Another Point Of View: Lessons for Bernie from Britain 2019

-by Tim Russo

Yesterday, the Republican wing of the Democratic Party couldn't wait to declare that Corbyn's loss in the U.K. meant that only a right-wing Democrat could beat Trump here. Bloomberg-- an actual Republican calling himself a Democrat and trying to buy the Democratic nomination-- called the election results in the U.K. a "catastrophic warning" to Americans. In a swipe at Bernie, he asserted that "Americans want change but I don’t think they want revolutionary change." Status Quo Joe also tried pinning Labor's loss on Bernie and Elizabeth, arguing that Boris Johnson’s resounding victory should warn Democrats against veering too far left in their fight to defeat Trump. Biden, at a fat cat fundraiser in San Francisco, gloated "Boris Johnson is winning in a walk... Look what happens when the Labour Party moves so, so far to the left. It comes up with ideas that are not able to be contained within a rational basis quickly." So let's turn to our old friend Tim Russo to get a broader understanding of this than Status Quo Joe or Little Michael will ever have. Tim worked for both the successful Bill Clinton campaigns and in the U.K. for Tony Blair's 1997, 2001 and 2005 campaigns. He knows something about U.K. electoral politics.
-DWT

Trying to reverse an election result is suicidal. The good news from yesterday’s election is we will never again hear anyone claim #RussiaDidBrexit. British voters wanted Brexit in 2016, and they will damn well have it, even if they have to get it by giving a landslide to Boris bloody Johnson, mate. In the US, voters wanted Trump, and no amount of “impeachment” performance art smearing of Laurie Anderson’s shit into her own hair (Hillz) while Yoko Ono screeches in the corner scratching at the strings of a cello with her teeth (Pelosi) will reverse that. The opportunity for Bernie Sanders here is abundantly clear-- he should oppose impeachment. Should have done so some time ago, but there’s still plenty of time to step away from the cliff Labour has spent 3 years hurtling itself over.

It’s suicidal to compromise with centrists, which is why centrists propose it. Since becoming leader in 2015, and accelerating since the 2017 election which saw Labour nearly win, Corbyn bent over backwards to reach out to the Blairite rump of centrist New Labour dead enders, who refused the Brexit result, demanding another referendum. It was folly. On Brexit, Corbyn thus contorted himself and Labour into a caricature. Everyone knows Corbyn’s been at best an EU skeptic his entire life. Corbyn’s (and historically, Labour’s) natural position is to argue Lexit-- a left Brexit-- that the EU is a capitalist vampire squid feeding upon us (conveniently, also true). But by this 2019 election, Remoaners hell bent on a second EU referendum had forced Corbyn to not just put a second referendum into the Labour manifesto by last September’s party conference, reversing the 2017 promise to respect the 2016 Brexit result. They even forced Corbyn, on national television no less, to the point of promising himself in a debate last month to not even take a position in that promised second EU referendum, a plainly seen cowardice Corbyn claimed as some sort of “leadership”. Idiocy.

Winning the nomination is only the opening bell. It’s a common Yankee mistake to assume the smear that Labour under Corbyn became a Nazi antisemitism hive comes from the Tories. Third Way Blairite dead enders launched that smear in spring 2015 before Corbyn even became leader, and have only accelerated it. Not a day has passed since Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015 without knives of this nature plunged into his back, deeper every single day, by his own party. Centrist petty bourgeoisie will not just go away-- they are in an existential fight for their existence as capitalism slowly collapses around them, thus will only get more desperate, foul, and dangerous.

Go for broke. When Corbyn became leader, my only policy concern stateside was whether or not Labour under Corbyn would promise in an election manifesto, as it had before World War II, to abolish the medieval relic of the City of London Corporation, the world’s largest tax haven black hole. Never happened, in both Corbyn manifestos. Since the City is a thousand years old, has no constitution, and is nothing but a set of fangs sucking on the world, if history remembers Corbyn for anything for very long, that failure will be what sticks. Corbyn regularly pre-compromised in this manner, for example, promising that re-nationalization of British rail would be somehow “funded”, as if “shareholders” needed “compensation” for their trouble. Why? That’s like having to pay someone who stole your house then destroyed it to get your house back. Complete madness.

A movement must become a machine. Corbyn’s Obama like tendency to pre-compromise reached full flower in the 2018 conference fight over whether or not to subject Labour MPs to mandatory re-selection every election (like a US primary), rather than as now, automatically. This was how the movement within Labour wanted to get rid of the recalcitrant coup plotters-- just toss em out. Alas, Corbyn again compromised with the snakes whose sole purpose was to poison him, creating a strange “trigger process” requiring massive organization merely to put selection on the agenda of a local constituency Labour Party. Unless institutionalized, movements fizzle into moments, which is what happened to Corbyn’s moment. Like Occupy and the Arab Spring before it, or Bernie Sanders 2016 after it, when a movement is slowed to a stop, it scatters to the four winds in a thousand directions, becoming disillusioned and despaired, incapable of being reborn. Movements are not bottomless wells of energy to be tapped on demand. They must be capitalized on, immediately, to become machines which operate independently of any leader, or moment, or idea. A movement must become power, or it is wasted and lost.

There’s always a bright side. There is simply no point in taking seriously any of the people who wish to destroy you. You must defeat them, then build power on top of their dead carcass. The forces of capital know this very well-- they don’t need to rely on the ephemeral moments movements create; they already have power, bottomless billions of it, and will never stop using it. Likely proving this deliciously will be McKinsey Pete Buttigieg in the next 2020 debate. Even Liz Warren, capitalist who loves markets to her bones, will preach at us to #BeCareful! about moving too leftward! To a fundraiser of ghoulish rich rattling their jewelry at him, of course, the slowly bleeding out Joe Biden gasped for breath with this same ‘warning’ as if Brexit never occurred, as if he hadn’t crafted capital’s incarceration police state end stage with his own hands still dripping with the oil blood of Iraq, whose greenhouse gases burn the planet to a cinder for profit as Joe sucks on his wife’s fingers. No wonder Uncle Joe has trouble breathing-- he’s choking on what he himself has wrought. I had hoped a Labour victory this month would show the world a socialist party could win in half of the transatlantic “special relationship” that is the foundation of neoliberal capitalism. I guess we’ll have to settle for a few hard lessons that really need to be internalized before the Iowa caucuses on February 3, 2020, to show a socialist can win in the more important half of that transatlantic relationship. Timing is everything, as the saying goes.

