Europe: is the great federalist experiment about to fail?

[TheFallen]

Dunno how much of a splash this news has made over on the US side of the pond, but last week, all 28 countries currently in the EU voted for their MEPs (Members of the European Parliament).

Okay, so it's generally true that most voters don't see a lot of relevance in such an election, believing (wrongly) that the European Parliament has little bearing upon their everyday lives. This explains generally depressed turn-out figures of around 43% across the continent - and only 34% here in the UK. It also may explain that those who have bothered to vote see the Euro elections as a "free hit" - a chance to register dissatisfaction or disagreement with those currently incumbent in power without any real consequence, unlike what would occur in a national election.

Having said all that, what is very definitely noteworthy this time is the major swing towards Euroscepticism and anti-establishment parties. In both the UK and France, there were definite swings to the right:-

As far as the UK went, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which campaigned solely upon two issues, namely i) leaving Europe and taking back constitutional powers and ii) slowing/stopping European immigration, came first here, getting an eyebrow-raising and doubled 27% of the votes cast... notably the first time that the primary opposition party (Labour) hasn't "won" the majority of a vote in mid-term Euro elections.

Possibly more dramatically, in France, the much more right-wing Front National, also campaigning on a heavily Eurosceptic agenda but also with a large pinch of Islamophobia, also came first with 25% of the national vote. This is especially noteworthy, since France along with Germany has always been at the very heart of the movement towards ever more close European super-statehood.

Even normally liberal Denmark voted the People's Party, an anti-immigration organisation, first with 27% of the vote. Little Belgium voted a Flemish Nationalist party top of its poll and even the Austrians, previously pretty much a pocket state of Germany's, swung heavily towards the extreme right FPÕ. Elsewhere in Spain and Portugal, after several years of austerity measures, Euroscepticism rose dramatically - a move echoed in Greece, where the far left Syriza party came in first with over 26% of the vote. (This was pretty much an anti-austerity, anti-German, anti-Euro currency vote).

There seems to be a very definite tidal move across the continent away from ceding powers and the right to national governance to faceless bureaucrats in Brussels. There's also a very definite feeling that the bloated and massively costly apparatchik of the EU both a) is not worth the expense and b) does not serve the interests of individual member states. Finally there's a groundswell of nationalism, in that the free movement and residency of European Union citizens across national borders - often seen as social benefit tourism - is apparently no longer viewed as a desirable thing.

I have to declare myself somewhat of like mind - as far as the UK goes, I believe we were bamboozled almost 40 years ago back in 1975 to vote to join up (not that I was old enough to vote or even understand much at the time) - at that time the electorate was sold a promised land of economic milk and honey on one hand and told that the UK wold forever be cut off and marginalised if it didn't join. I'm so unbelievably relieved that here we're not part of the Euro currency. I'm concerned about the unrestricted permission for any EU resident to be able to live and work in any EU member nation - all that is liable to happen here is that those living in countries with poorer social care and benefits up sticks and move to those nations with higher levels of such - and why wouldn't they, given the opportunity?

I guess I'm arguing for more of a chance for self-governance and making our own rules. I cannot believe for one second in today's global market that the UK would be economically disadvantaged in loosening its ties with Europe - it's not as if suddenly we'd be unable to trade with anyone else (such is the nature of capitalism... supply and demand will seek each other out, regardless of the meddlings of a superstate).

So I will freely admit a wry smile at the results within the UK - it's certainly made the two major parties sit up and listen. That'd be the incumbent Conservatives, (who have promised a vote on whether we stay in the EU or not by 2017... so presumably only if they win the next election) and the Labour opposition, who have been desperately obfuscating their own stance towards European integration for years. As for the Liberals, who are currently in coalition with the Conservatives, they have always been vocally pro-European - and as a result, they got slaughtered in the Euro elections, losing a whole 50% of their votes and 10 out their erstwhile 11 seats in the Euro Parliament.

Yes, sure, these results won't be reflected in the next UK national election in almost exactly a year's time, since the vast majority of people won't choose to cast a protest vote at something they see as a great deal more important. So I don't expect to see any UKIP members of the British national parliament then or indeed any time soon. What I now do expect though is a rapid and necessary toughening on all sides of the British political landscape towards Europe as a whole and a frankly healthy questioning as to whether our membership of the European Union is on balance a good or a bad thing. What already dismays me of course is the full foreknowledge of how nigh-on impossible it will be to get actual cold hard facts and figures on this subject amid the oncoming hordes of conflicting spin, smoke and mirrors pumped out by those with various agendas. It makes coming to an informed decision on things unfeasible for the general electorate, so instead we'll all have to rely upon gut-feel.

