Is Donald Trump Likely to Resign?

Thanks to Trump's mismanagement of the Covid-19 outbreak, the U.S. is on the verge of becoming the Typhoid Mary of major industrial nations

by Thomas Neuburger

Donald Trump's resignation is a topic on many lips these days. Chris Hayes, in a dramatic moment at MSNBC, called for Trump to resign over his mishandling of the coronavirus epidemic (deservedly so), and at least one newspaper editorial board has called for Trump to step down, as has Washington Governor Jay Inslee.

Michael Gerson at the Washington Post called for Trump's resignation because of "diminished moral capacity" related to his alleged callous indifference to the alleged Russian bounties offered for American lives in the Afghan theater of war.

Note that there are a lot of "if"s in these bounty reports — Gerson himself leads his argument with "If, as reported by multiple news sources" — while skeptics think it's awfully convenient timing that leaks from ... who? "American intelligence officials," who proudly admit to lying ... have reached the Times just as the Trump administration is working on Afghanistan peace agreements that could get the U.S. out of a war it's been waging for almost 20 years. (Whether the U.S. has been waging the war successfully or not depends on what you think the U.S. considers success. If military occupation counts as success, we've succeeded. By any other measure, we've failed.)

Analysts are also speculating that Trump could leave office voluntarily or be forced out. Robert Kuttner wrote at The American Prospect that Trump may leave on his own, since nothing seems to be going his way lately and the minute he's unelected he'll be subject to quite a bit of prosecution. Kuttner's speculation hinges on the possibility that Trump could pre-emptively negotiate a deal for resigning that amounts to a giant "Get out of jail free" card.

"Trump may conclude," writes Kuttner, "that he has more leverage to cut the best possible deal with all players while the bargain includes a widely wished-for resignation, rather than after he loses an election and his term merely ends. At that point, Trump’s opponents have no incentive to make deals, and a pardon only goes so far."

Sounds plausible to me, but I've been wrong before.

Others feel that increased pressure from Republicans leaders, fearful of losing both the White House and the Senate in November, will cost him critical support within his party. Most of those discussions are private at the moment, but they are many. The question is the method — how to get him to go.

Which brings us back to the Russian bounties story. Will that carry such weight with the American people that his already "crummy" approval rating (39%) and poll numbers (nearly 10 points below Joe Biden) will drop even further? If so, could a combination of public shaming and deep unpopularity force him out of office?

Sounds unlikely to me, but I've been wrong before.

The Typhoid Mary of Major Industrial Nations

Something that might force his resignation, though, is low on people's radar, but it shouldn't be — the EU travel ban on Americans entering Europe. Consider the following from CNN (emphasis added):

What EU's new border rules mean for travelers
Updated 1st July 2020

(CNN) — The European Union has formally agreed a set of recommendations that will allow travelers from outside the bloc to visit EU countries, months after it shut its external borders in response to the outbreak of Covid-19.

As had been widely expected, the list of 14 countries does not include the United States, whose current Covid infection rate does not meet the criteria set by the EU for it to be considered a "safe country."

The criteria requires that confirmed Covid cases in countries on the list are similar or below that of the EU's per 100,000 citizens over the previous 14 days (starting from June 15).

Countries must also have a "stable or decreasing trend of new cases over this period in comparison to the previous 14 days," while the EU will consider what measures countries are taking, such as contact tracing, and how reliable each nation's data is.

The US has not only the highest number of reported coronavirus infections of any nation, currently 2,590,582, but also the highest number of deaths, at, 126,141, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University.

US infection rates will need to dramatically drop if Americans are to be allowed entry to European countries, just as the European tourism industry enters what are traditionally its peak months.

The recommendations are expected to come into force as early as July 1, however, it remains up to member states to decide exactly how the implement any changes in border policy.

According to CNN, exemptions may be offered to "EU citizens or family members of an EU citizen; long-term EU residents or family members; those with an 'essential function or need,' such as diplomats, healthcare workers or certain agricultural workers."

