Populism And Nationalism On The Rise In Europe

Are you even familiar -at all- with the political groups mentioned in this thread?

We are talking about fringe groups that have been gaining power since 2008. These are groups that usually represent 2-3% of the population jumping to 12-30%+.

In countries not ruled by two parties that is incredibly drastic.

The implication/reference is, specifically, about Hispanics coming into America. Apologies, I did state that fairly broadly.

There's also a difference between right wing(conservative), and extreme right wing(fascism).

Did I even mentioned the political groups in Europe at all?

All I did was respond to the people who posted in this thread, which very little discussion of the topic is being taken place and it's more like a rant against people who don't agree with them.

I would expect you to understand that, but maybe that's a little too much to expect from you.

I made my post very plain to understand, it was a counterargument against the obvious attacking of conservative policies in place.

But hey, if you are scared of change in a direction you don't agree with, then that's fine by me.

I didn't imply that immigrants were bad, you inferred that and set up into an argument against black people in the US who largely aren't even immigrants.

Oh excuse me "dark-complected people"

this is a thread specifically about the EU/Europe with multiple people from the UK, Sweden and Italy specifically discussing parties. If you didn't see their posts maybe you should go back and re-read them

Yes, I'm sorry I made the assumption that the Hispanics-are-rapidly-influencing-the-complexion-of-the-country thing was a bit more commonly understood.

I get it. You need things spelled out. I'll remember it in the future.

Mea culpa.

Increasingly, it seems, that difference is merely "level of perceived threat they feel to their comfort level."

Which is fairly sad.

We had an MP suggest taking refugees valuables last week to offset costs

Obviously you need to re-read those posts too. All they are are attacks against conservative policies. Which is what I pointed out.

You'll have more country scale issues if you try to repress people's feeling, than not. International conflicts don't happen as easily as country ones.

Far right got 42% where I live. I didn't vote but if I had voted, it would have been for them. Now, do I share all their ideas? No. But my issue is that the only person worth voting for is Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who's merely a left version of Marine Lepen. He's the man we need, but he's not without a lot of bad ideas, too.
So at the end of the day, what should a citizen do? Vote UMP and have the same ***that we got at the beginning of the century? Vote PS (which is so dead it's not even funny) and have the same ***we've got since 2012?

We're ***, politics is a giant joke and 99,9% of the people in it need to get thrown in jail or simply banned from politics. At the end of the day, you vote for the safest thing, but right now in France, we've ran out of safety. People start feeling like the FN is safety, like Marine will bring a new wind, good or bad.
At this point, people want real change, whether it's for better or worse. The fact that manipulations from the state and media happens doesn't help.

I'd rather vote for my boy Mélenchon, but he won't make it to top 3. So it's either UMP and the previous dwarf, PS and actually losing a lot of citizen rights or, FN, which will hopefully force people to protest/rise against the government and wipe everything, republic wise.

Honestly, the only answer I find about politics is to not give a ***. I really, really, really think it's masochist in the society we live in. I just can't stand when things aren't honest. I'm too simple to care, but I can still see how the FN will bring change, in any way possible (themselves or people revolting).

At some point, I'll just go live in another country where politics don't matter and black, arabs, Jews and whites just live together without giving a ***. I miss London sometimes.

This is the result of years of extreme left-wing policies. The more liberal a state becomes the more push back you're going to get from the right when the pendulum swings back.

This is what happens when you try to take a bunch of countries and make them all use the same currency and attempt to have them all be governed by a central government. Sure some countries may be somewhat similar, but overall each country is very different from the next and the attempt to combine them all into a single Europe came on a little too strong and fast. Now you're going to get the opposite.

http://www.thelocal.se/20151201/sweden-democrats-surge-in-new-opinion-poll


We've also had over 28 cases of arson this year at asylum centers, getting pretty crazy in the rural areas.

This is what ISIS winning the battle for hearts and minds looks like.

The first thing I learned in History 101 is that we learn NOTHING from history.

Better not be six pointed, that would be copyright infringement.

Supposedly conservative politicians are working HARD to bridge that difference.

It seems that the USA is not the only country where fear sells.

Not to mention, there are plenty of former principalities and city-states that have their own signature micro-cultures, in a sense.

Rumblings of secession isn't exclusively American, and thumbing your nose at different regions isn't either.

If you split things between Dark and light you could arguable mean some Hispanics some Europeans some Asians AND pretty much all black people.