As a further downside, I'm getting concerned at how in many countries Euroscepticism and a perfectly proper desire for self-governance is getting conflated with extreme right wing politics that border on xenophobic. The two are very definitely not the same, but there's little doubt that the far right has seized on the issue for itself and is making a serious amount of hay...

[ussusimiel]

We had a similar upsurge here in Ireland, with the anti-Europe Sinn Fein doing very well at the expense of the centre-right and left pro-European parties. The result, however, (as well as all the results across Europe) should be taken with a very large grain if salt. Giving the government a mid-term bashing, in what is one of the most extended periods of recession and austerity, is mainly what this is about. The low turnout exaggerates the actual swing towards Euroskepticism and the right in general.

Granted there is a swing in that direction, and that is what I find most disturbing. IMO, the EU is the single best factor against the rising tide of nationalism that we are seeing. We can observe the result of that right now in Ukraine. Nationalistic fervour is one of the most easily manipulated human emotions (Russia has been using blatant propaganda since before the annexation of Crimea). One of the strongest dampening effects in that conflict has been the level of economic integration between the EU and Russia, which is a large part of the next stage of EU integration (if it happens).

(Leaving aside for a moment the general diminishing of national sovereignty) as I see it, there are two major problems with the EU at present: the perceived (or real) democratic deficit, and the failure to make the Euro a fiat currency (which would allow MMT principles to be followed and give real economic choice back to individual governments). One is a failure of message, the other is a failure of vision.

The Eurocrats in Brussels understand the importance of what they are doing but there is no single figure (like an elected European President) to transmit that message in an understandable and human way. I am never a fan of diminished national sovereignty, but I am even less of a fan of fervent nationalism. The combination of nationalism, anti-immigration, racism and violence never seems to change, maybe because it involves the activation of primal human emotions and feelings. Just because we live in a more globally connected world means nothing when it is our next door neighbour that we hate.

It is out of the catastrophic results of those dark emotions that the EU was born. IMO, dismantling the EU without putting something else in its place risks releasing once again what has in the past ravaged Europe (and many other places across the world). When you look at those who hate the EU the most, they hate it because it stands squarely in the way of their hate and fear-mongering. Which of course means it stands in the way of their getting their hands on power. I am not a fan of the EU, in general, but this is its most important function, which I think often gets lost in all the bureaucracy and petty detail.

u.

[Cybrweez]

Yes, sure, these results won't be reflected in the next UK national election in almost exactly a year's time, since the vast majority of people won't choose to cast a protest vote at something they see as a great deal more important. So I don't expect to see any UKIP members of the British national parliament then or indeed any time soon. What I now do expect though is a rapid and necessary toughening on all sides of the British political landscape towards Europe as a whole and a frankly healthy questioning as to whether our membership of the European Union is on balance a good or a bad thing.

Don't know much about politics in EU. But I read this bit, and thought, why would parties on national level take any notice? If they read the results just as you do, which is, it won't really affect their own elections, then why bother changing anything? It's like here in US, dems and pubs don't really have to change much, b/c status quo.

[DoctorGamgee]

I have been watching with interest this development, and have been discussing it with many friends in the UK that I met while my wife was studying at the RNCM in Manchester.

While there are certainly differences, one can't help but notice similarities (which are sure to frighten the Euro-centric Brussles crowd) between what is happening there and the Tea Party here. The lack of trust for the Brussles/DC faceless Bureaucrats (as you so aptly put it) is but one example. The States/Country self governance which is perhaps more noted there (as the French and English are truly separate countries with a history of nationalistic jingoism that is greater and more recent than the North/South ravages of our history) sounds somewhat familiar. For you, it is the movement of peoples who have not paid into your national coffers suddenly showing up on your steps expecting exceptional British safety nets. This will be (by those who don't think too deeply) as the equivalent of the immigration debate we ave having here and thus seemingly xenophobic; the difference here is that nobody has broken a law to do so, which makes the comparison here hold less water. For us, it is watching the collapse of economies like California, which are (by American standards) exceptionally liberal/tax heavy being left behind for places like Texas, where the taxes are better growing and the rich are moving here because of it. It is only my opinion, so take it with a grain of salt, but I find it difficult to reconcile freedom and self-governance with ceding power to a federal government. And I fear it is going to get worse, as when a big government state like California (or cities like Detroit) go bankrupt, it will be the neighboring areas that will feel the collapse and wonder why we are being asked to pay for their mistakes. And yet, we will.