Is There Anything To Learn From The U.K. Elections? Part I

"Massive" 43.6% win

Before people kill themselves over the terrible results in Britain yesterday, remember, more people voted against Boris Johnson and the Conservatives than voted for them. His party only took 43% of the votes. The British version of gerrymandering gives him a commanding control of Parliament, not the will of the people, despite all the crowing from the corporate media and rightist politicians from Trump to Biden. This is what actually happened:

• Conservative Party- 13,966,565 (43.6%)-- 365 seats (+48)
• Labour Party- 10,295,607 (32.2%)-- 203 seats (-59)
• Liberal Democrats- 3,696,423 (11.6%)-- 11 seats (-1)
• Scottish Nationalists (Scotland)- 1,242,372 (3.9%)-- 48 seats (+13)
• Green Party- 835,579 (2.7%)-- 1 seat
• Brexit Party- 642,303 (2.0%)-- no seats
• Democratic Unionist Party- (Northern Ireland) 244,128 (0.8%)- 8 seats (-2)
• Sinn Féin (Northern Ireland)- 181,853 (0.6%)- 7 seats
• Plaid Cymru (Wales)- 153,265 (0.5%)-- 4 seats
• Alliance Party (Northern Ireland)- 134,115 (0.4%)-- 1 seat
• ocial Democratic and Labour Party (Northern Ireland)- 118,737 (0.4)-- 2 seats (+2)

Cas Mudde is an international affairs professor at the University of Georgia who writes for The Guardian. He's not buying all the Biden-Bloomberg and corporate media crap that Labour's loss in the U.K. means the Democrats have to move right. "In many ways," wrote Budde, "the results were in line with broader trends in Europe, notably that (radicalized) mainstream rightwing parties are quite successful, as, for instance, in Austria and the Netherlands, while social democratic parties are getting hammered virtually everywhere, irrespective of whether they are 'moderate' or 'radical.' The idea that British elections are most similar to U.S. elections is based on a simplistic understanding of the two political systems. It is true that both share a first-past-the-post system, with single-member districts, leading to a two-party system, but that is about it. The UK has a parliamentary system and the US a presidential one, which puts much more emphasis on one person and makes the undemocratic electoral college the key decider."

But most importantly, all elections are still primarily national rather than global. The British election had its own, partly unique, issues and candidates. First and foremost, the election was about Brexit, an issue irrelevant to the U.S. electorate. Also, Corbyn was an extremely controversial candidate. While very popular within the (new) party base, and among millennials, 61% of Brits had a negative opinion of Corbyn, which included particularly older white men, who vote in large numbers. This unpopularity was only partly related to his “hard left” platform; issues such as his weak stance against antisemitism and his non-position on Brexit didn’t help either. To be fair, Johnson isn’t popular either, but he is much less unpopular than Corbyn.

So, which lessons can we draw for next year’s presidential elections? Many, although most are general lessons, not specific to this result.

First, unpopular candidates can win elections-- a lesson we should already have drawn in 2016. It doesn’t matter whether a majority of the population dislikes you, but that a majority of the voters likes you. Trump’s base might be small, but it is mobilized and united.

Second, internal divisions, over candidates and policies, will harm both support and turnout. While Corbyn has a pretty strong grip on the party membership, which is why he can probably stay on to oversee his own succession, he has been involved in an ongoing and public conflict with much of his parliamentary party. Moreover, the party was internally divided over key issues, most notably Brexit. This all meant that the Labour party contested the elections with an unclear profile. Given the divisions within the Democratic party, and the open animosity between donors and supporters of both “moderate” and “radical” candidates, there is a serious risk that this could harm the Democrats in 2020, too.

Third, the electoral system is key to any successful electoral campaign. Plurality systems are extremely disproportional. In Thursday’s election the Tories got one seat for every 38,304 votes, while Labour needed 50,649 votes for each seat-- the numbers for the Liberal Democrats and Greens were 331,226 and 857,513, respectively. Moreover, Corbyn’s “dramatic” result last night was only 3% lower than the 35.2% that won Tony Blair his third election in 2005. The U.S. system is even less democratic, given that the electoral college trumps the popular vote.

Fourth, and most importantly, campaigns matter. Yes, Labour had fantastic short videos, and an incredibly detailed and elaborate election manifesto, but its campaign missed a clear focus and target-- obviously, in large part because Corbyn was unwilling to take a clear position on the key issue of the election. In sharp contrast, the Tories had a clear message (“Vote to deliver Brexit; vote to respect the referendum”), however problematic in reality, and spent much of their money on Facebook in the last week of the campaign, when many voters decide whether and who to vote. The Trump campaign has been spending millions of dollars on Facebook for the last year, pushing a very similar message-- in the language of its leader, “DEMOCRATS WANT TO STEAL THE ELECTION.”

What this all means is that Democrats should put much less trust in general polls, as in a highly polarized country like the US average levels of public support do not necessarily tell us much about who will win the presidency. What matters is who shows up. Republican voters know who and what they will show up for. Do Democratic voters?

Part II will be tomorrow in this same time slot.

Foreign Correspondent: Boris, Brexit, and the British Election

-by Reese Erlich
@ReeseErlich

Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Britain’s tousle-haired answer to Donald Trump, came into office promising to leave the European Union by October 31. He declared that he would rather “die in a ditch” than stay in the EU past that date. But by mid-October he had to ask the EU for an extension and, while not dead, Johnson may be lying in a ditch of his own making.

Britain and the EU have extended the deadline for their divorce, known as Brexit, this time to January 31. Parliament, meanwhile, voted for national elections to be held on December 12. Johnson hopes to win a majority, ram Brexit through parliament, and then implement his party’s anti-worker, conservative policies.

Britain’s Labor Party, led by unabashed leftist Jeremy Corbyn, strongly criticizes Johnson’s Brexit plan as hurting working and middle income people. Corbyn promises to negotiate better terms with the EU and then put the agreement up for a popular referendum. While polls show Labor trailing the Conservatives in the upcoming elections, Corbyn could pull out a surprise victory given widespread hatred of the conservatives.

But it will be tough sledding. Brexit has deeply split British society and presents a serious conundrum for left and progressive forces. Leftists who have long opposed EU membership because of its neoliberal policies seem to be in the same camp as ultra-right wingers who advocate leaving the EU based on xenophobia and racism.

Liberals and social democrats, who favor staying in the EU because it provides some worker and environmental protections, find themselves in bed with Britain’s largest capitalist corporations.

Robin Hahnel, an economist and professor emeritus at American University who now lives in Portland, Oregon, puts it in perspective: “Brexit is a clusterfuck for everybody.”

EU and neoliberalism

The European Economic Community, the EU’s predecessor, began in 1957. The EU was formally established in 1993, and it became an economic and political bloc competing with the United States. The EU eliminated tariffs among member states and created common rules for everything from naming cheese to environmental protection. In 1999, Europe issued a common currency, the Euro, which further consolidated EU power.

