Future elections in Europe

gobsh!te

I have just had a quick look at the polls in places across Europe and in the countries affected by the mass migration from Islamic countries there seems to be a huge shift to anti-immigration parties.

In the Netherlands Geert Wilder's Party for Freedom is leading the poll at the moment and is very likely to win the next election (likely to be in 2017)

It's quite tight in France however Le Pen has recently been polling as the most popular in the presidential race...Election is in 2017

In Italy, the two parties gaining the most are Lega Nord and Five Star Movement...Lega Nord is anti immigration and Five Star is anti establishment and anti EU

In Austria, The Freedom Party of Austria is topping the polls though the next election is not until 2018 probably.

Germany is not looking very likely to change from the current polls however the Alternative for Germany party is polling double of what they had in the last election

Denmark has already enacted anti-immigration policy and in Sweden the Sweden Democrats have been on/off the most popular party in Sweden according to recent polls.

I am convinced that most of these parties will get into power in these countries(except for Germany).

What will the implications of all this be? Is it possible that some EU states will leave the EU? Will Schengen collapse (if it has not already)? How do the socialists feel in the face of the changing face of Europe?

For sure anyone interested in politics will find these times interesting at the very least.

Peregrinus

This may be less dramatic than you think.

Take the Netherlands case, just as an example. (I pick it because it's the first you mention, and for no other reason).

The latest poll that I can find reports of was from two months ago. In that, the PVV is "leading the poll" in the sense that it gets more support than any other party, projected to win 29 seats, as compared to 21 for the second-placed CDA.

But, to put that in context, there are 150 seats. 29 is a long way off government. All Netherlands governments are coalition governments. There is no prospect whatsoever that the PVV (or anyone else) can win in excess of 75 seats. Whether the PVV ends up in government will always depend on whether they can build a coalition with other parties. Obviously the more seats they win the more attractive a negotiating partner they are, but they still need to negotiate successfully, and that will involve a lot of moving from their electoral platform. Their negotiating record is not great; they came out of the 2010 election with 24 seats and a lot of political momentum (they gained more seats in that election than any other party) and yet failed to negotiate their way into the governing coalition. One of their problems is that, when their vote is highest, this tends to be at the expense of the parties that are ideologically closest to them; to get into government they're going to have to negotiate a coalition with a one or more parties that they have considerable differences with.

Finally, worth pointing out that the PVV's current poll ratings are nothing new. They've had as high, or higher, ratings more than once in the past. So, while their current ratings are good, they don't necessarily indicate any fundamental shift in the political landscape. We've seen this before.

I haven't looked at other the countries you mention, but phrases like "the most popular", "gaining the most", "polling double what they got in the last election" don't translate into "headed for government". Parties that are starting from a pretty small base of seats or votes are the ones who find it easiest to improve dramatically on that base. But in many cases this simply indicates a move from "pretty small" status" to "quite small".

So, yes, I think there will be a fillip to anti-immigration and anti-Muslim parties, but I see no evidence that it's the kind of fillip that will sweep them into government. Rather, it's the kind of fillip that may put them in a position where, for the first time, their ability to find common ground with other parties, and become part of workable multi-party governments, is going to be seriously tested.

gobsh!te

That's a fair point, however this was a one man party very recently and there is a similar situation in Denmark were the anti-immigration party was needed to form(not be the main part of) a government.

Denmark has enacted anti-immigration reforms already.

I am glad you pointed out anti Islam. Most people are OK with immigration as long as people respect the country's laws and not other laws.

Peregrinus

gobsh!te wrote: »

I am glad you pointed out anti Islam. Most people are OK with immigration as long as people respect the country's laws and not other laws.

And obviously anti-Islamic parties will have no appeal for those people.

gobsh!te

Peregrinus wrote: »

And obviously anti-Islamic parties will have no appeal for those people.

Hard to say...I mean take the mayor of Rotherdam, a Muslim...Here's his quote when talking about extremists of Islam:

"...if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake pack your bags and leave."

“....if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can **** off."


I think when people see this from a Muslim they can be very pro immigration.

Peregrinus

But - as your own post illustrates - there's a distinction between opposing extremism, and opposing Islam. An anti-Islamic party which opposes Islam on the basis that Muslims are extremists or suspected of being so is a party of bigotry and intolerance. Such a party will appeal to racists and bigots, but not to people who are " OK with immigration as long as people respect the country's laws".

jank

Well the Poles seem to be heading that way.

gobsh!te

Peregrinus wrote: »

But - as your own post illustrates - there's a distinction between opposing extremism, and opposing Islam. An anti-Islamic party which opposes Islam on the basis that Muslims are extremists or suspected of being so is a party of bigotry and intolerance. Such a party will appeal to racists and bigots, but not to people who are " OK with immigration as long as people respect the country's laws".

In many people's minds there is nothing wrong with opposing Islam as it is a totalitarian ideology similar to Nazism. This is obviously not the case for well integrated Muslims into western society however the stats show something different for many Muslims living in many Islamic countries and their interpretation of the Quran.

Disliking Islam has nothing to do with racism......for one, what race are you talking about?

It is important not to fall into the trap of labeling people racists and not allowing them to speak....Even if someone is a racist, let them speak...no one will take someone like that seriously if that's all they stand for.