It will be curious to watch as this proceeds. Extracting Britain from it is possible. Seceding from the union is not a great possibility, even though Texas has it within their rights to do so.

Dr.G

[TheFallen]

Don't know much about politics in EU. But I read this bit, and thought, why would parties on national level take any notice? If they read the results just as you do, which is, it won't really affect their own elections, then why bother changing anything? It's like here in US, dems and pubs don't really have to change much, b/c status quo.

Weez, I hear what you're saying and normally I'd share your robust cynicism.

However, we have a national election coming up in just under a year's time, so that's certainly already weighing on the two major parties' minds. Plus currently we have a coalition government, because neither of the two major parties could secure a majority last time around, so clearly the will of the electorate is - or at least was - a close-run thing.

Sure I take the point - and indeed made it myself - that this recent Euro election was more than probably seen by many as a "free swing", a chance to bloody the nose of the major parties without too much relevant consequence. However, the fact that the UK - and indeed many other European nations - all plumped for Eurosceptic nationalistic parties shows I think a growing distaste for and antipathy towards a federal superstate (well, everywhere outside Germany, that is) and a desire to return more towards independence and self-governance.

So, as stated above, currently we have a Conservative/Lib-Dem coalition here, with Labour forming the opposition. The results of the Euro election will be seen as some form of litmus test of the mood of the electorate and is I think bound to affect the stances of the three parties.

The Conservatives, who are traditionally less Euro-centric (and also far better at handling the economy, but a lot harsher on social spending) will look to toughen their stance more on Europe - maybe we will get that Yes/No vote we've been promised after all?

Labour on the other hand is much more pro-European centralism (and also happy to pour money into social spending but at the inevitable expense of ruining the economy). Labour has however been very careful not to say so over the last few years - they've now got a problem, in that they now need to make their position clear on this, and to repeat their traditional position looks like election hara-kiri.

The Lib-Dems on the other hand, staunchly and vociferously pro-European, literally got minced in the Euro elections and consequently have nowhere to go.

I've been doing a little research and in 2011, the UK was the third largest net contributor to the European Union at 4.89 billion Euros that year, just behind France - and we'd have been pretty much be first equal with Germany, if Maggie Thatcher hadn't bludgeoned an annual 3.6 billion Euro rebate for the UK out of the bureaucrats back in 1984.

So, the success of UKIP at the recent Euro elections is to my mind a very healthy piece of agent-provocateurism and, as DoctorGamgee muses in his thoughtful post, might well see the UK loosen, if not cut, ties with Europe within the next few years.

Interesting times coming for the UK, especially taking into account the upcoming (Sept) vote for Scottish independence. I find this potential multiple shaking of the boring same-old, same-old status quo to be all quite exciting...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The phrase which entered our consciousness back in 2008 was "too big to fail". Although this was the catchphrase thrown around for certain megacorporations, I think there is a similar saying which we could coin for national or international governments: too big not to fail. How anyone could think that some meta-government could set rules for countries as disparate as Greece and Spain and have the experiment work is beyond me.
Consider, if you will, a farmer who has goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, and cows. We would consider him to be crazy if he said "I know that those are all different animals but I need to maximize my efficiency so I will simply feed them all the same thing, at the same time, in the same amount--this will certainly make my job easier". What will happen? Presuming that some of the animals don't die from eating a diet which is incorrect for them, he will either overfeed the chickens to the point where they start coming down with health problems (or they'll stop eating when they are full and the extra will go to waste) or he will starve the cows to death. Either way, whether you call it naive good intentions or willfully ignoring reality he will wind up causing more problems than he solved, to the detriment of all the animals involved.

At some point, a government can become too top-heavy. When this happens, the problems it causes for the nation (or group of nations) it is trying to govern are worse than the problems it solves--typically the only solutions for such a bureaucracy are more taxation to pay for itself and more homogeneity so that it is easier to deal with its citizens.

If your neighbor mismanages his money and fails to pay his mortgage or his car loan, are you going to step up and pay those bills for him out of the goodness of your heart, expecting nothing in return? Although that may be the compassionate thing to do in the short term, the long term ramification will be that your neighbor has failed to learn how to manage his money--he knows you will step up and cover for him. He will continue to mismanage his money, learning nothing. This translates to States, as well--if State A has mismanaged its money and is facing bankruptcy then it is not the responsibility of State B (or any number of States) to step in and help take care of the mess. No, State A must learn its lessons the hard way regardless of how difficult that might make things for its citizens during that interim. The citizens of State A need to elect leaders who will not mismanage the money moving forward into the future, even if that means changing the State's overall governance philosophy.
We--the collective "we'", as in "all of humanity"--need to start abandoning philosophies which simply do not work. Giving people infinite safety nets--"yes, we know you have four children by four different fathers but it's okay because we will give you plenty of money to cover the expenses which are the result of your poor choices"--does not help people make better choices. Any system which helps people dodge responsibility can not and does not work.

