Beyond
Brussels
Brexit and the New European Patriotism
MEP Janice Atkinson (ed.)
Europe of Nations
and Freedom
Edited by:
Europe of Nations and Freedom Group
European Parliament
This publications is financed by budget
400 of the ENF group
www.enfgroup-ep.eu
[email protected]
Disclaimer:
The responsibility of this publication
rests with the authors.
The European Parliament is not
liable for any use of the information
contained.
p i c t u r e s © S h u t t e r s t o c k , 2 0 16
(cover 1 & pages 5, 10, 15)
Beyond
Brussels
CONTENTS
Foreword 
12
Why do my European colleagues back Brexit? 
16
Marine Le Pen 
20
Marcel de Graaff 
26
Janice Atkinson 
29
Gerolf Annemans 
32
Matteo Salvini 
35
Harald Vilimsky 
38
Michał Marusik 
41
Laurenţiu Rebega 
44
Tomio Okamura 
46
Sir Richard Body 
50
Rise of the European Patriots 
52
Rise of Hungary’s Patriots 
54
Patriotic Parties and their support across Europe 
58
Conclusion 
60
Contributions have, where necessary, been translated to English.
Aknowledgements
With thanks for all my ENF colleagues, who have been so
supportive in the past year, for believing in me and backing Brexit.
With special thanks to Arthur Van Angeren, my Dutch assistant
and also Patricia Culligan and Agnes Kada.
And as we go to print, our thoughts are with those murdered and
injured in Brussels on 22nd March 2016 and their families.
Janice Atkinson
“
We have not successfully rolled back the
frontiers of the state in Britain, only to
see them re-imposed at a European level
with a European super-state exercising a
new dominance from Brussels
“
Margaret Thatcher
We have our own dream and our
own task. We are with Europe, but
not of it. We are linked but not
combined. We are interested and
associated, but not absorbed.
“
“
Winston Churchill
10
Vice President of the Europe of
Nations and Freedom Group in the
European Parliament
Independent Member from the
United Kingdom
Janice Atkinson
11
Foreword by
Janice Atkinson
“We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it.
We are linked but not combined. We are interested but not absorbed.”
Winston Churchill
The Washington Post 15th February 1930
Winston Churchill saw the complete picture and understood the significance
back in 1930. That vision of an independent Britain, connected to its European
colleagues and ready to engage with a wider international scene. Why has it
all become so difficult? That potent message seems to have become distorted
during the intervening years. The war that lay ahead would only further
demonstrate the interconnectedness of the UK and Continental Europe.
Despite the numerous publications about business interests and the
economy and jobs and even culture from both the pro and anti Brexit groups,
there is a glaring omission which deserves to be heard. Our European partners,
those MEPs at the coalface, who have been democratically elected in their own
countries and who attend the parliament every month to vote, just as I do
myself on behalf of my own constituents, are ignored in the UK.
In my group in the European Parliament we have elected representatives from
eight different European countries and all issues are vigorously discussed.
What do they think about Brexit? About greater EU integration? About
the consequences for their own countries should the UK vote to leave in the
forthcoming referendum?
12
There is no disagreement that the UK is part of Europe and everyone, whether on the
Remain or Leave side of the debate wants it to stay that way: Brexit is about leaving our
new political masters of the EU but continuing and expanding our trade relationship.
As an avowed Brexit campaigner and an independent MEP for SE England, I care
deeply about regaining control over our own country whilst simultaneously securing
a vital new trading partnership with the EU and the many other nations of the world
who are not members. It’s not essential to be in the European Union to trade – ask
China or Brazil or Switzerland or most of the world, in fact!
So I made the decision to explore all the opinions about Brexit with my European
Parliament group partners in greater depth – and this book is the result.
I hope it will be helpful to give a brief overview of why I ever became such a
champion of Brexit. There was only ever one party which put the interests of regaining
independence for Britain before everything else on the political agenda and that was
UKIP – so it was perhaps inevitable that I should step up to the challenge and join
them. My own political views had not changed since standing as a Tory candidate
in the 2010 General Election (and as teenage girl inspired by Margaret Thatcher).