While paying lip service to helping Europeans improve their quality of life, in reality, the bloc’s biggest powers-- Germany, France and Britain-- imposed neoliberal policies on its weaker members in the interest of greater corporate profits.

Left and progressive forces have opposed EU for good reason. Like NAFTA and similar trade agreements dictated by Washington, the EU has benefited certain corporations to the detriment of workers. Bankers in Berlin and bureaucrats in Brussels made decisions that couldn’t be changed by elected governments.

For many years, as a leftist backbencher, Labor Member of Parliament Corbyn opposed British membership in the EU.

“He knew EU membership prevented democratic control of the British economy,” Hahnel tells me. “The EU was the brainchild of neoliberal corporations.”

During the 2008 world recession, conservative German bankers wouldn’t allow member countries to create significant, budgetary deficits. While the Obama Administration primed the US pump with federal spending-- and not nearly enough of it-- the EU was constrained by fiscally conservative policy.

“The EU institutionalized austerity and draconian budget cuts in countries such as Greece,” Costas Panayotakis, a sociology professor at the New York City University College of Technology, tells me. “That created popular discontent, and contributed to far right and anti- immigrant sentiment. Boris Johnson is part of that wave.”

While the EU has been a disaster for working people, it’s policies aren’t easy to reverse. The EU has created a vast web of trade agreements, regulations and economic interdependencies.

Leftist debate

There’s fierce debate within the European left about how to proceed. The communist parties of Britain and Ireland, for example, see the EU as a capitalist institution that can’t be reformed. They want Britain and Ireland to leave the EU as a first step towards unraveling it altogether.

Social Democrats, including a significant number of Labor Party members, advocate joining with other European leftists to reform the EU by adopting environmentally and worker-friendly policies.

But that’s not the debate that dominates British political discourse.

Brexit has exposed long simmering divisions within the Conservative Party, split between those big capitalists who make money with European trade and those who think they can make more going it alone. Johnson, for example, claims once the UK has left the EU, he will negotiate more favorable trade deals with the EU and the United States.

Getting a favorable trade deal from Donald Trump? Good luck Boris!

Meanwhile, Britain’s ultra-right wing has adopted leftist rhetoric to denounce the EU for increasing unemployment and spending billions of pounds that could have been used to fund the country’s National Health Service. (Yes, the right wing in Britain supports a single payer health system.)




The right wing then demagogically blamed immigrants as the source of the problem, although attitudes have changed since the 2016 Brexit referendum.

As if the debate wasn’t complicated enough, voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland strongly support staying in the EU. People in both areas want closer ties with Europe as part of their resentment of rule by London.

Scotland has a strong nationalist movement, and if the British government pulls out of the EU, it would strengthen calls for independence. Similarly leftist Irish republicans in Northern Ireland favor staying in the EU. If the UK pulls out, that could lead to a reinstatement of a hard border between the north and the Republic of Ireland, something that was abolished years ago.

Boris' plan

In mid-October, Boris Johnson negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the EU. It contained unpopular provisions, such as 39 million pounds ($50 billion) to make up for British revenues that would have been paid to the EU. Additional divorce payments would be due after the end of next year if a final agreement isn’t reached. It also avoided creating a hard border with Ireland, but angered right-wingers in Northern Ireland who called the plan a “betrayal.”

But Boris’ plan, like the one proposed by his predecessor Theresa May, mostly leaves key issues unresolved. Once outside the EU, Britain, and Europe would have to negotiate a new trade agreement, which could take years. Would the UK abide by existing trade rules in the meantime, racking up billions of pounds of new divorce payments along the way?

The Labor Party is split between trade union and traditional leftist opponents of the EU on one side, and centrist members who favor EU membership on the other. So Corbyn has forged a compromise.

Corbyn hopes that with a Labor victory, he could negotiate a better agreement with the EU and then submit the plan for a national referendum. Corbyn says he will remain neutral and allow voters to decide whether to accept the new withdrawal plan or stay in the EU.

But, that’s seriously risky, says sociologist Panayotakis. People are exhausted by all the Brexit delays, he observes, and Johnson may continue to be seen as the champion of people on the right and left who oppose EU membership.

“It may seem wise for Corbyn to move to the center,” Panayotakis says, “but it may be more risky than people realize.”

Will Chaos Result In Anarchy In The U.K.?

In 1834 William IV, a far right extremist-- who had once been the loudest voice against abolishing slavery-- fired Lord Melbourne, a Whig, as prime minister. That was the last time a British monarch fired a head of government. William was also the last member of the House of Hanover and the last British monarch to serve as king of Hanover. When he died 3 years after appointing-- despite the will of Parliament-- Sir Robert Peel, a Tory, as prime minister, he was survived by 8 illegitimate children he had had with his mistress, actress/former prostitute Dorothea Jordan. He was succeeded by his niece Queen Victoria. (Little known fact: David Cameron is a descendant-- the great, great, great, great, great grandson-- of William by one of the bastard daughters, Elizabeth FitzClarence.

Yesterday the Sunday Times reported that the current crackpot prime minister, Boris Johnson, will dare the Queen to sack him rather than resign as prime minister in an attempt to drive through Brexit on Halloween. A senior Conservative said that "Unless the police turn up at the doors of 10 Downing Street with a warrant for the prime minister’s arrest, he won’t be leaving."

In an unprecedented escalation of the constitutional crisis, senior aides said Johnson would not stand aside if his proposals were rejected by Brussels and MPs tried to unseat him to avert a no-deal Brexit.

They said Johnson was prepared to "squat" in Downing Street even if MPs declare no confidence in his government and agree a caretaker prime minister to replace him.

Through it's media organ, RT, Russia-- which has been behind the turmoil in Britain and the EU-- reported yesterday that Johnson will screw-- like in wreck-- to EU if they don't agree to his exit package. RT.com: "Johnson is not about to take the forced Brexit extension lying down, reportedly devising plans to veto the European Union’s seven-year budget and appoint 'nuclear weapon' Nigel Farage as commissioner.

Johnson has long insisted that the UK would leave the EU by October 31, saying he would “rather be dead in a ditch” than ask the bloc for an extension to its exit deadline.

Parliament passing the Benn act, which requires a Brexit delay unless a divorce deal is agreed, looks to have scuppered those plans, but if forced to hang around for longer Johnson seemingly plans to be a thorn in Brussels’ side.

An explosive report in the Sunday Telegraph reveals that senior government figures plan to "sabotage" the EU if Britain remains in the union after Halloween. Two cabinet ministers told the paper that the plans include blocking the Union's 2021-2027 budget, which is expected to be signed off early next year, as well as sending a Eurosceptic such as Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage to Brussels as the UK’s next EU commissioner.

On Saturday the approach was approved by Steve Baker, former Brexit Minister, who likened it to firing "a nuclear weapon into the heart of the asteroid."