I digress.

Yes, I think federalism in Europe has just about run its course. When it collapses the results will be more devastating than if they had never been established in the first place. Would it really have killed anyone to keep multiple currencies? Nations could still have traded freely with one another--a simple computer program handles conversions via the daily exchange rate, so it isn't like there would have been insurmountable obstacles. Besides, bureaucrats in Brussels have no business telling people in Athens or Madrid how they will conduct their economic affairs.

[ussusimiel]

Some good points made about the EU, but I think that comparisons with the US miss most of what is important and relevant about the EU. Economic and structural integration (rather than federalisation) in the EU is about creating continent-wide standards that the US already has (and benefits from); a simple example would be medical standards. AFAIK, at the moment, a doctor trained in Spain cannot practise in UK unless they pass the medical board exams, because what a 1st year doctor in Spain learns is markedly different from a 1st year doctor in the UK and so on.

Standardisation of business law and practices are also part of integration as they are a barrier and a burden to trade (monetary integration is only a small part of this). Maintaining that these are negative things is counterintuitive and focusing solely on loss of sovereignty sweeps aside a huge amount of useful practical changes and effects.

As I said above, making the Euro a fiat currency (so that there could be alternatives the current compulsory austerity programmes) would return a significant amount of economic control (and thus practical sovereignty) to individual countries. The lack of vision may stem from a German idea of good fiscal behaviour, but, as MMT shows, mobilising productive capacity is the single most important factor when it comes to a recession (or just regular economic policy )

At the moment that countries like Germany, France and the UK are net contributers to the EU coffers is just, because it is their advanced economies that most benefit from access to an enlarged open market. Just take a look at the German economy. A country like Ireland has benefited immensely from EU membership and AFAIK, was a net contributor during the boom (I don't know about now). Similarly, the more recent accession countries are fast-tracked towards advanced economies by their membership of the EU.

Talk of uncontrollable immigration and benefit migration is always overheated, and it misses the simplest fact of all. No matter how much a person gets in another country, to get it they have to sacrifice living in their own culture and country. The price of that is not insignificant, and it evens out over time as the accession countries get their feet under them. We have had significant influxes of Polish, Czech, Latvian, Romanian etc. into this country since our economy lifted off. The economy could not have had the sustained growth it had without that migrant labour (we had full-employment for the better part of 10 years).

Many have stayed, but also many have returned to their own countries bringing the money, knowledge and experience with them, which will further advance their own economies and societies. This is a return-in-kind for the, literally, millions of Irish people who have been economic migrants since 1845. (And have been again during this recession. Young Irish people are work-visa hopping from Australia to New Zealand and, the latest one, Canada.)

Immigration and migration are always thorny issues because they emphasise the increasingly globalised nature of the market that free trade enables, while at the same time highlighting the strength of the darker primal emotions that persist, in spite of our huge technological steps forward. Ironically, it is structures like the EU (and the federal government in the US) that, AFAICT, are the best equipped to mitigate and contain those destructive forces.

u.

[Ananda]

We (sweden) elected a majority of green party, people party, liberal and social democrats to the eu, but we also got the first seats for the ultra right sweden democrats (a racist party). I think the reason for the victory of so many of these far right racist parties getting seats all over the eu is not because the eu is going to fail, but because immigration is in desperate need of reform.

I am going to guess it is the same elsewhere, but here, the main parties don't have the nerve to talk about immigration reform. If they do, they are called racist*. They fear that and losing elections. So, no one will talk about it seriously. Instead, we have our pensioners getting less and less money to live on, see our health system straining and so because the current way is not sustainable. So, these racist parties speak up. They talk about reform. They usually do it in the most offensive of ways, but at least they are mentioning it. That is why, I think, they are elected here and elsewhere in the eu.

* we even had a national story a few weeks ago about a confectioner who made smiling face cookies. One of the cookies he made was chocolate, so it was naturally called racist by some large group! www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/konditori ... a-bakverk/
translation: translate.google.se/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/konditori ... bih%3D1072

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Preserving national sovereignty and standardization are not mutually exclusive things--a handful of nations can all enact the same standards without those standards being externally set.

