The European Parliamentary elections are only just over 7 months away now, and it looks like May 25th will see a significant change in the make-up of the 750 or so MEPs.
When 12 UKIP MEPs were elected in 2004, it was quite a shock to the system. The odd eurosceptic was not unknown before then, but the phenomenon of 12 British MEPs out of 78 elected on a platform of withdrawal from the EU was a distinct novelty -and a pretty unwelcome one as far as most of their colleagues were concerned.
Come 2009 and the percentage of British withdrawalist MEPs increased further. UKIP saw its tally increase to 13, while the BNP gained two seats, not to mention Tories like Roger Helmer (who subsequently defected to UKIP) and Dan Hannan. That's between 20% and 25% of the total British representation, which was reduced to 72 in this election.
(As an aside, perhaps at this point I should mention that I'm merely quoting statistics. There are some people who will assume that if you mention the BNP without saying they are nasty, horrible people, you somehow support their policies. I was accused of this three years ago by Richard Corbett, a Labour MEP. when I co-authored a piece about the likely results of the 2010 election and merely suggested - without any discussion of the nature of the party - that the BNP were likely to win some seats. For the record, I don't agree with the BNP's policies, apart from their belief that we should leave the EU)
Anyway, up to now, withdrawalism and indeed any "hard" euroscepticism, which supported a major repatriation of powers to member states and a general clipping of Brussels. wings was seen as a British disease, but is that about to change? It could well do. At the moment, the two most popular parties in France and the Netherlands - the Front Nationale and the Partij voor de Vrijheid respectively, have both talked of withdrawal from the EU, even though neither began life as withdrawalist.
The "Establishment" is worried, or at least Signor Enbrico Letta, italy's Prime Minister, certainly is. He fears that next May could see the election of the "most Eurosceptic, most anti-European parliament in history." According to an article in yesterday's Guardian, a "great battle" was looming between between "the Europe of the people and the Europe of populism".
Populism is a dirty word across much of Europe, but all it means, according to one scholarly definition, is a belief that "democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people." Whether you think this is a good idea or not, what Letta is contrasting with populism, the "Europe of the people" isn't in theory that different. In practise, his so-called "Europe of the people" - the European political mainstream, is actually "the Europe of unaccountable politicians." In other words, the Europe that told the Irish in 2008 that they would have to vote again after rejecting the Lisbon Treaty because it was the "wrong" result, the Europe that has condemned millions of young people in Spain, Portugal, and Greece to years of unemployment because of a blind adherence to unsustainable monetary union, the Europe that is sending energy bills rocketing thanks to its unrealistic push for renewable energy.
No wonder disillusion is setting in. Some of the "populist" parties like the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn in Greece are distinctly unpleasant, but where can voters turn when the mainstream parties have manifestly failed them? When people like Signor Letta talk of his desire for a "United States of Europe", and wrongheadedly insist that said that the best way to avoid further crises is to reform European institutions to make them stronger, who can blame voters for saying "No thank you" to the "Europe of the unaccountable politicans"?
When 12 UKIP MEPs were elected in 2004, it was quite a shock to the system. The odd eurosceptic was not unknown before then, but the phenomenon of 12 British MEPs out of 78 elected on a platform of withdrawal from the EU was a distinct novelty -and a pretty unwelcome one as far as most of their colleagues were concerned.
Come 2009 and the percentage of British withdrawalist MEPs increased further. UKIP saw its tally increase to 13, while the BNP gained two seats, not to mention Tories like Roger Helmer (who subsequently defected to UKIP) and Dan Hannan. That's between 20% and 25% of the total British representation, which was reduced to 72 in this election.
(As an aside, perhaps at this point I should mention that I'm merely quoting statistics. There are some people who will assume that if you mention the BNP without saying they are nasty, horrible people, you somehow support their policies. I was accused of this three years ago by Richard Corbett, a Labour MEP. when I co-authored a piece about the likely results of the 2010 election and merely suggested - without any discussion of the nature of the party - that the BNP were likely to win some seats. For the record, I don't agree with the BNP's policies, apart from their belief that we should leave the EU)
Anyway, up to now, withdrawalism and indeed any "hard" euroscepticism, which supported a major repatriation of powers to member states and a general clipping of Brussels. wings was seen as a British disease, but is that about to change? It could well do. At the moment, the two most popular parties in France and the Netherlands - the Front Nationale and the Partij voor de Vrijheid respectively, have both talked of withdrawal from the EU, even though neither began life as withdrawalist.
The "Establishment" is worried, or at least Signor Enbrico Letta, italy's Prime Minister, certainly is. He fears that next May could see the election of the "most Eurosceptic, most anti-European parliament in history." According to an article in yesterday's Guardian, a "great battle" was looming between between "the Europe of the people and the Europe of populism".
Populism is a dirty word across much of Europe, but all it means, according to one scholarly definition, is a belief that "democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people." Whether you think this is a good idea or not, what Letta is contrasting with populism, the "Europe of the people" isn't in theory that different. In practise, his so-called "Europe of the people" - the European political mainstream, is actually "the Europe of unaccountable politicians." In other words, the Europe that told the Irish in 2008 that they would have to vote again after rejecting the Lisbon Treaty because it was the "wrong" result, the Europe that has condemned millions of young people in Spain, Portugal, and Greece to years of unemployment because of a blind adherence to unsustainable monetary union, the Europe that is sending energy bills rocketing thanks to its unrealistic push for renewable energy.
No wonder disillusion is setting in. Some of the "populist" parties like the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn in Greece are distinctly unpleasant, but where can voters turn when the mainstream parties have manifestly failed them? When people like Signor Letta talk of his desire for a "United States of Europe", and wrongheadedly insist that said that the best way to avoid further crises is to reform European institutions to make them stronger, who can blame voters for saying "No thank you" to the "Europe of the unaccountable politicans"?