Does being wealthy, powerful or connected count as an essential function? How will business travelers be affected? Would Charles Koch be allowed in? Would a high-ranking official of, say, Apple, on her way to a meeting with a German corporate counterpart, be counted as having a need to enter Europe? What if Charles Koch or the Apple CEO wanted merely to look in on their eighth farm in France, bringing the grandkids for a visit? Would they be allowed in?

If yes, how far down the wealth or corporate ladder would one need to be before the ban would apply? Would mere millionaires qualify? How about junior VPs at smaller companies? The questions, once exemptions are granted, are endless.

The Feckless Administration

Which brings us to Donald Trump and his resignation. The following two things are true:

First, U.S. Covid infection rates are never going to drop under the current regimen and under this administration. They will never come down except naturally, if the virus recedes on its own, period. Trump and his administration are structurally incapable of making this better, and yahoo U.S. governors are incapable of not making this worse.

Second, this will be true from now until January 2021 when the next president is sworn in, and perhaps beyond.

The American people can be told to suffer and bear with it, but they don't travel to Europe. Our bipartisan betters do, however, and this includes our Republican betters. If the Europeans are as strict as, frankly, they ought to be, do you think that powerful and wealthy Republicans, many of whose lives are essentially international, will tolerate a travel ban for the next six months?

When and if Republican elites decide that European governments are serious, that France, Germany, Italy and the rest won't let most of them in, I'll bet any money in the world that Donald Trump will be offered a deal, and both parties will be party to crafting it — even if it means letting Vice-President Pence run as an incumbent on the November ballot.

And, if Robert Kuttner is right about Trump's legal needs post-election, I'll also bet he takes it.
  

Fascist Politicians Handle Pandemics Poorly

"That ain't nuthin'" by Chip Proser

Yesterday, at a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing, Dr. Fauci responded to a question from Elizabeth Warren about how out of control the pandemic is becoming in the U.S. by saying that he "can't make an accurate prediction, but it is going to be very disturbing. I will guarantee you that, because when you have an outbreak in one part of the country, even though in other parts of the country they're doing well, they are vulnerable. I made that point very clearly last week at a press conference. We can't just focus on those areas that are having the surge. It puts the entire country at risk. We are now having 40+ thousand new cases a day. I would not be surprised if we go up to 100,000 a day if this does not turn around, and so I am very concerned." Fauci's boss, Señor Trumpanzee, no longer says it's a hoax but claims it is under control and will disappear any moment.

Also yesterday-- just a coincidence-- the EU made it formal: they don't want citizens of countries run by fascists coming to visit. Oh, wait! I misread the NY Times report. It isn't their fascist leaders that are causing citizens of the U.S., Russia, India and Brazil to be banned; it's that the fascist leaders have botched their handling on the pandemic and the EU doesn't want the contagion being brought over. Makes sense. Today the European Union is open its borders to visitors from 15 countries "putting into effect," reported Matina Stevis-Gridneff, "a complex policy that has sought to balance health concerns with politics, diplomacy and the desperate need for tourism revenue." Among the countries approved are Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Algeria, South Korea, Uruguay and even China, all of which took the pandemic seriously, while Trump was still calling it a hoax and has run U.S. pandemic policy into a ditch off a cliff.

The plan was drawn up based on health criteria, and European Union officials went to great lengths to appear apolitical in their choices, but the decision to leave the United States off the list-- lumping travelers from there in with those from Brazil and Russia-- was a high-profile rebuke of the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus crisis.

Travelers’ country of residence, not their nationality, will be the determining factor for their ability to travel to countries in the European Union, officials said, and while the policy will not be legally binding, all 27 member nations will be under pressure to comply. If not, they risk having their European peers close borders within the bloc, which would set back efforts to restart the free travel-and-trade zone that is fundamental to the club’s economic survival.

Still, some European countries, especially those in the south that see millions of visitors from all over the world throng to beaches and cultural sites during the summer, have been eager to permit more travelers in a bid to salvage their ravaged, and vital, tourism industries.

The United States was the first country to bar visitors from the European Union in March as the pandemic devastated Italy and other European nations.