If your country is doing well economically it is natural that people would want to immigrate there--they can smell opportunity like anyone else can. It is simply unfortunate that the long-time residents (usually with families who have lived there going back decades, if not centuries) have some resentment towards the newcomers; however, this is human nature and we cannot change it. All we can do is remind the long-term residents that the newcomers do not mean the end of "the good old days" or that their nation is somehow on a downward spiral; quite the contrary--if you have lots of new immigrants it is because you are doing so well.

Most nations need to update their immigration policies these days, given the much more mobile nature of the global workforce. I would wager, though, that an immigrant should never receive benefits from their adopted country until they become a full citizen. This will help alleviate the amount of money the host country needs to shell out and mitigates some negativity felt by the long-term residents.

[Zarathustra]

We (sweden) elected a majority of green party, people party, liberal and social democrats to the eu, but we also got the first seats for the ultra right sweden democrats (a racist party). I think the reason for the victory of so many of these far right racist parties getting seats all over the eu is not because the eu is going to fail, but because immigration is in desperate need of reform.

I am going to guess it is the same elsewhere, but here, the main parties don't have the nerve to talk about immigration reform. If they do, they are called racist*. They fear that and losing elections. So, no one will talk about it seriously. Instead, we have our pensioners getting less and less money to live on, see our health system straining and so because the current way is not sustainable. So, these racist parties speak up. They talk about reform. They usually do it in the most offensive of ways, but at least they are mentioning it. That is why, I think, they are elected here and elsewhere in the eu.

I'm puzzled why you'd complain that immigration reform doesn't get addressed due to unfair racism charges, but then you seem to do exactly the same thing yourself to the Sweden Democrats. I'm sure you have more knowledge on the details than I do, but after a quick look on Wikipedia, I found this:

The Sweden Democrats' response[edit]

The party claims to dissociate itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism and states that it considers the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights a fundamental component of its politics. Furthermore, the party says that its fundamental goal is to combine the principle of social and economic justice with traditional conservative values. For this reason, the party believes that it is not easily pinpointed on the traditional left-right political spectrum in Swedish politics.[90] Also, the Sweden Democrats say they have expelled all openly extremist members from the party, and refuse membership to anyone who has extremist views.

Is this false? Does Wikipedia need an edit?

My own personal opinion is that words like "racist" and "bigot" get tossed around much too easily, in cases where there is merely disagreement on policy, and not actually a disagreement on the alleged superiority of one race over another.

Can you give specific examples that show this party to be racist?

[Vraith]

It amazes me how often those with the least power are blamed for all the biggest problems.

Take Greece [cuz I looked into it the most, so I'm sure of it]. Everyone says the social programs/gov't spending [and those lazy entitled poor folk] caused all the trouble, cuz of unsustainable Gov't deficits.

And yet: Greece would not have HAD a gov't deficit [more accurately, they'd have had a reasonable, repayable one] without explicit, intentional, and in many cases totally illegal actions by European banks.
The financial sector is a major, and very likely the single largest, cause of the weak economies and the migratory wave.
The lack of sovereign control of currency is one part of the problem...
But another is financial sector manipulations...some legal, some
quasi-legal, some illegal, all bad policy.

[Cybrweez]

If your country is doing well economically it is natural that people would want to immigrate there--they can smell opportunity like anyone else can. It is simply unfortunate that the long-time residents (usually with families who have lived there going back decades, if not centuries) have some resentment towards the newcomers; however, this is human nature and we cannot change it. All we can do is remind the long-term residents that the newcomers do not mean the end of "the good old days" or that their nation is somehow on a downward spiral; quite the contrary--if you have lots of new immigrants it is because you are doing so well.

I was in complete agreement with you at one time. Now, I'm not so sure it's that easy. I got to know a friend, who moved to the US from Mexico City at age 16. He is in software now, works in the city (NYC). He told me immigration reform needs to lock down the borders. He doesn't want what he saw in Mexico City here in the US - that's why he moved here. It made me realize, my thoughts on the matter were probably painted by a PC stroke, and I didn't even realize it.

I don't know the answers, for sure. I like learning of different cultures (I have working for me now 3 people, one from Taiwan, and 1 of Indian descent the other Jamaican), and I love when we talk about what things are like in their home countries. At the same time, I recognize major changes in population can change cultures, and if people like their culture as it is, why are we surprised when they get upset, or worried, about changes to it? The changes can be good, of course, But they can also be for the worse, and it's probably naive to think otherwise.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

My own personal opinion is that words like "racist" and "bigot" get tossed around much too easily

These days "racist" has been watered down to mean "disagreeing with or disliking something a non-white person said or wore or did" or "not voting for a non-white candidate for political office". It is a completely hollow word devoid of the weight of its former negative social connotations, like "divorcee".