Indeed, it’s the many Eurosceptics in the Conservative party (and several Labour MPs)
who have been gagged and forced to curtail discussing their genuine hostility to
the plan for EU domination of national governments that have often compromised
themselves.
UKIP took plenty of media abuse and mistakes were made by many, myself
included. However, the rights of the electorate to a fair explanation of their policies
was ignored. Every party has its embarrassing oddballs, but the UKIP message of an
improved country for everyone outside of the extravagance of the unelected EU was
marginalised, as a hostile but dominant left-leaning broadcast media, together with
Labour and the Greens, pretended that welcoming controlled numbers of skilled
migrants (the UKIP position) was somehow racist. Even the right wing media were
hostile, whilst at the same time running anti-migrant stories. The unsavoury comments
made by politicians from other parties on migration were routinely ignored.
I’ve always been a bit of a fighter - there was no silver-spoon background in my
upbringing - and I care passionately about the lives of those of us who live in the real
world, outside of the Westminster bubble. So I was delighted to enter the battlefield
on behalf of UKIP and was duly elected an MEP for SE England in 2014. It was a great
moment when twenty four UKIP MEPs arrived in Strasbourg to begin campaigning
directly for a better deal for the UK through Brexit - and it gave us a chance to expose
how the EU is actually run by the unelected Commission, not the MEPs.
I learnt such a lot - including who I could trust and rely upon - when my life took
an entirely unexpected downturn. It’s hard enough being a libertarian politician in a
predominantly male dominated political media at the best of times. When you find
yourself wrongly accused yet forced to stay silent and unable to defend yourself -
13
well, that’s when the fragility of even close political alliances starts to fray at the
edges.
When you are driven by such an important issue like the pursuit of Brexit as the
best possible future for your country, compromises and decisions are somehow
easier to consider. Becoming an Independent MEP and leaving the UKIP group
in the European Parliament for the ENF group, led by the redoubtable Marine Le
Pen, freed me up to follow my conscience as well as my practical agenda. I could
once again participate actively in the Brexit cause, without party shackles, but
crucially without changing my political colors.
The decision may not have been easy but it has most certainly been a good
one - for me, my constituents and I hope for my new MEP colleagues from
seven different European countries. It is this vibrant new arrangement that has
prompted me to write this book, because the opportunity to showcase their
views on Brexit, not just my own, add weight and depth to the debate. Otherwise
these international and under-reported views simply do not get the chance to be
heard and I find that totally unacceptable.
(which is what the European Parliament has sadly become) is the only way to create a
new vibrant future for the millions who call Europe ‘home’, let’s make a start with the
British Referendum and become an example of independence for others.
That’s the Britain that I want for our children and for our friends and colleagues
throughout Europe.
This book has also been written because the UK media is obsessed with the
Westminster bubble Brexiteers: those Tory MPs who support Out and Douglas
Carswell, Ukip’s lone MP. They totally ignore those MEPs who fight week after
week for our freedoms, including Ukip.
So, that brings me back to where I see this book in terms of Brexit. It is a truly
European view of why Brexit is important not only to our country but to other
European nations and the peoples of Europe who also want to bring about
change. My colleagues discuss here why they are supporting Brexit and the
implications of the UK leaving the existing European Parliament but starting a
new relationship – and they openly consider the uncertainties and anxieties that
need to be addressed. I think an honest, international approach such as this is
needed and I welcome the chance to share these thoughts and ideas.
There is growing hostility to the EU from former staunch supporters and many
are now calling for their own EU membership referendums. However having one
thing in common, all want to cooperate as trading nations. There is determination
in our Europe of Nations and Freedom group to embrace change and to reclaim
national governments from the clutches of the Eurocrat elite. Only by leaving
can we move forward and reclaim our own finances, our laws and our future.