The bloc implemented its own travel ban in mid-March and has been gradually extending it as the pandemic spreads to other parts of the world. It had set July 1 as the date to begin allowing non-European Union travelers to return, even as Portugal and Sweden, both members, and Britain, which is treated as a member until the end of the year, still grapple with serious outbreaks. Others, such as Germany, are seeing new localized outbreaks drive up their national caseloads.

Britain was exempt from consideration for the list because of its current E.U. status, and countries like Spain and France are considering allowing direct flights from Britain to bring in crucial tourism revenue.

...The prolonged severance of travel ties between the bloc and the United States has disrupted a critical economic, cultural and diplomatic relationship. Business travelers on both sides of the Atlantic are desperate to resume their visits, couples and families have been split up for months, and the differences between the European and American approaches to combating the pandemic have brought to the fore divergent views on science and policy.

While most European nations went into strict lockdowns early in their outbreaks and have promoting the wearing of masks and other measures to try and control the resurgence of the illness, the United States has seen a patchwork response and the number of new cases has continued to balloon.

The EU was looking at numbers like the daily caseload increases across the globe. The U.S., Brazil, Russia and India are always at the top. Even the dozen worst-performing EU countries are in relatively good shape, even if you want to count Britain and Sweden as part of the EU. These were the daily increases reported on Monday ----> and Tuesday:

• UK +814 ----> +689
• Germany +528 ----> +440
• France +280 ----> +541
• Romania +269 ----> +388
• Portugal +266 ----> +229
• Poland+247 ----> +239
• Czechia +202 ----> +90
• Spain +200 ----> +301
• Bulgaria +140 ----> 158
• Italy +126 ----> +142
• Sweden +125 ----> +198
• Netherlands +76 ----> +50

Now compared that to the fascist-run countries with leaders who don't care if their citizens die:

• US +44,734 ----> 46,042
• Brazil +25,234 ----> 37,997
• India +18,339 ----> +18,256
• Russia +6,719 ----> +6,693
• Saudi Arabia +3,943 ----> +4,387
• Pakistan +3,557 ----> +2,825
• Iran +2,536 ----> +2,457
• Egypt +1,566 ----> +1,557
• Turkey +1,374 ----> +1,293

Yesterday, David Hall, reporting for the Wall Street Journal, noted that "A surge in new coronavirus cases and rising hospitalization rates in states such as California and Texas are jeopardizing reopening plans elsewhere, while other countries are struggling to stop clusters of infections from spreading.

Los Angeles officials have banned all July 4 fireworks displays and ordered beaches closed over the coming holiday weekend.

In Texas, coronavirus patients have filled about 10% of the state’s hospital beds, and 80% of all available beds are occupied, according to data from the state health department. “It’s going to become unsustainable to have this number of admissions if this trend continues,” said Federico Vallejo, a pulmonary critical-care doctor from South Texas.

In New York, where cases have been declining, Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said they were considering postponing the return of indoor dining at the city’s restaurants because of the surge of cases elsewhere. The state last week delayed the opening of malls, gyms and movie theaters.

Governments in other parts of the world were also taking steps to contain outbreaks.

India’s government said schools would stay shut for a further month and restrictions would be extended until the end of July on nonessential services and movement of persons in containment zones-- coronavirus hot spots where lockdowns are still in effect. A nighttime curfew will also be kept in place across the country. Confirmed coronavirus cases in India rose by 18,522, pushing up the total number of infections to 566,840, while the death toll rose to 16,893, according to data from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

In China, Beijing municipal health authorities on Tuesday reported seven new locally transmitted infections, bringing the total to 325 since a new wave of infections was identified earlier this month. Wu Zunyou, the chief expert at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview with state-run television that Beijing could reduce the number of new daily cases to zero in about a week.

Health authorities in South Korea said that while the current level of infections is manageable, restrictions could be tightened if transmissions at small gatherings continue across the country. South Korea added 43 new cases, bringing the nation’s total to 12,800.

