Rightly author of the book-report "Twenty years in the Union – the balance of membership" Tomasz Piejernik correctly diagnosed who was in charge of the European Union. According to him, these are: 1. planet financier, 2. Corporations, 3. Lobbyists, 4. Serious services of EU countries (Germany, France, to the not-present United Kingdom), 5. Non-Union States Services (US, China, Israel, Russia, arabian States interviews, etc.).
Let's halt at the 3rd punch, lobbyists. It's not always about money, or at least not just about money. Among lobbyist centres we find those who work to make fresh ideas. The most insane. 1 of the crucial institutions active in this area is the European Council on abroad Relations, a Rockefeller lobbyist organization. The PCH24 portal in March of that year published an crucial text on the study of this institution, which clearly indicates the environment in Europe, should be combated and utilized for this purpose. This Think tank presented a strategy to aid mainstream groups, advocating the construction of a superstate to marginalize the "environment of the far right". Of course, it is not just about the perfect right, it is about all the moves that advocate a Europe of Homeland and reject globalist concepts. As the main opponent in Europe, Rockefeller lobbyists view the German alternate for Germany (AfD), but besides the Austrian Freedom organization (FPÖ), or Swedish Demokrats and Geert Wilders Freedom organization (PVV). Lobbyists in this paper lament that these parties have not undergone evolution specified as Law and Justice or the Italian Brothers. The text is written in full:
Rockefeller's organization advises the European establishment on how to defeat the “radical right”.
In January, the European Branch of the Council on abroad Relations predicted that if farmers' protests persist, left-wing Liberal parties would importantly lose in the elections to the European Parliament for a broadly defined "right". The same think tank has now put forward a strategy to aid mainstream groups, wishing to centralise power in the EU, turn the hard situation into a victory.
Ivan Krastev, Head of the Center for Liberal Strategies and Mark Leonard, manager of the European Council on abroad Relations in an analysis published on 21 March on the efcr.org website on the "correctly" elections to the European Parliament (A fresh political map: Getting the European Parliament election right), warns against continuing the "double strategy" of pro-European parties.
It is intended to "design the right-wing migration policy and advance narratives about the success of the EU by focusing on its consequence to the climate crisis, the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war".
Krastev and Leonard believe that this is simply a bad strategy and will have the other effect. For example, "European public perceptions of the EU's achievements in responding to crises".
Therefore, if "the mainstream parties want to push back the utmost right, they should adopt an alternate programme which prioritises national contexts and [should] make more targeted campaigns to mobilise voters without raising anti-European opposition". A fresh geopolitical argument would besides be desirable, in their opinion, given the US presidential election.
The authors propose that mainstream parties and the European establishment are mistakenly trying to neutralize the issue of migration, presenting it as a political matter, and reacting to Russia's war with Ukraine, the climate crisis and the "pandemic" of Covid-19 as a success.
Krastev and Leonard are afraid that, in particular, the emphasis on "success" in dealing with crises can only further mobilise the voters of the “anti-European” parties and contribute to the fact that little extremist voters will besides agree with “the utmost right” on these issues. Lobbyists proposed that mainstream leaders adopt more targeted campaigns to mobilise pro-European voters, without raising anti-Brussels opposition. Analysts, based on the results of the survey conducted at the beginning of the year, suggested in January that elections in many countries would bring a major shift to the law, with EU-wide votes and mandates gaining "popularist parties radically right-wing and centre-left and green parties will lose".
The "Anti-European populists" would benefit in 9 associate States: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia, and in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Spain are to take second or 3rd place. Hence, if nothing extraordinary happens, for the first time almost half of the mandates in the future European Parliament are to be occupied by Members outside the "super-great coalition" and may appear "a wholly right-wing coalition of chadeks, conservatives and extremist right-wing MPs".
However, Krastev and Leonard believe that the deficiency of unity among the "high right" (the utmost right has so far shown a very low level of coherence and limited cooperation capacity) can be utilized to effort to influence voters' performance. It should besides be taken into account that any utmost groups were expected to deradalize, and others, which were more centred, were to radicalise, for example, the Law and Justice in Poland.