"I unashamedly back Nigel Farage to be our next EU commissioner in the unfortunate event that it transpires," he told Chopper’s Brexit Podcast.

  "This approach is inspired by the film Armageddon. There is that moment when they are trying to save the world and so what they do is they land on the asteroid and they put a nuclear weapon into the heart of the asteroid. Nigel Farage is that nuclear weapon."

One problem with this plan is that the rest of the European Commission will have been ratified by the European Parliament so MEPs would have a clear vote on whether to approve the UK’s nominee. Given Farage’s two decades of causing trouble in Brussels MEPs are highly unlikely to wave him through as a commissioner.

Batty Boris' First Vote As PM-- Humiliating Defeat Over A No Deal Brexit

William Pitt The Younger, a Conservative, was elected to serve as Britain's youngest prime minister in 1783 (age 24) but that isn't why he is known as the Younger. That was to distinguish between himself and his father, who was prime minister a few years before him. Having lost his first election (the University of Cambridge seat) he was given a rotten borough by a family friend. He opposed Britain's continued war against the American colonies (the American Revolution) but spent much of his life fighting Napoleon. Pitt was the only prime minister to lose his first vote in Parliament-- until yesterday.

Today, batty right-winger, Boris Johnson, was defeated by a grand coalition of Labour, Lib-Dems and Conservatives who want to stir his plan to crash out of Brexit without a deal. Johnson had threatened he would treat the balloting today as a "confidence" vote. He lost and immediately turned around and called for a snap election. Since I brought up Pitt, it's worth mentioning that he lost a no-confidence vote a few months (1784) after being elected but dealt with it by refusing to resign (with the backing George III and the House of Lords).

Batty Boris And Pitt The Younger

The mechanics of what happened today is the Commons voted 328-301 to seize control of the agenda, in effect, making it possible for them to introduce legislation tomorrow. 21 Conservatives, including several former cabinet members, Philip Hammond, Rory Stewart and David Gauke, joined the rebellion that led to Johnson's stunning humiliation. Johnson has said the 21 will be refused the right to run for their seats as Conservatives. At least one already joined the Lib-Dems. And Winston Churchill's grandson, Nicholas Soames, who voted against the government announced he will not stand for reelection.

Tomorrow's bill will allow Parliament to move the deadline from October 31 to January 31. The Conservatives plan to announce an election on October 15 but there's a problem. Johnson needs a two-thirds majority (432 members) to pass it and he doesn't even control a bare majority (325). Jermey Corbyn-- with the backing of the Lib Dems and the Greens-- has already said election should come after a no deal Brexit is off the table. These are the 21 Conservatives Batty Boris kicked out of the Conservative Party right after the vote:

Batty Boris' full statement, delivered on the floor of Commons after his historic humiliation this afternoon:

Let there be no doubt about the consequences of this vote tonight. It means that Parliament is on the brink of wrecking any deal we might be able to strike in Brussels.

Because tomorrow’s bill would hand control of the negotiations to the EU. And that would mean more dither, more delay, more confusion.

And it would mean that the EU themselves would be able decide how long to keep this country In the EU.

And since I refuse to go along with that plan ... we are going to have to make a choice, Mr Speaker. I don’t want an election. The public don’t want an election.

But if the House votes for this bill tomorrow, the public will have to choose who goes to Brussels on October 17 to sort this out and take this country forward.

Everyone will know if the Rt Hon Gentleman is the prime minister [a reference to Jeremy Corbyn], he will go to Brussels, he will beg for an extension, you will accept whatever Brussels demands and we’ll have years more arguments over Brexit.

And by contrast, everyone will know that if I am prime minister, I will go to Brussels, I will go for a deal and get a deal but if they won’t do a deal we will leave anyway on 31 October.

The people of this country will have to choose.

The leader of the opposition has been begging for an election for two years.

I don’t want an election, but if MPs vote tomorrow to stop the negotiations and to compel another pointless delay of Brexit, potentially for years, then that will be the only way to resolve this.

I can confirm that tonight we will are tabling a motion under the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

Trump is thoroughly detested in the U.K. and his coziness with Batty Boris is hurting the Conservative cause-- just as it is doing in the U.S.

Will A Snap Election Rid Britain Of Boris Johnson Before Halloween?

The unelected, goofball far right prime minister of Britain, Trumpist Boris Johnson, has a special Halloween cooked up this year-- crashing Britain out of the EU and triggering a Great Recession for his country, for Europe and possibly worldwide.  Tomorrow Labour and the Lib Dems are joining together-- presumably with some rebel Tories-- to defeat Johnson's plan by offering a law to delay the Brexit deadline again, past Halloween. Voters-- and a majority in Parliament-- oppose a No Deal Brexit so this should be relatively easy, right? Nope,of course not. This is England.

Johnson announced over the weekend that he will expel and Conservatives who back it. That means they won't be able to run for reelection as Conservatives. Former Cabinet Minister David Gauke told the BBC that Johnson seems "quite prepared for there to be a rebellion and then to purge the rebels from the party. Their strategy, to be honest, is to lose this week and then seek a general election having removed those of us who are not against Brexit, not against leaving the European Union, but believe we should do so with a deal."

This is a full-blown Conservative Party civil war even though, by kicking rebel MPs out of the party, Johnson kills his own majority in Parliament. Peter Walker and Jessica Elgot for The Guardian: Johnson is treating the vote tomorrow like a No Confidence vote. He is expected by many in Parliament to call a snap election, which requires a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons.

The backbench rebels, spearheaded by the Tory former ministers David Gauke and Philip Hammond and the backbenchers Oliver Letwin and Dominic Grieve, are expected to attempt to take control of the Commons agenda on Tuesday, when parliament returns from the summer recess.

They would then seek to push through a bill mandating an extension to Brexit before parliament is suspended at the end of the week.

Earlier on Monday, Gauke predicted the expected vote on the backbench bill could be “very tight” but said government threats to deselect Conservative MPs who defy the party on the issue could increase the number of rebels.

Gauke said he had written to the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, and his successor as justice secretary, Robert Buckland, asking for clarification about comments by Michael Gove, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who declined to rule out the idea that the government could simply ignore the bill if it were passed by MPs.

“It would be very helpful if the government could clarify that they believe in the rule of law,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Gauke declined to say what the bill could seek to achieve. But another leading rebel, the former Tory MP Nick Boles, said a likely consensus plan would be to delay Brexit by a couple of months from 31 October, to allow enough time for a deal to be reached but not enough time for a second referendum.

The stakes for would-be Tory rebels became markedly higher at the weekend when Downing Street confirmed Conservative MPs who backed the no-deal blocking measure could lose the party whip, meaning they would be unable to stand for the Tories in the next election.