The country has also proposed other measures to counter the spread of the virus, such as staggering workers’ vacations to prevent crowding in popular areas during the summer. South Korean baseball fans will be able to return to stadiums in July-- wearing face masks and sitting spaced out. They will go through temperature checks and won’t be allowed to cheer or eat.

In Australia, the premier of Victoria state on Tuesday reimposed stay-at-home orders for four weeks in 10 areas of Melbourne suffering outbreaks. Businesses in those areas that have been able to reopen recently will again face restrictions, and restaurants will be allowed to offer only takeout and delivery services. The premier also said he had asked the country’s prime minister to divert all flights away from Melbourne to other cities for the next two weeks.

And Andrew Cuomo has banned residents of 16 states from traveling to New York without a 2 week quarantine. This sounds arbitraty and unconstitutional. These are the states and how many new cases they reported Monday ---> and Tuesday:

• Alabama +1,734 ---> +870
• Arkansas +439 ---> +520
• Arizona +3,079 ---> +2,228
• California +6,896 ---> +7,906
• Florida +5,266 ---> +6,093
• Georgia +2,207 ---> +1,874
• Iowa +327 ---> +192
• Idaho +433 ---> +365
• Louisiana +837 ---> +1,042
• Mississippi +675 ---> +680
• North Carolina +1,537 ---> +1,663
• Nevada +734 ---> +562
• South Carolina +1,324 ---> +1,755
• Tennessee +2,125 ---> +1,212
• Texas +6,135 ---> +7,959
• Utah +564 ---> +553

Trump Is A Severe Public Health Danger

Badge of Honor by Nancy Ohanian

The Washington Post's Josh Dawson and Lena Sun reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suddenly and inexplicably removed specifics on choirs in its guidelines for houses of worship to reopen. Trump had been pestering them to do so for two weeks. After thousands of church-goers around the world contracted COVID-19 during services, the CDC had included "The act of singing may contribute to transmission of Covid-19, possibly through emission of aerosols" in their guidelines and Trump got that removed. That's just one of many examples of how the Republican Party Death Cult is trying every which way to politicize the pandemic and continue spiking the death rates.

Yesterday, Bob Egelko reported for the San Francisco Chronicle on the surprise Supreme Court ruling against Trump and others rushing to open everything up too soon and without precautions. "With a deciding vote from Chief Justice John Roberts," wrote Egelko, "the Supreme Court late Friday allowed Gov. Gavin Newsom to restrict attendance at religious services in California to 25% of the capacity of a house of worship because of the coronavirus. The justices voted 5-4 to reject a challenge by a Pentecostal church in Chula Vista (San Diego County) and its bishop, who claimed the state was discriminating against religious institutions by setting undue limits on attendance."

In his first round of reopenings in early May, Newsom allowed some previously closed businesses to resume limited operations, such as curbside pickups, but refused to allow in-person religious services. After a divided federal appeals court upheld his decision on May 22, the governor announced new rules three days later allowing congregations to meet in person but limiting attendance to 25% of the building’s capacity, with a maximum gathering of 100.

The standards, in effect for 21 days, discourage such activities as sharing prayer books and ritual items as well as personal contact and congregational singing, all of which can spread the coronavirus.

President Trump has denounced such restrictions in California and elsewhere and ordered governors to rescind them, though he has not cited any federal law authorizing him to overrule state officials’ decisions on which institutions to reopen.

Roberts joined the court’s more liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, in denying an injunction sought by the South Bay United Pentecostal Church. Writing only for himself, the chief justice said detailed decisions on health-related issues should generally be left to “politically accountable” state officials unless they clearly violate a constitutional right such as religious freedom.

“Similar or more severe restrictions apply to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time,” Roberts said. He said Newsom’s order “exempts or treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.”

Dissenting Justice Brett Kavanaugh rejected Roberts’ comparison and said Newsom was restricting houses of worship more severely than businesses, in violation of religious freedom.

“Comparable secular businesses are not subject to a 25% occupancy cap, including factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries,” Kavanaugh said.