Probruxel ‘Right’
The authors propose that the survey shows that the attitude of respondents towards the main national far right parties towards the EU varies from country to electorate. For example, only 15 percent of Italian brothers believe that Giorgia Meloni wants Italy to leave the EU or the euro area. Similarly, pro-European voters in Spain, Portugal and Romania think.
In Poland, although fewer PiS voters believe that the organization leader Jarosław Kaczyński wants to decision the country out of the EU, the majority of Poles are expected to think so. Therefore, according to analysts, stressing the risks posed by the Law and Justice for Europe would give the "pro-European" forces a double benefit: to mobilise their own voters while demobilising any of the Law and Justice voters.
In Germany, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands, both voters of the alleged utmost right and the wider electorate consider that the leaders of the “high right” organization are anti-European. Neither the alternate to Germany (AfD), nor the Austrian Freedom organization (FPÖ), nor the Swedish Democrats and the Geert Wilders Freedom organization (PVV) have undergone an evolution comparable to the PiS or the Italian Brothers. However, an effort to mobilise the electorate of the mainstream organization by recourse to the anti-Europeanity of the utmost right can besides inadvertently mobilize the voters of the utmost right. This situation is even worse in France.
Uncomfortable immigration. So what should left-liberal forces do?
Analysts propose strategies for utilizing divisions between far-right forces and adapting campaigns to national contexts. They inform against utilizing migration as the main subject of the campaign.
Most voters do not consider migration to be the biggest challenge facing the EU. What electrifies Europeans are: economical issue, Covid-19 policy, climate policy and war in Ukraine. The war in Gaza is expected to concern only 4% of voters. The challenges mentioned earlier were worried by about 20% of Europeans. The migration issue polarises the public in Germany and Austria. The economical issue is peculiarly crucial in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Hungary. The Covid-19 case polarizes Spain and Romania, and the war in Ukraine is peculiarly crucial for Poles and Swedes. On the another hand, climate policy is very different in France and the Netherlands.
Analysts believe that "the political importance of immigration is not due to the fact that it is the most severe crisis in Europe, but to the success of the right-wing parties that have made it a symbol of the failure of the EU". They add that "most importantly, even those who are most afraid about migration will not believe mainstream parties who adopt far-right policies". They besides inform against being highlighted by mainstream parties in an election run that can make them unpopular. They are peculiarly afraid with what these groups consider to be their success, namely the policy of responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, support for Ukraine or the European Green Deal.
"This can be stunning for European leaders who, in many ways, are rightly arrogant of the way they have dealt with the risks associated with Covid-19, supporting Ukraine and making advancement under the European Green Deal. However, our data shows that fewer of these arguments will rally voters in their favor. On the contrary, they are risking more opposition than support," says analysts.
It turns out that many citizens across the EU see results in responding to the fresh fewer crises powerfully negative. Only in Portugal and Spain do most believe that the EU played a more affirmative function than a negative function in responding to the Covid-19 "pandemic". Only Swedes, Portuguese, Dutch and Poles see the EU's consequence to the war in Ukraine more positively than negatively. In no country are citizens satisfied with economical policy and green governance. Analysts write: “We repeat one more time that the way voters view politicians, not only depends on their policies, but on the motives that voters attribute to them. As you can see (...), many Europeans believe that the leaders of the pro-European parties want not only to let migrants in but besides to conspire to rise energy prices; any believe that they want to transfer political power to their EU country. Most mainstream leaders are suspected of these motives, including von der Leyen".
They add that specified perception is not only common among the voters of the far right, but besides in respective countries among the voters of the mainstream party. For example, 28 percent of CDU/CSU voters believe Scholz wants to "primarily" rise petrol and energy prices to fight climate change. In Portugal and Spain, 24 percent of centre-right opposition voters think the same thing about leaders of left-wing government in their countries. With respect to the motives for EU action, 15% of CDU/CSU voters besides believe that their von der Leyen political household "primarily" seeks to transfer power from Berlin to Brussels; and another 28% believes it wants to accomplish this, but this is not a priority. 14 percent of SPD voters believe that this is simply a precedence of von der Leyen and 36 percent that it is 1 of its objectives.