Downing Street has also repeatedly refused to say whether Johnson could simply ignore the backbench legislation if it was passed.

Midnight Meme Of The Day!

by Noah

Clown time at the G7! With Putin pulling the strings. England's economy has already slid down for 5th to 6th. How low will it go? We may soon find out. And what about ours? Well, maybe Mr. "Only I can fix it" knows, right? He's a very stable genius! Just look at him!

Predictably, Boris Johnson Is Off To A Disastrous Start As Prime Minister

The first test of Boris Johnson's premiership came yesterday. First, remember that Johnson wasn't elected to head the U.K. government by British voters, just by a small number of Conservative Party activists. The zany Trumpist who now heads the U.K. is far to the right of the general electorate and after his party's loss of a seat in Wales yesterday, has a working plurality in Parliament of exactly one vote. So here's what happened.

The by-election was in the rural Brecon and Radnorshire constituency in Wales, where Conservative MP Chris Davies had been convicted of typical conservative shenanigans with his expenses. The Tories had held the seat since 2015 but before that, it was Lib-Dem seat since 1997. Turnout yesterday was 59.8% and Davies was beaten by Liberal Democrat Jane Dodds:

• Liberal Democrats- 13,825 (44%)
• Conservatives- 12,401 (39%)
• Brexit Party- 3,331 (11%)
• Labour- 1,680 (5%)
• Monster Raving Loony Party- 334 (1%)
• UKIP- 242 (0.8%)

In the last election, the Conservative majority was over 8,000 votes. In this contest, the Conservatives spent ‎£6,215 on 55 ads, while the Liberal Democrats spent ‎£1,442 on 18 ads and Labour spent ‎£413 on 4 ads.

Also note that the "leave" parties pulled more votes than the "remain" parties.

In her acceptance speech, Dodds said: “I am incredibly humbled by the support. From every walk of life and every political persuasion, people have chosen to believe in my positive liberal vision for something better.

“And by backing that liberal vision, people in Brecon and Radnorshire have sent a powerful message to Westminster: we demand better.”

She continued: “People are desperately crying out for a different kind of politics. There is no time for tribalism when our country is faced with a Boris Johnson government and the threat of a no-deal Brexit.

“My very first act as your MP when I arrive in Westminster will be to find Mr Boris Johnson, wherever he’s hiding, and tell him loud and clear: stop playing with the futures of our communities and rule out a no-deal Brexit.”

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Jo Swinson, who visited the constituency four times in the run-up to the byelection, said the results showed that the country did not have to settle for Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn.

“Boris Johnson’s shrinking majority makes it clear that he has no mandate to crash us out of the EU. As leader of the Liberal Democrats, I will do whatever it takes to stop Brexit and offer an alternative, positive vision for a richer, greener and safer future. Britain demands better than what the tired old parties can give.”

Swinson also thanked Plaid Cymru and the Green party for not contesting this byelection so as to avoid splitting the remain vote.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem MP for Kingston and Surbiton, called it “a huge result”, adding: “The Brecon and Radnorshire byelection was the front line of the stop Brexit campaign. This is going to make Boris Johnson’s job that much more difficult, and for those of us who are desperate to stop Brexit it’s a crucial moment.”

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, said: “The people of Brecon and Radnorshire have spoken. It’s now time that people throughout these islands are heard, too, in a final say referendum.

“But if the prime minister is intent on a general election, he should know that Plaid Cymru and the other pro-remain parties are committed to cooperating so that we beat Brexit once and for all.”

The byelection in mid-Wales was called following the ousting from parliament of the Tory MP Chris Davies after he was found guilty of submitting a false expenses claim. Despite the scandal, Davies was chosen to stand again.

...Prof Roger Awan-Scully, the head of politics and international relations at Cardiff University... said it had been a dreadful night for Labour. “There’s lots of dissatisfaction with Jeremy Corbyn, lots of dissatisfaction with the direction of the party. In its ultimate historic bastion of Wales I think Labour is in some serious trouble.”

Tonight We'll Get A Good Idea Of How Successful Putin Has Been In Doing To The EU What He Did To The U.S.

Señor Trumpanzee with Italian would-be Mussolini, Matteo Salvini

In Europe, voting for the EU Parliament ends today. But Holland and the U.K. went first-- on Thursday-- and unofficial Dutch results show a gargantuan loss for Geert Wilders, the far right hate-monger who was leading in the polls. This is how it looks right now for the the Dutch delegation (26 seats):

• Labour- 18%
• VVD (mainstream conservatives)- 14%
• Forum for Democracy (neo-fascists)- 11%
• Freedom Party (Wilders' far right Trumpist/Islamaphobic party)- 4%

Turnout was up in Holland to around 37% but North Ireland, where there are 3 seats, shows over 45% voting. Votes there won't be counted until Monday, although the rest of the U.K. should have election results tonight. Here's how the U.K.'s seats are apportioned:

• Southeast England- 10
• London- 8
• Northwest England- 8
• West Midlands- 7
• East England- 7
• Southwest England- 6
• Scotland- 6
• Yorkshire & Humber- 6
• East Midlands- 5
• Wales- 4
• Northeast England- 3
• Northern Ireland- 3

This is how the British parties participating in the election stand on Brexit:

Brexit Party- leave
UKIP- leave
Conservative Party- leave but almost as confused as Labour
Lib Dems- favors remain but wants a new Brexit vote
Labour- complete confusion though most members want a new referendum
Green Party- remain with new referendum
Change UK- new referendum

Der Spiegel published an exhaustive look at the elections: The Right-Wing Populist Plan to Destroy Europe. The German magazine's point is that dramatic exposure of the far right's catastrophic Russian bribery scandal in Austria hasn't stopped the pan-European neo-fascists from battling on towards their goal of destroying the European Union from within its own institutions. Despite Geert Wilder's setback on Thursday, the elections ending today are likely to help them move along towards their goal.

Last Saturday European fascist leaders met in Milan, summoned by the would-be Mussolini, Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini. 11 neo-Nazi parties were represented, including Marine Le Pen from France, Geert Wilders, Jörg Meuthen from the Alternative for Germany party, as well as fascists from Bulgaria, Slovakia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Estonia.

Together, they performed what is by now well-known work, one with some surreal features: Full of bluster, the self-proclaimed "true Europeans" campaigned for entry into a parliament they despise. And they asked the people to give them the power to hollow out a European Union that has been painstakingly built over decades. All of it to the tune of Nessun dorma, along with Puccini's Turandot, its aria ending in fierce chanting: "Vanish, oh night! Set, stars! Set, stars! At dawn I will win! I'll win! I will win!" Vincerò!