"Bigot", technically similar enough to "racist" that they may be used as synonyms, is also meaningless these days and is typically the "disagreeing or disliking" definition from above. "Bigot" is used when skin color is not the identifying characteristic, of course.

I was in complete agreement with you at one time. Now, I'm not so sure it's that easy. I got to know a friend, who moved to the US from Mexico City at age 16. He is in software now, works in the city (NYC). He told me immigration reform needs to lock down the borders. He doesn't want what he saw in Mexico City here in the US - that's why he moved here. It made me realize, my thoughts on the matter were probably painted by a PC stroke, and I didn't even realize it.

I don't know the answers, for sure. I like learning of different cultures (I have working for me now 3 people, one from Taiwan, and 1 of Indian descent the other Jamaican), and I love when we talk about what things are like in their home countries. At the same time, I recognize major changes in population can change cultures, and if people like their culture as it is, why are we surprised when they get upset, or worried, about changes to it? The changes can be good, of course, But they can also be for the worse, and it's probably naive to think otherwise.

I don't have the answers, either, which is why I ultimately had to err on the side of "amnesty" as the answer--if you are here then do some community service and jump-start the process of naturalization, etc. Of course, if you are here on a work visa that clearly doesn't apply--you aren't trying to become a citizen, only work here, which is good for everyone (you still spend your money here).
I know that a lot of people still come here to flee disastrous situations in their home country because even our worst areas--places like East St. Louis, or Detroit, or El Paso--are still better than where they came from. I also know that much of our history and our patchwork culture--the joke is usually that the United States has no culture but in fact we have all of them--are because of the immigrants who came here. However, even good things done in excess can lead to problems and at some point we are going to have to slow down the folks who want in, provided things do not change here.

[Ananda]

We (sweden) elected a majority of green party, people party, liberal and social democrats to the eu, but we also got the first seats for the ultra right sweden democrats (a racist party). I think the reason for the victory of so many of these far right racist parties getting seats all over the eu is not because the eu is going to fail, but because immigration is in desperate need of reform.

I am going to guess it is the same elsewhere, but here, the main parties don't have the nerve to talk about immigration reform. If they do, they are called racist*. They fear that and losing elections. So, no one will talk about it seriously. Instead, we have our pensioners getting less and less money to live on, see our health system straining and so because the current way is not sustainable. So, these racist parties speak up. They talk about reform. They usually do it in the most offensive of ways, but at least they are mentioning it. That is why, I think, they are elected here and elsewhere in the eu.

I'm puzzled why you'd complain that immigration reform doesn't get addressed due to unfair racism charges, but then you seem to do exactly the same thing yourself to the Sweden Democrats. I'm sure you have more knowledge on the details than I do, but after a quick look on Wikipedia, I found this:

The Sweden Democrats' response[edit]

The party claims to dissociate itself from all forms of totalitarianism and racism and states that it considers the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights a fundamental component of its politics. Furthermore, the party says that its fundamental goal is to combine the principle of social and economic justice with traditional conservative values. For this reason, the party believes that it is not easily pinpointed on the traditional left-right political spectrum in Swedish politics.[90] Also, the Sweden Democrats say they have expelled all openly extremist members from the party, and refuse membership to anyone who has extremist views.

Is this false? Does Wikipedia need an edit?

My own personal opinion is that words like "racist" and "bigot" get tossed around much too easily, in cases where there is merely disagreement on policy, and not actually a disagreement on the alleged superiority of one race over another.

Can you give specific examples that show this party to be racist?

Good point. I realise you don't know much about our politics here. The party founders were related to nazi parties and so. Try the swedish page or the swedish news. They obviously are trying to become mainstream and move away from the public perception problems they have, but they are not there yet. And, all that said, I am glad that they are there to make sure the issue is talked about (if only because the other parties are unwilling). Our government is a coalition government and they have to be deal with and so the topic might become approached in some ways that it wouldn't otherwise.

I think the thingie you are quoting is just a year ago about them kicking some of the nazi types out over a leadership struggle or something. So, it is still rather fresh that they have the outspoken hate group members involved and likely still have the not outspoken ones involved.

This is from the swedish version of the wiki.

