Across Europe, citizens are irate at the conduct of their leaders, who have encouraged a horde of migrants from the Middle East to descend upon the continent.
As the third world throngs came to Europe, they brought many of the problems commonplace in their homelands along with them.
Terrorism, sexual assault, and anti-Semitism are up since German Chancellor Angela Merkel unilaterally opened Europe’s doors to any and all comers.
At The American Conservative, Scott McConnell explains that a backlash against Merkel and other globalists who have allowed unfettered immigration into Europe is the unifying force behind the rise in right wing parties in Europe. But the pro-globalist forces are fighting back. He writes (abridged):
Tasking themselves with forming a strategy to protect “Europe” from the votes of an increasingly Euroskeptic electorate, two staffers at the European Council of Foreign Relations, a Berlin-based think tank, have just published a document that explains much of this. Susi Dennison’s and Pawel Zerka’s guide to the 2019 European elections, subtitled “How anti-Europeans Plan to Wreck Europe and What Can be Done to Stop It,” is of great value however much one disagrees with the politics of the authors.
The two lay out quite clearly what is and is not at stake in this May’s election.
Dennison and Zerka consider 2019 to be the most consequential European Parliament vote ever. Though resolutions passed by the Parliament have no real power, the authors worry that if Euroskeptic parties on both the right and left combine for more than 33 percent of the seats, they will be able to shape legislation, influence executive decisions, and change the tenor of the debate within European institutions.
The main focus of the conservative Euroskeptic campaign is immigration. The authors quote Hungary’s president Victor Orbán claiming that “the conventional division of parties on the right and left will be replaced by the division between those which are pro-immigration and those which are anti-immigration,” and seem to agree.
They note that immigration is a unifying force for right-wing parties that disagree on other issues (Russia, for instance), and that it has “caused mainstream parties of the right and left to advocate increasingly draconian approaches to immigration management.” Here, their paper, in its candor, becomes almost amusing. “The nationalists focus on migration is well chosen,” they acknowledge, “because the issue not only resonates with voters but also demonstrates the divides within the much larger pro-European camp. It seems that most European voters would prefer to reduce immigration.”
The authors then outline various strategies by which the pro-migration forces can thwart the will of the voters.
Euroskeptic voters are rebelling …in great part because migration has made large and ever-expanding parts of their countries feel not particularly European. In France, the phrase increasingly used to describe some sections is “territories lost to the Republic”—and variations on that exist throughout Western Europe. So voters support anti-migration parties, only to get depicted as “anti-Europe.”
The pro-Brussels folks thus pretend that there’s nothing more “European” than neighborhoods filled with women dressed in burkas and unofficially policed by Islamic authorities. But for many, this is an obvious and massive lie.
Read more here.