US Elections: Trump's Turkish Ally Erdogan and other populists/authoritarian leaders around the world Stay Mum on Biden Victory

Erdogan, along with the leaders of Russia, Israel, Iran, Hungary, Saudi Arabia and China, offered no initial congratulations to the president-elect.

Read more at: Trump's Turkish Ally Erdogan Stays Mum on Biden Victory | Greek Reporter Europe

EU Elections: The US (Trump and Steve Bannon supported), Russian, and European Ultra-Right Wing disinformation networks discovered in Europe

'Vast' far-right disinformation networks discovered in EU

Read more at:
https://p.dw.com/p/3IrBu

EU Elections: Opponents of nationalism rally before EU vote

Tens of thousands of people opposed to right-wing populism and nationalism have taken to the streets in European cities ahead of the European Parliament elections from May 23.

Demonstrations were held on Sunday in more than 50 cities in 13 countries, including Germany and France.

In Berlin, organizers say more than 20,000 people took part in the rally and marched on the streets for about two hours.

They oppose intolerance against refugees and migrants from the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere. They are also against nationalists who prioritize their countries' interests and claim that they should restore sovereignty from the EU.

One demonstrator told NHK that Europe should not be governed by ultra-right political parties that could try to destroy democracy.

Another participant said European countries should be united to solve the problems they are facing.

Note EU-Digest: During this past Sunday's demonstrations throughout Europe against the extreme right-wing populist parties and their leaders, including Matteo Salvini in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders and Thierry Baudet in the Netherlands, Jorg Meuthen in Germany, Nigel Farage in England, etc., it might be good, again, to remind voters participating in the upcoming European elections, that all these populists are Donald Trump 's buddies, who spend a lot of time talking nonsense, like he does, but have never achieved anything concrete in heir lives. 

They are however masters in promising castles in the sky. Hopefully you the voter will not be seduced by these deceitful populists? Europe belongs to us all. Nationalism has never worked in Europe and has no place in the EU.
 
Read more at: Opponents of nationalism rally before EU vote - News - NHK WORLD - English

Britain : the struggle to vote remain in the EU election as popularity of Populist/nationalist/rightwinger Farage increased

‘I may vote independent’: the struggle to win remain votes in the EU elections

Read more at.:  

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/11/remain-eu-elections-labour-heartlandchange-uk-south-london?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Britain and the Brexit Impasse: A national government or “no deal” - by Brendan Donelly

In a recent article for the New York Times, the distinguished historian of the Conservative Party, Professor Tim Bale, argued that the “will to power” of the Conservative Party would enable it in the long term to reconstruct its inner cohesion, currently compromised by the Brexit debate. Professor Bale’s argument is controversial but, even if accurate from a historical perspective, it is highly unlikely to be reflected in the functioning of the Party over the crucial next three months. Last Wednesday’s ballot of Conservative MPs was at best a Pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister.  The 117 votes recorded against her probably if anything understated the degree of opposition to her proposed texts for the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU and its accompanying Political Declaration. It is clear she cannot possibly rely on her Parliamentary Party to steer these proposals through the House of Commons against the opposition of the Labour Party and others.

But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50.  Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”

There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March  2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.”  Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government.  No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.

Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.

Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust

Britain, British Conservative party, EU, Impasse, Nationalists, Populists, Theresa May, Ultra Right

In a recent article for the New York Times, the distinguished historian of the Conservative Party, Professor Tim Bale, argued that the “will to power” of the Conservative Party would enable it in the long term to reconstruct its inner cohesion, currently compromised by the Brexit debate. Professor Bale’s argument is controversial but, even if accurate from a historical perspective, it is highly unlikely to be reflected in the functioning of the Party over the crucial next three months. Last Wednesday’s ballot of Conservative MPs was at best a Pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister.  The 117 votes recorded against her probably if anything understated the degree of opposition to her proposed texts for the Withdrawal Agreement from the EU and its accompanying Political Declaration. It is clear she cannot possibly rely on her Parliamentary Party to steer these proposals through the House of Commons against the opposition of the Labour Party and others.

But there is no conceivable majority among Conservative MPs for any other course of action either. A divided and dysfunctional Conservative Party is generating a divided and dysfunctional Conservative government. There is no reason at all to believe that this division can be overcome by any sudden outbreak of unity before 29 March 2019. The true lesson of the past tumultuous week in British politics is that no Conservative government is capable of adopting, much less implementing, a coherent alternative position to that of the United Kingdom’s leaving the EU by automatic operation of Article 50 on 29 March 2019. If in three months there is still a Conservative government, then “crashing out” of the EU without a negotiated withdrawal will have become inevitable. That important minority in the Conservative Parliamentary party favourable to this outcome need only persevere in their current obstructionist tactics to gain their goal through the asymmetric workings of Article 50.  Under Article 50 “no deal” emphatically means “no deal.”