Sverigedemokraterna bildades 6 februari 1988. Partiets grundare och tidiga förgrundsgestalter utgjordes till viss del av personer tidigare verksamma i nationalistiska och rasistiska partier och organisationer som Framstegspartiet,[12] Sverigepartiet och Bevara Sverige Svenskt (BSS), däribland Leif Ericsson.[13][14][15][16] En av partiets tidiga ordförande, Anders Klarström, var tidigare aktiv i det nazistiska Nordiska Rikspartiet.[17], vilket han senare tog avstånd ifrån.[18] I partiets första partistyrelse ingick även Bevara Sverige Svenskts förste ordförande Sven Davidsson samt andra från en rad fascistiska och nazistiska organisationer. Partiet kännetecknades inledningsvis av högerextremism och aktivism.

[ussusimiel]

Here are a couple of links relating to Jimmie Åkesson leader of the Sweden Democrats party:

• - www.islamophobiatoday.com/tag/jimmie-akesson/
  
  - www.loonwatch.com/tag/jimmie-akesson/

They don't seem to be directly related to him, but rather with him having to deal with controversial statements made by people in his party.

u.

[Zarathustra]

Oh yes, the Swedish version clears it right up.

So they have some racist ties and perhaps racists members, and that's why they deserve the label? Okay, so does that mean you're open to the idea that their official positions or policies aren't racist?

From the Immigration section of the Sweden Democrats entry (Eng. ver. ):

Immigration[edit]The Sweden Democrats believe that the current Swedish immigration and integration policies have been a failure.[58][59] SD is the only party in the Swedish Parliament without an integration policy.[60][61] They oppose integration because they believe that integration involves "meeting in the middle" and do not think that the Swedish people should have to bear the burden of what they see as a reckless immigration policy.[62][third-party source needed] SD feels that the current situation with a large number of immigrants living in cultural enclaves is not beneficial for the country. They argue that the immigrants themselves are rootless, that there have been rising antagonistic tensions between various population groups (socially, ethnically, religiously and culturally), and the immigration in itself, SD says, has caused social and economic strains on the country.[citation needed]

As the party considers Sweden to have had too much immigration in later years, which it claims have seriously threatened national identity and societal cohesion, SD wants to reinstate a common Swedish national identity which in turn would mean a stronger inner solidarity. SD rejects the policy of multiculturalism, but accepts a multiethnic society where cultural assimilation is promoted. SD wishes to strongly restrict immigration, and give generous support for immigrants who instead of wanting to assimilate in Sweden voluntarily prefer to emigrate back to their country of origin. As more state funds are made free from funding mass immigration, SD believes that Sweden in turn will have the possibility to better help refugees in their own nearby locations.[citation needed]

SD has referred to the recommendations from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which state that the return of refugees should be the solution to refugee problems. Former party secretary between 2003–2004, Torbjörn Kastell had said in 2002 that the party wanted "a multicultural world, not a multicultural society."[49] In a 2008 survey, a significant minority of 39 percent of all Swedes thought that there were "too many foreigners in the country", and in 2007 a survey showed that 49 percent of all Swedes wanted to restrict the number of asylum seekers.[63] In recent years, SD has tried to approach the immigration policy of the Danish People's Party, which from 2001 to 2011 provided parliamentary support for the former Danish liberal/conservative government in return for a tightening of Danish immigration policies and stricter naturalization laws.[64]

According to Aftonbladet, 14% of SD members are of immigrant origin,[65][66] which corresponds to the proportion of foreign-born in Sweden.[67] For the 2010 election in the municipality of Södertälje (Stockholm County), SD was the only party with a majority of immigrants on its electoral list, mostly Chaldean Christians from the Middle East.[68] Polling 7.31% (3,447 votes), SD's municipal list in Södertälje got 5 of the 65 municipal seats.[69] Nader Helawi and 4 other Swedes from immigrant origin will sit as municipal councilors.[70]

Again, speaking mostly out of ignorance here, it seems to me from a quick read that they don't actually have anything against other races, but are talking about purely pragmatic social matters like cohesion and tension. I don't think it's racist to want to be around people who share your heritage, culture, values, etc. I think humans naturally group themselves this way.

[It's interesting to note that the members of this "racist" party have the same percentage of immigrants as the entire country's percentage of immigrants.]

[Ananda]

Preserving national sovereignty and standardization are not mutually exclusive things--a handful of nations can all enact the same standards without those standards being externally set.

If your country is doing well economically it is natural that people would want to immigrate there--they can smell opportunity like anyone else can. It is simply unfortunate that the long-time residents (usually with families who have lived there going back decades, if not centuries) have some resentment towards the newcomers; however, this is human nature and we cannot change it. All we can do is remind the long-term residents that the newcomers do not mean the end of "the good old days" or that their nation is somehow on a downward spiral; quite the contrary--if you have lots of new immigrants it is because you are doing so well.