My partners do, however, recognise that in order to make this change happen,
firstly Brexit has to happen and only then the dismantling of this project will be
brought down and recalibrated.
Britain is leading the way and many in Europe are urging us on. If we Brexit,
real change will follow. It is the only way that progress will be achieved and
our courage will open the door to others. We all want a friendly, trading and
commercially-entwined future, one that embraces the wider world as well as
the old continent. Those of us who are prepared to stand up and fight for their
own countries deserve to be heard. If toppling a corrupt and redundant regime
14
15
Why
Do my European colleagues
back Brexit?
The European Perspective of Brexit
When I joined the ENF it was interesting listening to the various stances
on EU membership. From the Italian Lega Nord (who sat with Ukip in the
last Parliament) who campaign for a completely reformed EU, along with the
Austrians, to the French who would give their populace a vote on Franxit.
In all the ENF countries and, indeed across Europe, there has been a surge
in Euroscepticism and downright hostility to the failed project. The so-called
‘far right’ which, effectively, are more nationalistic and internationalist outward
looking parties, have become more popular. The commentariat often call them
‘populist’, but what is populist about voters exercising their democratic right to
vote for what they believe in?
Most readers will know where my Austrian, Dutch, French and Italian
colleagues stand on this issue and their parties’ successes and characters are
widely reported in the UK and world media.
Romania and Poland - Where They Stand
You may not know where the Romanians and Poles stand on the EU and
Brexit. Polish and Romanians migrants have had considerable hostility from
the UK, where a polarising debate has taken place. This has been somewhat
overshadowed recently in Calais, and with the north African and Middle Eastern
surge of migrants arriving in Europe.
In Romania there is a surge in national pride, a belief that Romania can hold
its own in the world, not by just being part of the EU, but a re-born nation,
throwing off the shackles of the old Soviet Union into a country that has
rediscovered its identity.
The upside for the Eurosceptics is that Romania has discovered itself but
16
has also realised that to be part of the EU they have thrown off one set of Soviet
shackles for another form of Communism, the EU. This is, of course, the unintended
consequence from the EU’s point of view but an interesting re-birth of a nation
unfolding.
Romania feels it is a second class citizen within the EU because it has been barred
from joining the borderless Schengen area. This was part of their accession terms
and there are those in Europe who would always oppose Romania having Schengen
status; mainly because of the high numbers of low-paid and low-skilled workers in
its population.
My Romanian colleague, Laurenţiu Rebega, was part of a conservative coalition
who, bizarely, joined the S&D (Socialist) group in the European Parliament. This
association was anathema to Rebega’s principles and he therefore jumped at the
chance of joining us. Ukip would have bitten his hand off. It would have been a
coup to have secured a reformist conservative, a young and dynamic guy such as
Rebega and imagine the PR puff of having a Romanian in the group, secured by Ukip?
Notwithstanding the numbers game of gaining an extra nation and thus securing the
stability of a group with the minimum of nations to remain a group.
Then there is Poland. There were four Polish MEPs from the Congress of the New
Right (KNP), who sat as non-inscrits. One Polish MEP Robert Iwaszkiewicz, was
‘loaned’ to the EFDD group, secured by Ukip, and two of his colleagues joined the
ENF, thus splitting the national party. This left the leader of the KNP, the divisive figure
of Janusz Ryszard Korwin-Mikke behind. Mikke was a popular figure in Poland but
his colleagues decided to distance themselves from his divisive politics and antideluvian views on gender and sexuality and join the ENF. Iwaszkiewicz (Bob the
“Pole” as he is affectionately known as), is still in Mikke’s party which has re-named
itself and sits in the EFDD, secured by Ukip. My two colleagues thought that Bob’s
politics were also too divisive and decided to join the ENF.
My Polish colleagues also support Brexit and a totally reformed EU.
What Happened when we formed the ENF?