If you split things into dark/medium/light then you mean even less of the some category and still mean pretty all black people.

1. Most of these political parties still support socialist ideals (welfare, protectionist, free health care, etc), just not to anyone they deem foreign. Which I think most American posters on this site would consider liberal ideas, but maybe I'm wrong.

2. These groups have been using fear of immigration since the financial crises to enhance their membership (extreme example: golden dawn)

3. The EU (council of Europe, etc) was specifically set-up for countries to be intertwined financially so as to prevent future world wars. Usually when countries have mutually beneficial economic relationships they are less likely to go to war. The "single Europe" has been developing for 70 years, how much slower would you like it?

4. Free movement of people, goods and services is the foundation of the EU. Many of these political parties want to limit or leave the EU but keep the economic benefits in place. "No people but I still want to be part of a collective bargaining group and sell my stuff to you without paying tarrifs".

Well I did attack the Conservatives because they are doing a terrible job running our country, I wasn't attacking conservative views, but our conservative party just happens to be called the Conservatives.

I was actually surprised when I read about the cultural divide in Belgium. Some are known, but that one I had no clue about.

For a place like Europe, if done properly, it would take roughly 200 years. Maybe even longer.

Look how fragile it is now. One little thing goes wrong and people are more than willing to bail. The unity just isn't there in times of crisis.

Precisely this reason. They all want the benefits with none of the risks or costs.

The only reason to join is for some type of incentive that's immediate and once it's used up, it's splitsville.

I wouldn't call 2008, an exodus, worldwide terrorism and climate problematics "one little thing".

I knew it, climate change is behind it all!

If you think forcing refugees into camps and taking their valuables is a conservative policy... no, nevermind, not even going there.

I really hope this had nothing to do with Zahrah's flag!

The US had a civil war and still stayed together. There are discussions of successions frequently, yet it still remains 200 years after founded.

In times of crises most countries find something to collectively blame (e.g. Immigrants, a religious group, a racial group, social class, etc) and setout to eliminate that problem.

Humans like to play the blame game and "win" a victory over their "foe". Bad vs good doesn't require much contemplation when citizens are busy living their lives and it's an easy concept to sell. Compromise is hard to achieve and difficult to explain in a catchy sound bite.

I'm confused to what you are implying here.

The free movement of goods and services is continual and it does not exist if you don't join. In theory (as no one has left yet) you lose this perk if you leave.

Switzerland has special rules because they have a seperate treaty and have never been a member. They also still have to abide by the free movement of people from EU countries (Treaty of Rome, iirc) or they lose this perk.

There's little of a cultural divide in belgium aside of a different language and a different economical situation. The difference between the flemmish and French speaking part of Belgium has been hugely exagerated in foreign media. Its a game of politics nothing more and nothing less and a trick of the populist Flemmish parties to win votes. The issue mainly is Brussels, Flemmish people looks at Brussels as a part of flanders while the population in Brussels barely is 10% Flemmish speaking.

Not just media, Belgians love to entertain said cultural differences.

I mainly visited the Dutch side (Gent) but the people there would always begin discussions telling me how different it is from the French side and how incompatible they are at times.

Don't worry. I'm sure it's not.

Just the natural course of the conversation to bring up Flemish sentiments, just as it is Bavarian (at a more minor level), or, as Seha has pointed out many times, Castillian/Catalonian, Spain.

I live next to the "border" with the French speaking part (Wallonië) and interract with the french speaking part on daily basis, there's no such thing as a cultural difference. Flemish people think they're hard working people and they look at the walloniens as lazy people who steal our money (An idea thats been fed by populist media and wrongely explained statistics).
You need to know most immigrants go to the French speaking part and Brussels because of the language, which gives those regions alot more unemployed then the industrial Flanders.
Secondly many Flemish people hold a grudge against the French speaking side because now Flanders is economical prosperous while 50 years ago it used to be the other way around. Wallonia had many coal mines which gave that region alot of wealth so the poor Flemish people (who were mainly farmers) went to work in the mines alongside of the Italian and Turkish immigrants.
But now the roles have changed cause the coal industry has collapsed and Wallonia is still struggling with adapting to a more modern economy.
Flanders has its own government and so does Wallonia but thats not weird. In every country the different states have seperate governments. The problems just get greatly exagerated and needlesly complicated, we're a country of extreme bureaucracy it doesnt help the communication between the two (actually 3, with Brussels having a seperate government) sides.
Sorry wall of text and short history of this country where nothing ever happens...luckily.