On the stage in Milan, not a word was said about the drama unfolding in Vienna, as Heinz-Christian Strache, the head of the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), stepped down from his position as vice chancellor following the leak of a video demonstrating the depth of his corruptibility-- a scandal that also threatened to take down the entire Austrian government. And yet, in Milan they all pretended that nothing had happened. Even as they all knew: Quite a lot had happened.

This time around, it's not about some low-level party official sending Hitler pictures via WhatsApp on the Führer's birthday in provincial Austria. This time it goes right to the top level of the Austrian government, casting light on the worrying state of the Austrian political scene. The videos raise fundamental questions about whether the populists are fit for power. And whether they can be entrusted with government business. And whether Strache and his protégé Johann Gudenus should be regarded as isolated cases or as symbolic figures of a fast and loose relationship between right-wing populists and donations from foreign donors, rule of law and the truth.





Most Austrians, with the exception, perhaps, of FPÖ supporters, were likely to have been deeply shocked by the disregard to the country's constitution shown in the recordings, and many Europeans were astonished by the crooked behavior displayed by the second in command of a government of an EU member state. If the scenes in the Ibiza videos had been part of a TV crime show, people probably would have dismissed them as having been exaggerated and overdone.

..."IbizaGate" feeds into the well-founded suspicions that those thumping their chests as über-patriots in their countries have little problem with conniving with foreign powers, obtaining financing from dubious donors or even being pulled like puppets on a string when it comes to policy. The Strache scandal is undoubtedly detrimental to the original narrative offered by the right-wing populists-- namely that the parties are the lone forces defending the good people against "old parties" and other corrupt elites. But as Strache has now shown, it's the right-wing populists themselves who are in fact the corrupt elite.

Strache's German counterparts from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) have recognized the dangers of such discussions, but they don't want to admit it. Meuthen, one of the party's leaders, has been in damage control mode since last Saturday, describing the Strache Video as a "singular matter" reflecting abominable behavior, but also as a domestic issue relevant only to Austria.

...The Strache circus is of course also a problem for right-wing populists outside of Austria, because the issues raised by the video are a problem for them all across Europe. For months the AfD itself has been tangled up in several party donation scandals involving Alice Weidel, the party's floor leader in German parliament, as well as its leading candidates heading into this weekend's European elections, Meuthen and Guido Reil. Weidel is under scrutiny over a dubious election campaign donation of around 130,000 euros. In Meuthen's case, he is being scrutinized over 90,000 euros from dubious sources used to finance his campaign in a state election in Baden-Württemberg. And there are questions surrounding the nearly 45,000 euros used in a state election campaign in North Rhine-Westphalia for Reil, a member of the AfD's national board.

[Note: UK neo-Nazi, Nigel Farage is in the midst of a scandal showing that he's financed by Putin and devoted to Trump.]

No less troubling is the fact that the Ibiza video once again sheds light on the close contacts many right-wing populists in Europe have with Russia, a problem for which the AfD has also been in the headlines. In April, Der Spiegel, ZDF, La Repubblica and the BBC reported on the activities and connections of Markus Frohnmaier, a member of German parliament with the AfD. A document circulated inside the Russian presidential administration at the time of the Bundestag election campaign describing the politician as potentially becoming "a deputy under absolute control" of Russia.

The BND, Germany's foreign intelligence agency, and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the country's domestic intelligence apparatus, are currently detecting a change in the Kremlin's strategy. Rather than relying solely on its own media and channels for campaigning and aiming to steer the agenda, it is now focusing much more on individuals, a small group of parliamentarians were recently told in a classified meeting. They were informed that the people selected by Moscow included somewhere between a half-dozen and a dozen members of the Bundestag. One is Markus Frohnmaier. When contacted for comment, he responded: "I do not allow myself to be used by the Russian government for its purposes and would always refuse to accept attempts of this kind. The reporting about me is nothing more than a campaign."

Senior AfD politician Alexander Gauland is also a frequent guest in Russia, but he rejects any criticism because he claims to be following the foreign policy footsteps of Bismarck, who believed in strong German-Russian relations. Marcus Pretzell, at the time a member of the AfD and current member of the European Parliament, visited the Russian-occupied Crimea as "Guest of Honor" in 2016 and thought it petty when he was later questioned about who paid for the trip.

Similar episodes can be found all across Europe. When Marine Le Pen's Front National, now known as Rassemblement National, convened a party conference in Lyon in November 2014, the guest list was similar to that of Salvini's rally in Milan and delegates from Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party also attended. That same year, Le Pen's party had received two loans from Russian banks amounting to 11 million euros to help finance its election campaigns.

Two years later, the French right-wing populists asked Moscow for another 3 million euro loan, but it is unclear whether it was ever granted. There are, though, indications that Marine Le Pen may have promised not to criticize Russia's annexation of the Crimea and to promote Moscow's interests in exchange for the money. The suspicion, which Le Pen denies, is supported by mobile text messages from a well-known and high-ranking Kremlin official, who wrote among other things: "Marine Le Pen has not disappointed our expectations." And: "We will have to thank the French in one way or another."

In Great Britain, the National Crime Agency is investigating suspicions that Brexit leader Nigel Farage received money from Russia through indirect channels. Many consider it probable that the Kremlin sought to manipulate the Brexit vote to destabilize the European Union.

There is a greater amount of urgency surrounding these questions in the aftermath of the Strache-Ibiza video. Are economic interests at stake when Matteo Salvini's Lega party repeatedly advocates an end to the EU's "useless, or even harmful" sanctions against Russia? Do the Greek far-right parties get money for their frequently expressed conviction that there is a "natural alliance" between Greeks and Russians? How does Russia's president exploit the image he enjoys as being one of the last guardians of true values among European groups of both extremes? A leader who seeks to prevent what he describes as a weakened, immoral, decadent EU from prevailing?

"There is conspiracy of all the radical right-wing nationalists everywhere, apparently with the help of the Kremlin, or of oligarchs round the Kremlin, to disrupt this union," Guy Verhofstadt, a prominent Belgian member of European Parliament, told the Times of London on Wednesday. The German newspaper Die Welt this week quoted former French President François Hollande as saying that whoever votes for populists in Europe is "giving their vote to Trump and Putin."

That may sound preposterous, but it has long since become apparent in the European Council, where European heads of state and government still establish the broad parameters of EU policy. Coalition governments that include populist parties are often more open to influence from abroad than others. Once example is Middle East policy. Countries like Hungary have begun diverging from the European stance to serve American interests. Because Hungary stood in the way, the EU was not able to condemn the Trump administration's decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as a diplomatic mistake in December 2017. Budapest essentially became Donald Trump's advocate in Brussels.

The unanimity requirement for important decisions in the European Council thus gives populists veto power. And their partners abroad are quick to praise them for services rendered. Twelve days ago, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was showered with praise by the U.S. president himself during a visit to the White House. Orbán, Trump said, does a "tremendous job" and is "highly respected all over Europe."