There has been much talk in recent days of Parliament’s “taking back control of Brexit.” Amber Rudd has specified cross-party discussions to explore the possibility of a “soft Brexit” involving British membership of the EEA. This particular suggestion seems to rest on a number of questionable assumptions. The issue of British membership of the EEA is not one that in any circumstances can be resolved between now and 29 March  2019. If the EEA option is one the UK wishes to pursue after Brexit, it will need to be painstakingly negotiated with the EU during the “transition period.” The most that the EU might be willing to accept in this connection over the next three months would be changes to the wording of the non-binding Political Declaration, pointing towards future British membership of the EEA. It is more than doubtful however whether such marginal changes would be sufficient to guarantee or even make more likely a Parliamentary majority for the Prime Minister’s “deal.”  Some Labour MPs either favour or could accept an EEA-like arrangement, but the majority do not, including Jeremy Corbyn and Sir Keir Starmer, both of whom for different reasons would have difficulties in accepting the Freedom of Movement at the heart of the EEA. Most importantly, if the EU were to be persuaded at this late stage to make changes to the Political Declaration, it could only be at the pressing and well-grounded request of the sitting British government.  No present or future present Conservative government could ever accept favourable references in the Political Declaration to the EEA and Freedom of Movement. Most pressure on the government from the Conservative Party during the Brexit negotiations has come from precisely the opposite direction, seeking to reduce rather than maintain ties with the EU after Brexit. The EEA can provide no solution to the Conservative government’s present impasse.

Note EU-Digest: Re: Brexit: Britain and Britain's political establishment seem to be "up the creek without a paddle", and the so-called Brexiteers are not to be heard from or seen. A wise lesson for European citizens not to vote for Populist, Nationalist or Ultra Right parties in local or the upcoming May 2019 EU parliamentary elections. It's all empty rhetoric what these parties are producing. Just look at Britain (Brexit) and the USA (Donald Trump) to underscore that point.

Read more at: Brexit: A national government or “no deal” | The Federal Trust

"The Anglophile Drama": How the U.S. and U.K. are partners in chaos - by Ben White and Aubree Eliza Weaver

This happened when populists like 
Farage and Trump called for Brexit

A little thought bubble as we head into the weekend and the short Thanksgiving week. Morning -Money" spent some time over the last several days in Washington and New York with a variety of executives who are sifting through the 2018 midterm election results and trying to make some sense of the path of U.S. politics.

Many are trying to figure out where America is headed with a growing schism between a metro-area dominated, more highly educated electorate trending toward the Democrats and smaller town and rural voters sticking with President Donald Trump and the GOP and embracing the president’s hardline trade and immigration policies and his culture war appeals.

Consensus among these executives (and frankly among anyone else) is that American politics is a directionless wreck with no path forward on anything from health care to education to retirement savings to climate change and gun violence and long-term fiscal deficits. One British banker mused about how he’s never seen the U.S. so screwed up or derelict on the world stage.

Then he stopped himself almost immediately to say how the U.K. really wasn’t any better with no consensus on how to deal with Brexit, a potential end to Prime Minister Theresa May’s tenure, a civil war inside the Conservative party and a plunging pound. It remains largely unclear in the U.K. whether May’s softer Brexit plan will somehow survive or no deal will emerge leading to a hard Brexit or a new referendum will take place to reverse Brexit entirely.

Tensions in the U.S. and U.K. are different in many ways but they share commonalities of fractured politics and deep divisions on fundamental identities as either insular and nationalistic or more globally integrated and diverse. We got no revelatory insight in these conversations beyond a morbid sense that only grave and immediate crisis that cannot be ignored will jolt either nation into clarity. And maybe not even then.

Happy thoughts for your Friday!

Read more: How the U.S. and U.K. are partners in chaos - POLITICO

Italy: Elections: Why the Italian elections are no test for the European Union - by Cas Mudde

This Sunday, more than 30 million Italians will go to the polls to elect a new legislature and, indirectly, a government. It will be the first major European election of 2018, after a somewhat confusing and inconsistent pattern of elections in 2017, and the international media is sparing few cliches.

Almost no journalist can resist making references to Italy’s almost inherent “political instability”, referring to the many “political crises” and national elections and governments the country has had in recent history – even though Italy had one government more and held one election less than the (allegedly stable) Netherlands in the 21st century.

In the runup to the 2018 Italian elections, the international coverage is dominated by stories that present the usual Italian tropes in all possible combinations. As always, Italy is “on the brink” of political chaos or worse. Article after article covers topics such as mafia and immigration, the rise of fascism, the risk of political violence, or the threat of populism to Italian democracy and the European Union. Don’t get me wrong, many stories are factually correct, even if they often overstate the relevance of their topic. 