When we formed the group I explained why I was supporting Brexit. Some of my
new EU accession colleagues were disappointed and said they wanted to help Britain
stay part of the EU as they felt we were united in our past and had more commonality
than some of the southern European nations. Then I explained why I wanted to leave,
how we could still trade, still have our common bonds and ties, how the EU was
undemocratic and how we would survive outside of the EU. They totally understood
and now support our Brexit campaign. They too recognise that this is the only way to
bring about real change.
When we drew up the ENF’s political charter we agreed that all nations were united
in recognising:
17
Democracy: we recognise the charter of fundamental rights and therefore
reject any past or present affiliation or connection or sympathy to any
authoritarian or totalitarian project
Sovereignty: we base our political alliance on the sovereignty of states and
peoples and co-operation of nations, not a supra-national model
Identity: we preserve the identity of the peoples and nations of Europe and
thus control of immigration is a fundamental principle
Specificity: recognise each other’s right to defend our specific unique
economic, social, cultural and territorial models. We preserve the diversity of the
political projects of our members.
Freedom: defending individual freedoms, emphasising the particular
importance of protecting freedom of speech
You will notice that these pillars of our charter are in direct contradiction of the
EU project and its charters.
It’s not all Right, but the Left too
In the Parliament I often do battle with the Left, those that sit next to Angela
Merkel’s EPP - the Greens, Liberals, Socialists and European Left. However, I
generally have more in common with the European Left than they would like
to admit.
Mostly, they are democrats and see the EU’s project as undemocratic and
unaccountable. They often find allies in Ukip’s partners, the Five Star Movement.
And quite often the ENF and EFDD find themselves voting with the European
Left. Of course, the Left being the Left, find this hard to digest
For example, in October 2015 Portugal entered dangerous political waters.
For the first time since the creation of Europe’s monetary union, a member state
took the explicit step of forbidding eurosceptic parties from taking office on
the grounds of national interest. Anibal Cavaco Silva, Portugal’s constitutional
president, refused to appoint a Left-wing coalition government even though it
secured an absolute majority in the Portuguese parliament and won a mandate
to smash the austerity regime bequeathed by the EU-IMF Troika.
Whilst I do not support socialism in any form, I do believe in democracy and if the
people voted under a proportional representation system for these parties then the
EU/Troika/IMF has no place in dictating otherwise.
Just before the close of 2015 the above was echoed by the German leader of the
EPP group, Manfred Weber, Merkel’s man, who stated in plenary that Portugal’s hard
left should not be allowed to take control and undermine the project. He was jeered
from the Left and Right.
This is just one example of how the EU and its MEPs are undermining representative
democracy and why the people are revolting. And, more subtle, is why the Left and
Right sometimes unite.
My colleagues acknowledge that brave Britain, bastion of democracy, free speech
(sort of ), the small island of the Commonwealth, its former Empire, its Queen, its
traditions and history is a mighty force. They know that what the Eurocrats fear most
is the exit of our great nation. If that happens then the whole edifice will start to
crumble.
No nation has ever left. Even when the Lisbon Treaty (aka the EU Constitution),
it was never a ‘tidying up’ exercise, was voted on in France and Ireland, and the
electorates gave the wrong answer, they were told to go back to the ballot box and
fix it so the right answer was obtained.
My colleagues are excited for us and any help that they can give to end the project
as it stands is welcome, hence the writing of this book.
No other Out campaign group (it is estimated that there are around 40 anti-EU
groups/think tanks/projects) can bring the European dimension to this project as I
can.
The Conservative MEP ‘Vote Leave’ team are few, the rest are ‘reformers’ and want
to keep their jobs. I know that some of their electorate and most of their selectorate
would be shocked at how the vote in plenary and how they vote and speak in their
committees.
He deemed it too risky to let the Left Bloc or the Communists come close to
power, insisting that conservatives should soldier on as a minority in order to
satisfy Brussels and appease foreign financial markets.
He was saying that democracy must take second place to the higher imperative
of euro rules and membership. Mr Cavaco Silva argued that the great majority of
the Portuguese people did not vote for parties that want a return to the escudo
or that advocate a traumatic showdown with Brussels.