Noting that the church had agreed to require social distancing and hygiene measures if allowed to fully open its doors, Kavanaugh asked, “Why can someone safely walk down a grocery store aisle but not a pew?” Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined his dissent, while Justice Samuel Alito dissented for unstated reasons.

Congressman Will Hurd (R-TX) was one of many people begging Trumpanzee to reverse his insane decision Friday to severe U.S. ties with the World Health Organization-- one of the scapegoats for his own incompetence and the dysfunction of his regime. Hurd wrote that "leaving the WHO sends the message that the world cannot count on the United States" and that while WHO made mistakes in its response to the coronavirus spread, walking away from the organization will make it much harder to prevent the spread of future disease across the globe. Hurd, who is leaving Congress primarily because he can't stand dealing with Trump any longer: "International coalitions are essential to fighting global challenges; we should be strengthening our alliances, not dismantling them... President Trump's recent decision to terminate America's role in the World Health Organization will have devastating effects on global health, and it will benefit the Chinese Communist Party."

Meanwhile, the European Union also called on the swinish, pig-headed orange monstrosity to reconsider. Yesterday, in a joint statement, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and EU Foreign Minister Josep Borrell made it clear that, once again, the psychotic Trump is on his own:

As the world continues to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, the main task for everyone is to save lives and contain and mitigate this pandemic. The European Union continues to support the WHO in this regard and has already provided additional funding.

In an EU-led resolution adopted by consensus on 19 May at the World Health Assembly, all WHO Member States agreed to initiate, at the earliest appropriate moment, an impartial, independent and comprehensive evaluation to review lessons learnt from the international health response to the coronavirus, notably with the objective of strengthening future global health security preparedness.

Evaluating our global response is necessary as there are lessons to be learnt from this pandemic, its outbreak and response to it. The evaluation of our collective performance at international level is only a necessary process, aiming at strengthening health security.

Global cooperation and solidarity through multilateral efforts are the only effective and viable avenues to win this battle the world is facing. The WHO needs to continue being able to lead the international response to pandemics, current and future. For this, the participation and support of all is required and very much needed. In the face of this global threat, now is the time for enhanced cooperation and common solutions. Actions that weaken international results must be avoided. In this context, we urge the US to reconsider its announced decision.

The Cure by Nancy Ohanian

American public health officials have also reacted with alarm to Pig-Man's horrific decision-- another in a long list of wrong and catastrophic decisions he has made in regard to national security and the health of the American people. Dr. Thomas Frieden, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "We helped create the W.H.O. Turning our back on the W.H.O. makes us and the world less safe." That's a Trump specialty-- making us and the world less safe... and he's been doing it for decades, as if Satan had sent him up to do exactly that. CNN reported yesterday that the monster "has spent decades spreading and sowing dangerous misinformation about disease outbreaks-- from falsely suggesting AIDS can be transmitted through kissing to warning Americans not to get vaccinated and falsely suggesting vaccines can cause autism. Long before advising Americans to ingest disinfectant to treat the coronavirus as President, Trump demonstrated a pattern of spreading unsupported medical claims that preyed on the public's fears of getting sick, a CNN KFile review of the President's statements on past epidemics and pandemics found."

On a Howard Stern radio show in 1993 Trump told the audience that "The problem is people that get the [HIV] test, that test positive, they go out on a rampage on purpose. There's anger, there's hatred. I know and what's happening is true. There's anger, there's hatred and it's really dangerous."

In 1993, Trump promoted the widely-debunked claims that AIDS could be spread by kissing and that AIDS patients intentionally spread the virus. As the swine flu pandemic began in 2009, he warned Americans against taking flu vaccines. When the Ebola virus outbreak devastated West Africa in 2014, he disputed guidance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how it spreads.

Today as the nation's chief executive overseeing his own public health crisis, Trump continues to comprehensively misinform the public about the coronavirus, offering remarks riddled with false, misleading or scientifically questionable claims.

And malevolent lies. They forgot to mention Trump's trademark.

