major European institutions remains higher than trust in national institutions. Across the EU, the European Parliament still has higher approval ratings, on average, than national parliaments. Although the trust gap has narrowed somewhat in recent years, even the continuing recession, which is often blamed on EU-imposed austerity and the crisis in the eurozone, has only marginally reduced the European Parliament’s advantage over national parliaments.

Recent polls suggest that, across Europe, about 40% of the population still trust the European Parliament, whereas only 25% trust their national parliaments. Moreover, the European Parliament retains much higher trust than the US Congress, which has approval ratings that are now below 10%. Given the general loss of trust in parliamentary institutions on both sides of the Atlantic, the European Parliament is doing relatively well.

Moreover, not all protest parties reject the EU. In Europe’s crisis-affected countries, young people, who have been hardest hit, voted en masse for leftist “anti-austerity” parties, most notably in Greece. But these parties do not reject the EU. On the contrary, they want more solidarity from the EU, which would enable their governments to spend more.

The anti-austerity protest vote is strongest where governments have been unable to implement reforms effectively (for example, in Greece), in contrast to Portugal and Spain, whose economies are recovering on the back of strong exports. In Italy, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s new government has been able to stem the tide of Euroskepticism by undertaking concrete reforms and not blaming the EU for every problem the country faces.

The rejection of the EU seems more fundamental in parts of northern Europe, where the elderly tend to vote for right-wing populist parties. Especially in the United Kingdom and France, unemployment and a perceived lack of control over borders have played a large role in fostering disaffection with the EU. This is particularly worrying, given that both countries’ problems have little to do with EU policies. France’s economic malaise cannot be blamed on austerity imposed from Brussels, and the UK is not even in the eurozone.

Populists in both countries campaigned successfully on non-issues. All available studies show that “welfare tourism” is a limited phenomenon, and that immigration fosters economic growth. But these facts do not count when wages are stagnating (as in the UK) or unemployment continues to rise (as in France). Populists can easily project these problems onto “Europe,” which in this case merely represents fear of the outside world in general.

The EU is thus caught between demands for more solidarity from the young in its southern members and dissatisfaction with open borders among the elderly in the north. It is tempting to try to mollify both groups by relaxing austerity and ditching the border-free Schengen area. But that is unlikely to swing the political pendulum back toward Europe, especially in countries like France and the UK.

The deeper roots of the surge of Euroskeptic and other protest parties originate with the general dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and dysfunctional national political systems. Tinkering with austerity or the fundamental right of free movement within the EU will not make much of a difference. Reform is needed at home, in national capitals.

In this context, the selection of the European Commission’s next president – now the focus of considerable attention – is a sideshow. Whoever is chosen will be able to make the EU work only if French President François Hollande can build a domestic pro-reform consensus and British Prime Minister David Cameron can convince his electorate that immigrants (only one-third of whom come from the poorer EU member states) benefit the UK economy.

The EU does not have a significant budget, and it sets at most a general framework for economic and social rules that vary widely across a large and diverse continent. Success and failure are largely determined at the national level. That is where the problems lie and where they must be solved. What has taken the form of an anti-EU vote constitutes in reality a protest against socio-economic problems at home.

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (2)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedVal Samonis

      Actions by the ECB amount to a monetary tragi-farce! How could anyone not hare-brained believe that a benchmark rate cut of 10 bps from an already microscopic level of 25 bps would move the needle in an economic zone that is already groaning under of the weight of $60 trillion in public and private credit market debt?

    2. CommentedZsolt Hermann

      I agree with the writer that the sometimes exaggerated reviews of the recent European elections are unfounded.

      Moreover it is truly difficult to gain a true picture of the feelings of the public since voter turnout was about 43% (complicated by the fact that in some countries voting is compulsory), and out of that 43% one fifth voted for Eurosceptic parties.
      As the following article analyzes it is up to the observer whether such results or positive or negative (

      On the other hand those responsible for Europe cannot avoid the warning signs either, and cannot just sweep the results under the carpet, some of those Eurosceptic parties made vast gains in their own respective countries, likely to significantly influence, change domestic politics in those countries as well.

      The bottom line is the same as it has been for the recent years, Europe is still standing but is not healthy. The focus of "solutions", "improvements" are solely aimed at the markets and financial institutions while the daily life of the actual public is not getting better but is getting worse.

      And it is not simply a political or economical problem thus cannot be simply rectified by changing policies, politicians, parties or even wholesale economical or financial means.
      The whole intention, purpose behind the European Union is false. While a connection, Union should be aimed at making the life of the actual people better, to create true mutuality, complementing collaboration in a supra-national manner, so far the aim of the Union and the Eurozone was simply to create a common market, to facilitate economic and financial development, growth.

      Today, in the midst of the global crisis affecting the whole global humanity we are facing an acute question about our purpose in life, is it truly simply accumulating material possessions, increasing growth and profit ad infinitum, measuring everything by GDP and growth percentages?

      Have we truly reduced a human being to a simple consumer?
      What is a human being really? What brings contentment to a human being?
      These are the questions that need answering before we try to "fix" anything, or solve the crisis nobody so far found any solutions for.