The fight against the furnaces “heated” voters.
What is peculiarly shared is the EU's climate policy. The survey clearly shows that, with the exception of Swedes and Portuguese, no 1 in Europe wants an increase in energy prices to save the climate. little than one-fifth of citizens – 38% for Sweden – supported the simplification in greenhouse gas emissions.
Germany's “white fever” resulted in a government effort to force homeowners to change the heating system. The Green organization has lost 13 percent in the polls for this reason. German climate policy critics are not expected to deny "climate change", but do not like the staggering pace of change.
It is besides not worth overemphasis on Europe's support for Ukraine in the run-up to the elections, due to the fact that many people see the EU's consequence to the Russian war in terms of negative alternatively than positive. Europeans do not like the proposal to send their soldiers to Ukraine and aid free all occupied territories. Analysts respect politicians to “detach” from the main concerns of their electorate. They advise the main parties to remember that elections to the European Parliament are primarily national. So if they want to minimize the triumph of the far right, they must look for country-specific ways of mobilising their voters.
Therefore, these parties should avoid polarisation and fearing in France or Italy that the utmost right wants to leave the EU.
However, this can be done in the case of AfD in Germany, Poland, Austria, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, where a large part of the population is expected to fear that the "populists" in their countries will want to leave the EU or the euro area or origin the EU to break up. This is akin in Hungary.
In many countries, Eurosceptics should be demobilised among mainstream parties disappointed in their policies and pro-European voters mobilised. It was noted that in any countries (Netherlands, Poland and Sweden) anti-European organization voters are inactive little mobilized than voters of their pro-European rivals.
"However, in any of the most influential EU countries (such as Austria, France and Germany) anti-European organization voters are presently very mobilised – sometimes even more than mainstream voters. For example, AfD voters are among the 10 most mobilised organization electorates from the 12 countries surveyed; they vote more frequently in the European Parliament elections than CDU/CSU or SPD voters. In France, about the same number of voters as La République en Marche (LREM) and the National Unity say that "agreement" will vote 63 percent and 61 percent respectively".
The results in these countries will so depend mostly on the mobilisation of pro-European voters and the demobilisation of skeptics.
Analysts propose that the mainstream organization should besides focus on another crises in order to attract undecided voters, the highest among women, e.g. 75% in France, 73% in Austria, 71% in Spain, 69% in Poland and 66% in Germany. It is so recommended that emphasis be placed on abortion, equality in the workplace and number rights. Poland is to be a promising example. Mobilization of pro-abortion women helped in last year's vote.
Finally, pro-European parties should come up with an crucial geopolitical argument. The mainstream parties should not focus on the war in Ukraine and slandering the far right as allies or supporters of Vladimir Putin, as they will undermine a broad anti-putinist consensus that has emerged since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on a full scale. "To make Ukraine a central issue could strengthen opposition and rise concerns about the threat to European agriculture, manufacture and society in many associate States", we read.
Pro-European leaders could focus on highlighting the request for the EU to accomplish greater autonomy and a serious approach to defence against the Russian threat. Analysts believe that leftist-liberal parties can exploit the "crisis of European democracy". Moreover, they argue that "the European parties have a chance to be in a much better position than many anticipate and have a real majority in the European Parliament". The leaders of these parties only gotta "break up with any of the myths they presently live" and "take back the initiative in setting the conditions for debate".
They should, among another things, argue that “in the face of uncertainty in Putin's politics and aggression”, “we found ourselves at a minute when, if the EU did not exist, it should have been invented”. The analysis was prepared based on an adult opinion survey (18 years of age and older) conducted in January 2024 in 12 European countries. These included Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and Sweden. The full number of respondents was 17,023.
Source: ecfr.org, AS
red