Stories From Europe's Elections That Are Worth Keeping In Mind

Yesterday was the final day of elections across Europe for the EU Parliament. The headlines are all about how the mainstream center-right and center-left parties took terrible drubbings while the proto-fascist parties surged. The fascist surge had been predicted. A gigantic surge for Europe's Greens-- from 50 seats to 69-- hadn't been. But they did amazingly well in most of the advanced countries, up about 3.4% across the continent.

Malignant tumors

The big news in Ireland wasn't about fascists winning seats, It was about the Green Party surging. "The Sinn Féin vote is down all over the Republic of Ireland. It will no longer be the biggest party in Dublin, with several leaders saying the party is now the victim of the Green surge in support." There was also a referendum. Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar congratulated the Greens and vowed to take action on Climate Change.

The U.K. is a real mess. Putin interference has screwed them over good. The Conservatives lost their asses to the Brexit Party and Labour lost theirs to the Lib Dems. UKIP ceases to exist, virtually all their voters and certainly all their seats now in the hands of the Brexit Party. They fell from 26.6% of the vote in 2014 to just 3.3%, their worst showing ever. London elected 3 Lib-Dems, 2 from Labour, 2 from the Brexit Party and one Green. Scotland was deadly for Labour, which came in 5th (9.3%, down from 26%), losing both their seats! The Scottish National Party (SNP) won the most votes (37.8%), their best performance ever, followed by the Brexit Party (14.8%) and the Conservatives (11.6%). These votes aren't finalized but this is how the UK results look now:

• Brexit (EFDD)- 31.6% (28 seats)
• Lib-Dems (ALDE)- 20.3% (15 seats, from just 1 in 2014)
• Labour (S&D)- 14.1% (10 seats, down precipitously from 18)
• Green Party- 12.1% (7 seats, from just 3)
• Conservative Party (ECR)- 9.1% (3 seats, down from 18)
• Scottish National Party- 3.6% (3 seats, up from just 1)
• Plaid Cymru- 1% (1 seat)

It's worth noting that the Remain parties got 40.4% of the vote, the hard Brexit parties got 34.9% and the 2 confused mainstream parties that both lost because of being confused took 23.2% combined. It seems clear that Brits want a revote and that if they do, Remains will win.

This, more or less, is how the new parliament will look:

This kind of explains what that means although, keep in mind, that "liberal" doesn't mean the same here as it does there. Think of that bloc as centrists. This might help a bit:

• Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D): Forms part of the 'Grand Coalition' and is the second largest party. It's a traditional center-left bloc which is predominately pro-EU.
• European People's Party (EPP): Also forms part of the Grand Coalition and is the traditional center-right party. Also Pro-EU.
• Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE): Mostly made up of liberal-centrists who are Pro-EU.
• Greens / European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA): Made up of Europe's green and regionalist parties.
• Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF): Far-right parties and hard euroskeptics.
• European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR): Right-wing parties who often campaign to reform the EU.
• Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD): Populist and euroskeptic.
• European United Left / Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL): Left-wing, which comprises of socialist and communist MEPs.
• Non-Aligned: MEPs who choose not to align themselves to any groups.
• Others: New MEPs who do not belong to any political groupings yet.

Here are some notes I took during the vote counting:

In Malta, this was the first election where 16 year olds were permitted to vote and, Malta had the highest turnout of any European nation-- 73%. Early returns show the Labour Party way ahead of the Nationalist Party-- 56-36%. The very Trumpist fascist party-- Imperium Europa, which calls for a white ethnonationalist eurofederalist European state-- got just 3.2% of the vote. Malta's 6 EU parliament seats will be distributed among 4 Labour MEPs and just 2 Nationalists-- a gain of one for Labour and a loss of one for the conservatives.

The Greens also surged in Finland and came in second with 16% of the vote. The neo-Nazi pro-Trump Finns Party, ", which was widely expected to dumbfound critics as it did during the parliamentary elections, picked up an additional one percent of votes and held on to its two MEP seats. However the result appeared to fall short of the populist wave that political pundits anticipated across the continent.

"It looks like political parties were better able to mobilise voters who were concerned about issues like climate change and social exclusion and equality than the far-right was able to mobilise about closing borders," social commentator and writer Maryan Abdulkarim told Yle News. She noted that Green parties had posted big gains across the EU on election night.