Read more: Why the Italian elections are no test for the European Union | Cas Mudde | Opinion | The Guardian

EU: Post-Trump, post-Brexit, the EU may end up more unified than ever - by Joshua Keating

EU- United we stand - divided we fall

As France’s next president, Emmanuel Macron, took the stage outside the Louvre on Sunday night to the strains of Beethoven’s “Ode To Joy,” the European Union anthem, it was easy to view the centrist, pro-EU technocrat’s victory over the right-wing populist Marine Le Pen as an endorsement by the French public of the European project.

This would be a little misleading. Between Le Pen, François Fillon, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon—the second-, third-, and fourth-place candidates in the first round of the election—and various fringe parties, more than two-thirds of French voters went for euro-skeptic candidates. Those candidates’ supporters went for Macron in the second round less because of enthusiasm for him than the fact that most of them, though not as many as in previous elections, considered Le Pen unacceptable.

The contradiction at the heart of the EU—that a project dedicated to the spread and promotion of democracy continues despite the will of most European—that a project dedicated to the spread and promotion of democracy continues despite the will of most Europeans—has not gone away.

The project persists in large part because, as the French election demonstrated, its opponents can’t agree on what an alternative should look like. And while it’s still early days, the global political events of the past year may have unexpectedly strengthened the EU by giving it something to stand against.

A few months ago, the EU looked on the verge of collapse. The Greek financial crisis and a massive influx of migrants had opened up fissures between members. Then came Brexit, which European leaders warned could set off a race to the exits.

Then came the election of Donald Trump, a president who threatened to abandon the traditional U.S. support for European integration and publicly attacked German Chancellor Angela Merkel while praising Vladimir Putin. All the while, populist, nationalist parties, many with murky links to the Kremlin, were surging in the polls in a number of countries.

But in 2017, the wave has crested a bit. In the Netherlands’ March election, far-right candidate Geert Wilders had a disappointing finish. A pro-European center-right party won parliamentary elections in Bulgaria, and a pro-European president won in EU applicant state Serbia. Merkel appears in good shape ahead for her re-election bid in September, and even if her center-left opponent, Martin Schulz, could squeak out a victory, he’s also a strong backer of European integration.

Brexit will undoubtedly reduce the global economic clout of the union, but it could also make the EU politically stronger by removing one of the staunchest opponents of European integration. For instance, the EU is moving to coordinate defense budgets and military command structures, a process Britain often opposed, viewing it as a back-door means of creating a transnational European army. European governments have also been able to agree on a common negotiating stance over Britain’s exit remarkably quickly. Feeling a little more stable after Macron’s victory, European leaders may be more confident in enforcing tough terms on Britain to dissuade any other wayward members from getting similar ideas.

As for Trump, in practice he has turned out to be neither as anti-Europe or as pro-Russian as Brussels feared. He’s reportedly warming to the idea of striking a trade agreement with Europe rather than the bilateral deals that he, and particularly nationalist adviser Steve Bannon, said he preferred during the campaign.

Trump has had an impact on European politics by providing establishment politicians with a counterexample to run against. Trump and Le Pen have each praised each other, and she even paid a visit to Trump Tower—though not to Trump himself—in January. She even went as far as to describe them as part of a common global movement. But 82 percent of French voters have a negative view of Trump, according to a poll released last week, so it wasn’t exactly surprising to see anti–Le Pen ads warning French voters not to “Trump themselves” or to see Macron touting the support of Barack Obama.

A Trump-led movement is not one the Frenchor any of the Europeans particularly want to be part of.

The European public may still be suspicious of Europe, and European leaders—who are viewed as distant and undemocratic—still need to do a much better job of articulating a positive vision of what they’re for. But thanks to Brexit and Trump, it’s now at least easy for those leaders to articulate what they’re against. 

Read more: Post-Trump, post-Brexit, the EU may end up more unified than ever.

France: Remember how Hillary lost ? - Beware Macron - Le Pen could win by doing a Trump on you

Macron beware: "It ain't over till (or until) the fat lady sings"

Politico reports: "Marine Le Pen needs a perfect political storm to help her win the French presidency on Sunday.

She aims to provoke it by kicking up rage at her centrist rival, discouraging leftists from voting and winning over millions of disappointed conservatives by convincing them that her plans for the European Union are less worrying than they might think.

Le Pen knows that victory remains a long shot. Six days before the final vote, polls show her trailing rival Macron by 15 to 20 percentage points, a wider gap than the one separating Donald Trump from Hillary Clinton at this stage in the U.S. race. Le Pen needs to win over millions of new votes to win, a tough sell for a lifetime outsider. Most of the French don’t see it happening: just 15 percent see Le Pen as “la présidente,” according to an Ifop poll last week.