That, of course, is far from the truth. In many countries, respect for Orbán is a thing of the past, and when it comes to domestic policy and the judiciary, his government is seen as having betrayed European values. Externally, Hungary has become a gateway for all those wishing to divide the EU. And the number of these open gateways is growing: Russia and the U.S. are not alone in their desire to weaken the EU block. China has also incorporated the EU, the world's largest internal market, into its geopolitical considerations and is searching for access.

The EU isn't equipped to stand up to such adversaries. It does have a couple of instruments it can use to punish intractable member states, but it hardly ever uses them. EU countries worried about being punished in the future regularly block their deployment. The dream of outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker that the EU might one day become a global political player seem illusory.

By chance, Juncker was in Vienna this week for a visit that had long been planned. He had apparently decided that he would remain silent about the Strache scandal-- but couldn't ultimately resist. "The idea that one country is put on a silver platter so that others can help themselves," he said, "does not reflect my idea of patriotism."

Jean Asselborn, Juncker's compatriot who is the foreign minister of Luxembourg, expressed deep discomfort. "The European right wing is unified by its desire to bring the free press and the judiciary under its control wherever they have power," he says. "That is true of Hungary and Poland, and that is shown by Strache's comments in the video."

The dangers presented by populists to European unity is significant, says Asselborn. "If European citizens continue placing their trust in these people, there is a risk that we could end up landing where we were back in the 1930s," he says.

The Austrian scandal was also of interest to Angela Merkel. On the Saturday Salvini's party in Milan and the political earthquake in Vienna were taking place, the German chancellor was standing in a basketball arena in Zagreb fulminating against the populists. "Nationalism is the enemy of the European project," she said from the stage. In the press conference that had preceded her speech, she said, "We are faced with populist currents that want to destroy a values-based Europe." Apparently referring to Strache, Merkel added: "That includes putting politicians up for sale. We must decisively stand up to all of that."

But the populists are currently finding success with their assault on the political establishment. They have representatives in parliaments across the continent, and established parties in almost every country in Europe are worried about their advance. In Sweden, the xenophobic Sweden Democrats received 17.5 percent of the vote in last year's elections, a result recently matched by the True Finns, whose overt nationalism fueled their success. The Conservative People's Party of Estonia, which has dedicated itself to the defense of the Estonian ethnicity, jumped from 8.1 percent support to 17.8 percent in March elections.

The numbers show that the populists are generally still far from securing a majority on a national or European level-- Poland and Hungary notwithstanding. But in places like Italy and Austria, they are becoming more than just convenient partners for parties in need of parliamentary majorities and in France, they could become the largest party in the country. In many European nations, it has become increasingly difficult to put together stabile governments made up of moderate political parties.

The communication strategies adopted by the right-wing populists are simply far better than the rather old-fashioned methods of the established parties. It is impossible to ignore the parallels to the 1930s, when the Nazis discovered the power of film and the possibilities presented by television-- as exemplified by the broadcast of the 1936 Olympic Games. The populists and extremists of today were much quicker to understand the opportunities inherent in the digital world than their political rivals, many of whom remain stuck in analog antiquity. Populists still use traditional media outlets, but are increasingly circumventing them.

The Germans may still be playing catch-up, but in Italy, France and Austria, the populists have learned to take full advantage of what the new media world has to offer. They may like to complain that they are being treated unfairly by the "leftist media" and libeled by the "fake news," but in truth, other channels have long since become more important for them.

Matteo Salvini reaches 3.7 million people directly via Facebook, the kind of follower numbers otherwise only seen with pop stars. It helps explain why he always seems to be the center of attention. The traditional political reports seen on Italian public broadcasters or in critical newspapers merely serve to round out his brand. As strange as it might sound, Salvini is one of the largest mass-media outlets in Italy, which works to his tremendous advantage. It means that he can present himself and his worldview free from pesky critical questions.

Austria's fallen Vice Chancellor Strache has 779,000 Facebook followers in a country with a population of not even 9 million. Like Salvini, he and his team are adept at using emotion, both positive and negative. Mother's Day and children's birthdays are celebrated with pretty pictures, hearts and kisses - the idyllic world the FPÖ professes to protect. Then he posts stories about ungrateful asylum seekers, sex criminals and unwanted migrants, often with his own indignant commentary. Strache's posts aren't just read and liked, they are also shared and commented on thousands of times, increasing their value.

Marine Le Pen similarly has 1.5 million followers on Facebook. Victor Orbán has 657,000. Some might argue that these numbers are something of a counterfeit currency and that their appearance in an article such as this represent the downfall of political analysis, but it is almost impossible to overrate their value. In this day and age, for politicians and others in positions of power, large follower counts mean message control, the ability to disseminate one's own messages without the inconvenience of a filter.

The more people follow a politician on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or Instagram, the less dependent that politician is on the reporting of independent media and the fewer critical questions from journalists he or she needs to answer. Of course, it's not all hearts and kisses on their social media accounts-- they are badgered and taunted, and not all of their followers are fans. But anger and controversy serve to jack up the click numbers-- and in the new currency of digital attention, clicks are good, no matter where they come from.

It has become something of a parallel reality. Manfred Weber, the lead candidate in the European elections for the center-right European People's Party, doesn't even have 60,000 followers on Facebook. Weber presumably prefers devoting himself to projects he believes are more important than improving his internet presence. But it is doubtful that today's politicians can afford the luxury of such an approach. What has been true for the media for the last several years is now true for politicians as well: If you're not present in the digital world, you soon won't be present at all. Low name recognition translates to diminished election prospects, not to mention a weakened ability to attract younger voters or those voters who tend to stay away from politics.

Clever politicians like Salvini or Strache are perfectly suited to an era in which voters prefer watching videos than reading essays. But the current wave of populism aimed at the European Union and its Brussels headquarters is more than just a game being played by self-obsessed demagogues online media. The current form of populism, whose actors pose as the uncorrupted in a sea of corruption, has many roots: real problems and unrealistic expectations; broad fears of eroding financial security; feelings of being left behind. That is where populism derives its strength. And the anger that comes with it is perhaps best studied in the Eastern European countries that joined the EU a decade and a half ago.

These European elections are falling on a European anniversary that is being largely ignored. Fifteen years ago, the EU incorporated an entire group of Eastern European countries, enabling the peaceful unification of the continent-- an historical godsend that led to a Nobel Peace Prize for Brussels. Today, however, this same EU has a terrible-- catastrophic even-- image within the right-wing governments in these countries.