...The Greens may have been the evening’s biggest winner, but the National Coalition Party led by Petteri Orpo topped the poll with 20.8 percent voter support to retain its three MEP seats, although voter enthusiasm in this election slipped by 1.8 percentage points... The Social Democratic Party also protected its two Europarliament seats, snapping up an additional 2.3 percent of votes in this election to close the night on 14.6 percent support.

The big winner in Spain was the Socialist Party, although the neo-fascist VOX Party took away votes from the mainstream conservatives. Spain has 54 seats at it looks like the Socialists will take 18 of them (up from 14). The conservative People's Party came in second with 11 seats, down from 16. The center-right Ciudadanos won 9 seats, up from 2. The left-wing Unidas Podemos Party came in 4th (7 seats) and Vox came in 5th and will enter the EU Parliament for the first time with 4 seats. Catalan separatist leaders Carles Puigdemont (living in exile in Belgium) and Oriol Junqueras (in prison) were both won EU seats, but unlikely to ever be able to take their seats.

In France Macron suffered a disaster with Le Pen's neo-Nazi party narrowly in first place 24.0% to 22.5%-- 22 seats for the fascists, 21 seats for Macron. The Green Party came in 3rd with 12.5%-- and 12 seats. "The two parties that between them had dominated French politics for decades until the rise of Macron are both shown to have polled in single figures. Nicolas Sarkozy's old party Les Republicains polled around 8 percent, while the Socialist party of Francois Hollande was on 7 percent."

Italy's would-be Mussolini, Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini-- who dubbed his campaign "Make Europe Great Again"-- won big, especially in northern Italy. The left-wing parties lost badly.

In Germany the reborn Nazi Party-- Alternative for Germany (AfD) party-- came in 4th and won 10.8% of the vote and 11 seats, 8 more than in 2014. Merkel's CDU came in first with 28.7% and 29 seats, making it the biggest party in parliament, either tied with the Brexit Party or with one MEP more. The Greens came in second with 20.7% to the Social Democrats' 15.6%-- and 21 seats, eight more than in 2014..

In Poland the far right Trumpist ruling party Law and Justice (PiS) won with 42.4% of the vote, to 39.1% for the European Coalition-- led by the biggest opposition party, the Civic Platform (PO). Coming in far short of polling, the center-left Wiosna Party won only 6.6%, and the far right-wing Konfederacja followed with 6.1%. The Law and Justice Party campaigned on a virulently anti-LGBTQ platform.

Estonia reported are no major surprises as pre-election polls proved to be accurate, unlike in much Europe. Their 6 EU seats went to 2 Social Democrats, 2 Reform Party candidates-- one from the Centre Party and one from the fascistic Estonian Conservative People’s Party-- and one to an independent.

Lithuania elected former central banker Gitanas Nauseda, a conservative who ran as an independent, president. He beat another conservative, Ingrida Simonyte. The mainstream conservative party won and extra seat and so did the Greens.

In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s neo-Nazi ruling Fidesz party won 13 of the country's 21 seats, one more than in 2014. Former Socialist Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany’s Democratic Coalition won 4 seats and the Momentum Movement captured 2. The left-wing/green coalition of the Socialist and Dialogue parties took just one seat and the Jobbik Party, which is even further steeped in fascism than Orbán’s Fidesz, also won a single seat, worse than had been predicted. Turnout was relatively high-- 43%-- more than in any European parliament election since the EU made the colossal mistake of admitting Hungary in 2004.

Shockingly, despite the Strache scandal that featured a tape showing the Austrian fascist leader taking a bribe a Putin crony to sell out the country, the fascists still picked up three seats! After a no confidence vote against the ÖVP-Kurz government, there will be a snap election in September. I have to admit I was once stuck in Innsbruck for six months and I found the countryside beautiful but the people absolutely intolerable; still as Nazi-like as they must have been during World Was II. Conservative as shit, they and the Hungarians were always a problem for Europe.

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.