Whatever the odds, Le Pen will fight hard until the last minute. But she is also hoping for a nod from fate. One major chance for Le Pen to change the race’s dynamic is a live debate Wednesday when she plans to “expose” her rival as a banker working against France.

Le Pen campaigned ahead of the election’s first round on the idea that she was offering voters a binary choice between “economic patriotism” over unbridled globalization.

The problem was that the message was lost on many of her core voters. Le Pen bled support for the first three months of the year. Her first-round score of around 21 percent came in several percentage points below what polls were predicting for her last January.

The analysis by her party’s own experts reportedly showed that the choice between globalization and economic patriotism — free trade and open borders versus Le Pen’s plans for withdrawal from trade agreements and more border restrictions — presented a too-abstract choice and one significantly misinterpreted by the party’s core supporters, made up of working class voters, party officials told POLITICO. Some missed the precise meaning of globalization and misunderstood “economic patriotism” as meaning that Le Pen meant rolling back checks and balances in the French Republic.

Enter a much simpler message: Le Pen is the candidate who will protect the French.

Devised by Le Pen’s strategic campaign committee and chief polling analyst Damien Philippot (the brother of influential party VP Florian Philippot), it’s an ultra-simple idea that can appeal to both right- and left-wing voters.

“We needed something that got to everyone,” said Bertrand Dutheil de la Rochère, a senior campaign aide. “She has to talk to the Left and the Right at the same time. But she can’t ask left-wingers to switch off the TV while she talks to the Right, so we came up with protection.”

“It’s the same message as before  — but simpler. And it speaks to everyone because first and foremost the French want to be protected by the state against competition, against terrorism, against mass immigration.”

Addressing supporters in Villepinte near Paris Sunday, Le Pen vowed to be the “president who protects” French citizens, “notably women,” but also the environment, national borders and “the solidarity that exists between all French people.” The message, tailored for mass appeal, is a departure from earlier speeches that emphasized a clash with Brussels and targeted Macron — whom she called “the candidate of finance.”

Here is a guide to Le Pen’s strategy for the final days.

1) Le Pen campaigned ahead of the election’s first round on the idea that she was offering voters a binary choice between “economic patriotism” over unbridled globalization.

The problem was that the message was lost on many of her core voters. Le Pen bled support for the first three months of the year. Her first-round score of around 21 percent came in several percentage points below what polls were predicting for her last January.

The analysis by her party’s own experts reportedly showed that the choice between globalization and economic patriotism — free trade and open borders versus Le Pen’s plans for withdrawal from trade agreements and more border restrictions — presented a too-abstract choice and one significantly misinterpreted by the party’s core supporters, made up of working class voters, party officials told POLITICO. Some missed the precise meaning of globalization and misunderstood “economic patriotism” as meaning that Le Pen meant rolling back checks and balances in the French Republic.

Enter a much simpler message: Le Pen is the candidate who will protect the French.

Devised by Le Pen’s strategic campaign committee and chief polling analyst Damien Philippot (the brother of influential party VP Florian Philippot), it’s an ultra-simple idea that can appeal to both right- and left-wing voters.

“We needed something that got to everyone,” said Bertrand Dutheil de la Rochère, a senior campaign aide. “She has to talk to the Left and the Right at the same time. But she can’t ask left-wingers to switch off the TV while she talks to the Right, so we came up with protection.”

“It’s the same message as before  — but simpler. And it speaks to everyone because first and foremost the French want to be protected by the state against competition, against terrorism, against mass immigration.”

Addressing supporters in Villepinte near Paris Sunday, Le Pen vowed to be the “president who protects” French citizens, “notably women,” but also the environment, national borders and “the solidarity that exists between all French people.” The message, tailored for mass appeal, is a departure from earlier speeches that emphasized a clash with Brussels and targeted Macron — whom she called “the candidate of finance.”

2) The protection message is similar to the argument that former President Nicolas Sarkozy made during his failed 2012 bid for re-election — and that may not be a coincidence.

Sarkozy remains popular among conservatives, particularly in the south where Le Pen has room to grow. She knows that many conservatives who backed François Fillon in the first round miss Sarkozy. So Le Pen is giving them Sarkozy with a side of nationalism by co-opting his message. She is also emphasizing campaign proposals that “Sarko” fans will remember: arming municipal cops and changing engagement rules so police can shoot first at perceived threats.

The Sarkozy-signalling is part of a broader plan to sweep up undecided conservatives. Le Pen is set to inherit about 30 percent of votes for Fillon versus 41 percent going to Macron. Thirty percent of Fillon voters remain undecided."

EU-Digest