Bannon with a bunch of European neo-Nazis in Budapest

In many parts of Eastern Europe, the EU is seen as a conspiracy of overpaid, traitorous bureaucrats. Like the communists before them, it is said, the EU technocrats are intent on reeducating the Eastern Europeans. They see the EU as trying to tame nation, tradition and religion. The women are to have fewer children, gays and lesbians are to be allowed to get married and adopt, and Muslims from Africa and the Middle East are to be permitted to settle wherever they want. And the blame, in this view, lies entirely with Brussels.

That is the message delivered by Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the nationalist-conservative Law and Justice party in Poland, and by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz Party. The governments in Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia also include similar figures. EU-skeptics have become established everywhere in the region.

And yet, contradictions abound. No halfway influential party in Eastern Europe wants to leave the EU. Despite the success of the Kaczynskis and the Orbáns, the EU enjoys tremendous support from the Baltics to the Balkans, including 90 percent support in Poland. The governments clearly have no mandate to escort their countries out of the EU. Indeed, surveys indicate that people there have more trust in the EU than in their own elites.

There is an economic explanation. Between 2004 and 2020, 356 billion euros will have flowed into the 10 accession countries from the European Structural and Investment Funds alone. Struggling state economies have transformed into regions of significant growth. The EU brought in investors, financed road construction, built universities and developed data networks. City halls and hospitals were renovated with EU money. And Brussels also helped reform the public administration and the judiciary - and strengthen civil society.

The EU triggered a wave of modernization in Eastern Europe that took three decades longer to unfold in the west. Prosperity, of course, is not equally divided. Statistically, however, the standard of living has risen significantly in all the accession countries. Eastern European societies have also become freer and more mobile in the last 20 years. There is no "objective" reason to be opposed to the EU in Warsaw, Budapest or Ljubljana.

There are, however, subjective, less concrete reasons. Karel Schwarzenberg, who spent several years serving as Czech foreign minister and is a passionate supporter of the EU, argues that people know what the EU has done for them, but don't feel at home in it. He says that all too often, Eastern Europeans have been delivered the message that they are second-class members of the bloc-- poorer and still backwards, and that they should become real Europeans, real democrats before they speak up. A comparison can be drawn to the feeling former East Germans often have in reunified Germany.

It is a feeling not just experienced by politicians from Eastern Europe sent to Brussels, but by millions of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks in their day-to-day lives. Around 20 million people have at least temporarily left their Eastern European homelands to work in the West. Instead of getting to know the continent as student travelers or vacationers as many in the West were privileged enough to do, an entire generation of Eastern Europeans have experienced Western Europe as cleaning ladies, itinerant farmworkers and manual laborers. As domestic help for the wealthy of the West.

The resulting feelings of inferiority have fueled right-wing populists. The decades in which Eastern Europeans wanted nothing more than to emulate the West are over and a phenomenon has developed that the Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev describes by saying: "Imitation engenders resentment." That resentment, he says, is directed at the erstwhile role models. It is stoked by the populists, who transform feelings of inferiority into aggression directed against the Brussels elite and the "servants" of the EU in their own capitals.

In places like Warsaw and Budapest, people have begun to feel like they have already experienced the best of what the EU has to offer. Now everything coming from Brussels is a threat to their own culture and lifestyle: environmental requirements, gay rights, migrant quotas, all kinds of duties and obligations, the arduous negotiations that are the hallmark of democracy.

The 2015 refugee crisis plunged half of Europe into temporary chaos, but more than anything, it gouged out a chasm between West and East. The demand primarily from Western European countries - or, to be more precise, from Germany - that all countries must help when it comes to distributing the refugees triggered the release of dissatisfactions that had been developing for quite some time. People in the east felt like they had survived the collapse of communism, lost jobs and got jobs, changed themselves, changed everything, and still hadn't caught up to the West. And now they were supposed to look after people even weaker than them?

In Brussels, such a point of view is seen as petulance and leads to a loss of influence. Exaggerated nationalism and unilateralism aren't welcome in the EU. They are a dead end. Poland and Hungary, in particular, sideline themselves in negotiations, frequently avoid complicated issues and tend to pound testily on the table rather than patiently pursuing their own interests and trying to listen to and understand the interests of others.

This leads to a dangerous cycle: countries driven by nationalism achieve less and less in Brussels, which leads to increasing alienation from the EU back home. Blame for a lack of success is pinned on anonymous powers in Brussels, the technocrats, the immovable and corrupt elites, thus paving the way for the empty yet pithy slogans of the populists.

The disruptive potential of the right-wing fringe in European Parliament has long been limited to mere spluttering expostulations from the plenary floor-- and their occasional misuse of EU money for their own benefit. Instead of using parliament for serious policy work, they saw it as a stage from which they could send messages back home-- a stage adeptly used by Farage, Salvini, Le Pen and others of their ilk. For some time, they were content to mock Europe's legislative body, but that is now changing. Le Pen has undergone perhaps the most profound metamorphosis, and for her opponents, that should be rather unsettling.

For a long time, her focus was on "Frexit," on leading France out of the common currency. She saw anything European as evil and abhorrent. These days, though, she ends her campaign speeches with the battle cry: "Long live the real Europe! Long live France!"

The chant "vive l'Europe" is, despite the qualification represented by the word "real," a 180-degree reversal. Until this year, Le Pen had consistently campaigned on the promise of freeing her country from the yoke of the common currency. It is a promise that, most recently, failed to generate its desired result in 2017, when she performed so badly in a now legendary televised debate on EU issues with the ultimate election winner Emmanuel Macron that it seemed like her political career may have come to an end.

In the parliamentary elections that followed, her Front National party didn't even win enough votes to form its own parliamentary group, a failure that Le Pen interpreted as the result of widespread fear in France of leaving the eurozone. As a result, since fall 2017, she has been an ardent supporter of the "real Europe," a message that proved divisive in her party. But she was determined. She no longer wanted to frighten people away with "Frexit"-- and now she appears to really believe that an alliance with her new friends in Italy, Poland, Austria, Germany and elsewhere represents a plausible path to power for the right-wing movement.

That's not particularly realistic. Thus far, every attempt at a broad, right-wing alliance in Europe has failed miserably, with the Front National itself having been part of many of those failures. The new concept for a European Alliance for People and Nations is also unlikely to go anywhere and conflict seems unavoidable.

The AfD in Germany and Lega in Italy are roughly as far away from each other on economic and finance policy as the liberals from the FDP and the far-left Left Party are in Germany. There are also deep, seemingly unbridgeable ideological rifts between Le Pen's party and the PiS in Poland and Fidesz in Hungary when it comes to society, family and women. As such, the planned right-wing "super fraction" is nothing more than a typical populist mélange of braggadocio and canniness. Likely the most important motivation for cooperation is the prospect of forming a large fraction that would automatically become more visible in European Parliament. It would also be handed more responsibilities, receive more speaking time and, most importantly, get more money.