This is true, but he skipped over the other core message from the elections:
that they also voted for an end to wage cuts and Troika austerity. The combined
parties of the Left won 50.7pc of the vote. Led by the Socialists, they control the
Assembleia.
Photo by Stefano Cavicchi
18
19
Marine Le Pen
Front National (National Front) France
Co President Europe of Nations
and Freedom Group
Between a federal Europe and out to the open sea, there will always be a Europe
of Nations and Freedom.
I always looked with some questioning, if not sometimes with some
amusement, at the building of the European Parliament named after “Winston
Churchill”, elevating him to the position of “Father of Europe” because of his
speech, the “United States of Europe” delivered in Zurich on 19 September,
1946...
While two years earlier, on June 4, 1944, two days before D-Day, he confided
to General de Gaulle: “Know this, every time when we have to choose between
Europe and the open sea, we will choose the open sea...”
From 1958 to 1969, General de Gaulle undertook a continuous battle with
British governments, opposing twice the entry of Britain into the European
Economic Community.
Britain, meanwhile, remained faithful to its commitment to European
integration to stick to the creation of a vast free trade area.
In the 1980s, the French weekly “Valeur Actuelles” (Current Values) correctly
called Thatcher “the daughter of De Gaulle”, for her resolute opposition to any
federalist drift.
Britain today, on the brink of Brexit, prepares to decide on its fate. I think,
however, that Britain holds much more than merely its own destiny in its hands.
It also holds, with the opportunity of choice that is offered, a significant part of
the fate of the peoples of Europe.
With Janice Atkinson, we are resolutely putting up a fight against the Euroglobalists, because we are viscerally attached to the identity, sustainability
and sovereignty of our nations. Having always in mind, despite numerous
confrontations in the past, the beautiful “Entente Cordiale”, the solidarity
20
displayed during the Second World War and within the Atlantic Alliance, (furthermore,
it must be emphasized, both countries retained more autonomy due to their strategic
forces), when it was then legitimate due to its primary objective of defending the free
world against communism. Close to each other, both our people in an uncommon
way in Europe regularly display the same desire to reject the whole bureaucratic and
disembodied ideology of Brussels.
Indeed, today, the European Union demonstrates all its harmfulness.
Britain escaped the depravity of the euro single currency, which aimed to impose
itself continuously onto all the member countries of the European Union. This
monetary, budgetary and financial straitjacket, inept because of the very wide
disparities between the economic situations of the European countries, in fact led
the European Union to become the zone of the lowest growth in the world for nearly
a decade, while many of the so-called emerging countries, who do not need to deal
with the pangs of a single currency, are distinguished by performance, that is quite
astonishing for some and unmatched by others.
In general, common policies have proven disastrous for the European populations
concerned.
In the 1970s, the European steel industry, however, considered as the most powerful
in the world, was sold off to outside interests that rushed to siphon all patents. What
remains today from the European steel industry?
The Common Agricultural Policy, for twenty years, had to stoop to the diktat that
came from across the Atlantic, ever since the disastrous Blair House agreements.
European agriculture, since the shrinking aids, from that moment on are subject
to the maelstrom of the most unfair global competition in terms of competitive
practices, labour costs, product quality, food safety and environmental criteria. What
is left of the sense of the Common Agricultural Policy?
But at the time of writing, an additional step was taken. Now the crisis of migrants
shows the toxicity of the European Union. As such, its governing bodies and especially
its leaders, now pose a mortal threat to the survival of the European peoples.
The Schengen system and the management of migration policies by the
Commission is now leading to an unprecedented migration submersion of our
continent.
This policy, we know, is conducted entirely and deliberately by a number of
European leaders and particularly by the President of the Commission, based on both
the old and fallacious grounds to convince us of the need to accelerate immigration.
It is presented as a substitute for the birth deficit of the continent. In fact, it is untrue
and an excuse to import low cost labour, which stagnates the workers’ wages. The
European Commission acts without external pressure as if this foolish policy is
natural ...