Peregrinus

gobsh!te wrote: »

In many people's minds there is nothing wrong with opposing Islam as it is a totalitarian ideology similar to Nazism . . .

And in many people's minds there was nothing wrong with opposing Judaism because it was a degenerate phenomenon which corrupted the purity of the volk.

I don't think you can demonstrate that people are not prejudiced or bigoted by pointing out that they don't think they are prejudiced and bigoted. Of course they don't think that, but that could be because they are reasoning from principles which themselves reflect prejudice and bigotry.

The bottom line here is that if you're taking negative stereotypes about a particular community and projecting them onto individuals, they you're a bigot. It doesn't matter greatly how much foundation there is for the negative stereotype.

If you refuse me a job because I'm Irish, and we all know the Irish are heavy drinkers, that's bigotry. It's still bigotry if you can prove that, yes, statistically, the Irish are heavy drinkers. The only relevant criterion is whether I'm a heavy drinker, and you haven't made any investigation of that.

Same goes if you, e.g., discourage or restrict Muslim immigrations because of your perceptions of Islam. You're simply imposing prejudicial stereotypes on individuals. That's pretty much the definition of bigotry.

gobsh!te

Peregrinus wrote: »

And in many people's minds there was nothing wrong with opposing Judaism because it was a degenerate phenomenon which corrupted the purity of the volk.

Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam.
Jews can stop being Jews and it is ok in this respect.

Same goes if you, e.g., discourage or restrict Muslim immigrations because of your perceptions of Islam.

Perceptions of Islam.....Do you know of the surveys done in Islamic countries regarding the implementation of Sharia Law and the percentages that were for it?

Do you know how gays get treated in Islamic countries?
Do you know how women get treated in Islamic countries?

I am not talking about Muslims from Western countries.....

Some of the beliefs in the Quran are disgusting....It is not a perception.

Most Germans during WW2 were good people but the ideology of Nazism caused the problems....Same goes for Muslims and Islam.

Don't you find how many Islamic countries treat gays and women appalling?

Peregrinus

gobsh!te wrote: »

Apostasy is punishable by death in Islam.
Jews can stop being Jews and it is ok in this respect.




Perceptions of Islam.....Do you know of the surveys done in Islamic countries regarding the implementation of Sharia Law and the percentages that were for it?

Do you know how gays get treated in Islamic countries?
Do you know how women get treated in Islamic countries?

I am not talking about Muslims from Western countries.....

Some of the beliefs in the Quran are disgusting....It is not a perception.

Most Germans during WW2 were good people but the ideology of Nazism caused the problems....Same goes for Muslims and Islam.

Don't you find how many Islamic countries treat gays and women appalling?

You illustrate my point very neatly, Gobsh!te. If you want to know what an immigrant thinks about the implementation of sharia law, and what he understands by that, ask him. Projecting views on to him on the basis of "surveys done in Islamic countries" is exactly the kind of stereotyping I am pointing to.

Do I find how many Islamic countries treat gays and women appalling? Yes. I find that about lots of non-Islamic countries also. I find how Irish people treat travellers appalling, also, and how Australia treats asylum seekers. Am I to restrict migration from all these countries? Or am I to single out Islamic countries? Or (hint: this is the correct answer) am I to make migration decisions based on the actual characteristics of the individual, rather than the stereotyped characteristics of some group with which I associate him?

gobsh!te

Peregrinus wrote: »

You illustrate my point very neatly, Gobsh!te. If you want to know what an immigrant thinks about the implementation of sharia law, and what he understands by that, ask him. Projecting views on to him on the basis of "surveys done in Islamic countries" is exactly the kind of stereotyping I am pointing to.

I have asked Muslims from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. I got differing answer but was shocked by some when asked about the cartoon thing from a few years back. One guy was really cool but even he did not want to be seen having a beer in front of his mates.....regarding Saudi...even though the guy was ok, the stories of what goes on there are very disturbing.

Perhaps you should speak to some Muslims yourself and read the Quran. They instead of giving an opinion you could directly point out how I am incorrect on Islam in respect to gays and women.

Do I find how many Islamic countries treat gays and women appalling? Yes. I find that about lots of non-Islamic countries also. I find how Irish people treat travellers appalling, also, and how Australia treats asylum seekers. Am I to restrict migration from all these countries? Or am I to single out Islamic countries? Or (hint: this is the correct answer) am I to make migration decisions based on the actual characteristics of the individual, rather than the stereotyped characteristics of some group with which I associate him?

I have a gay sibling...Perhaps this is a reason I am more anti Islam than you.

I find Australia's policy compassionate in that it has saved many lives. We know lots more people would have died if they did not change their policy and Australia is allowing quite large numbers of asylum seekers in....I guess the left wing media doesn't highlight that. Regardless, it is a policy and can be changed...The Quran is the word of Allah and will not be changed....so if you are gay.....well you know

I find Irish people treat travellers good and bad depending on the person. There is no book telling you what to do but the Quran is very clear on how gays should be treated.

I think you should read the Quran and actually talk to Muslims about life in their countries and how they feel about life in the West.

We can integrate Muslims for sure, same as any group...Hopefully they can eventually drop Islam but in large numbers when areas become ghettoized, this is difficult and opposing views will not be met kindly.

gobsh!te

Geert Wilders Party For Freedom is now 18 ahead of the next party with 37 or 38 seats in the latest polls. It seems the migrant crisis is playing on the voters minds.