Most nations need to update their immigration policies these days, given the much more mobile nature of the global workforce. I would wager, though, that an immigrant should never receive benefits from their adopted country until they become a full citizen. This will help alleviate the amount of money the host country needs to shell out and mitigates some negativity felt by the long-term residents.

Yes, true, but my point was to my guess to explain why the right wing extreme groups did so well in the eu election, not to discuss the pros and cons of immigration. In france, the national front won big, but they do have a very liberal government. I believe that many takes the eu vote as a way to express themselves by voting for groups they would not vote for in their country's government election. I think our result looks about how our national elections will turn out in september, though. I think our conservative government (probably more liberal than Obama, I might add ) will be out and the liberal party back in.

So, I don't think the eu is failing, but people were voting on an issue.

For how the eu affects us, I think it does some good in social engineering (from my point of view) in some ways, and harm from the same source in other ways.

Countries like turkey who want into the eu start reforming human rights laws, animal treatment laws, privacy laws, et cetera. From our western point of view here in europe, most agree this is a positive movement.

But, these same laws cause issues for us. It seems sweden is always being sued by the eu for having too strong privacy laws or too strong animal rights laws and so. I'm just very happy we don't have the euro even though the krona came under attack at least once to pressure us into accepting it.

My feeling on the eu is that is a necessary evil, so to say.

[Ananda]

Oh yes, the Swedish version clears it right up.

Sorry, here is a translation:

Sweden Democrats was formed 6 February 1988. Party's founders and early protagonists consisted partly of persons previously engaged in nationalist and racist parties and organizations such as the Progressive Party, [12] Sweden Party and Preserve Sweden Swedish (BSS), including Leif Ericsson. [13] [14 ] [15] [16] One of the party's early Chairman, Anders Klarström, was previously active in the Nazi Nordic National Party. [17], which he later disowned. [18] The party's first party board also included Preserve Sweden Svenskts first President Sven Davidsson and others from a range of fascist and Nazi organizations. The party was characterized initially by right-wing extremism and activism.

So they have some racist ties and perhaps racists members, and that's why they deserve the label? Okay, so does that mean you're open to the idea that their official positions or policies aren't racist?

The answers are yes and yes. They are still tied to the nazi and white power stuff. However, I do believe they are trying to become mainstream. I hope they can leave the nazi shit in their past, but it will take time. They have had outspoken nazi claiming leadership till this last year, so to think they have taken it all out is not realistic. But, yes, I think they can leave it behind at some point. And, you are right that it was not fair of me to say they are all racists. Just some of them are.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yes, true, but my point was to my guess to explain why the right wing extreme groups did so well in the eu election

Well, in that case you are correct--fear often motivates people to vote for political parties who could cause far more damage than the problem they claim they are trying to solve. Fear of the immigrants turning the much-loved nation into something that it wasn't in their grandfather's time, fear of losing a collective national identity, or fear of being overrun. On the flip side, many people find it easy to blame all their country's problems on the new immigrants--things were great until *they* started showing up. If enough fear and social upheaval can be combined then history will repeat itself (as it often does).

[Ananda]

Yes, true, but my point was to my guess to explain why the right wing extreme groups did so well in the eu election

Well, in that case you are correct--fear often motivates people to vote for political parties who could cause far more damage than the problem they claim they are trying to solve. Fear of the immigrants turning the much-loved nation into something that it wasn't in their grandfather's time, fear of losing a collective national identity, or fear of being overrun. On the flip side, many people find it easy to blame all their country's problems on the new immigrants--things were great until *they* started showing up. If enough fear and social upheaval can be combined then history will repeat itself (as it often does).

Maybe, but I didn't vote for them, so I can't speak to motives for the people who did elect the right wing extreme groups, but can just guess based on reading the news. You did forget the financial part of this, though. Too much immigration too quickly can very much stress a small country's resources. In my opinion, that is the part that needs to be addressed. Remember, we are a very small country compared to you.

To add to the info that Z requested, in addition to being founded by and still having ties to nazi stuff, they never had real political power till recently when they won seats into riksdag (like parliament or congress or whatever) in 2010, I think it was. So, they never had to care about self moderation so much. During a campaign, they had an advert they made pulled from tv for being deemed racist, too. When they were elected, even our conservative majority coalition and conservative prime minister said they will not work with them because of their ties to white supremacy and neo nazi stuff. With the prime minister refusing to work with them, it is not a surprise that they are trying to make themselves mainstream since they have something to lose and something to gain for the first time instead of just being noise makers. I hope I did explain it for you. And, I acknowledge that it must have seemed very ironic they way I wrote my first post since you don't know who they are.