Thus, the European Commission, to which European leaders have given away their
commands, plans to bring more than three million migrants over the next two years
21
in the member states of the European Union. No one can deny that these figures
are credible since even the President of the European Council, Mr Donald Tusk
himself has announced these figures at the end of 2015. Neither can one deny
that this plan is executed, because who would have thought that by the end of
2015 nearly a million migrants would cross the frontiers of Greece, frontiers that
are methodically undermined by Brussels?
Fortunately, history does not always rhyme with fatality or renunciation.
And both our people, the French and British, though a cyclical term, embody
the French and the British people in a not so distant past of Winston Churchill,
Charles de Gaulle and, Margaret Thatcher.
The peoples of Europe, aware of belonging to a rich civilization, multimillennial, admired throughout the world for its uniqueness, its varied forms of
linguistic expression, cultural and political, are now fully aware of the Brussels
sham.
The European idea, based on the voluntary cooperation of sovereign nations
and with pride of their singularities, and aware of belonging to a common
civilization base, has been captured by a globalist and federalist clique, by means
of false referendums, such as in The Netherlands and France in 2005 on the
European Constitutional Treaty, or Ireland, who was regularly asked to vote again
to align with Brussels’ orders.
But the last two years have been marked by a new dynamic, carried by strong
and determined peoples of Europe. In particular, the patriotic parties and those
concerned with defending the identity of the European peoples, each with its
own sensibility and national roots, have had notable successes all over Europe in
the last European elections of May 2014.
In France, the Front National, which leads the patriotic opposition to fight for
sovereignty for decades, became the largest political party of the country. The
polls that followed the European elections, until the last regional elections of
December 2015, have merely confirmed this.
In France we are henceforth the only alternative to the system that, not
content with being ideologically homogeneous, has entered a phase of political
amalgamation with the electoral coalition displayed by the socialist left and
centre-right pro-European parties in the last regional elections.
The situation became clear: opposite the euro-globalists, from Jean-Luc
Mélenchon, representative of the extreme left to Nicolas Sarkozy, president of
the centre-right party, we are the ultimate guardians of security, sovereignty and
the sustainability of the French people.
However at the same time, our fight has found many echoes in Europe.
Janice Atkinson, whose dedication and work will, I am sure, be more and
more recognized, together with our Dutch, Flemish, Italian, Austrian, Polish
and Romanian friends, was made possible in June last year by establishing the
European Group of Nations and Freedom in the European Parliament.
22
This “European strike force” is now recognized and feared, because our policies
and views have become so attractive. In most European countries fellow parties are
developing and, demonstrating that we are fully capable of presenting a genuine
alternative European project to the European Union sham.
The European Union, let us be honest, belongs as a project and a vision, to the
whims of the past: the unbridled globalism, imposed multiculturalism, forgetting
that human beings are the essential foundation at the heart of all political projects.
All these dynamics have reached the limits as it is colliding with the reality of the
peoples.
As regards us, we always stand for freedom based on the sovereignty of nations,
the fulfilment of mankind by showing their roots, the protection of activities and
the work of each of us, opposite the appetites of the global superclass and finance,
when these are unregulated, without borders and without scruples, and when they
speculate on the debt of the states and impoverishment of the people, as it is the
case today, because there are too many actors included with too big parts.
The relocation of economies, streamlined protectionism and intelligent, the return
of preferential trade policy and customs union, attachment to structures of life on a
human scale, are the rationale of our project which is based on natural communities
such as the family, the city or village, the nation ...
We refuse to have tryptic Globalisation and European Union mega-regions
concocted by the globalists’ spheres.
We are conducting with even more force and conviction our fight in order to assist
this moment of a European Spring of the Peoples. The Spring Revolt Against Brussels.
A Spring of Nations equal to that of 1848, which saw the affirmation of nationality, as
were the ones that brought down the Berlin Wall and then the Soviet Union.
Because, as stated by the French political scientist Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, “any
empire will perish.” The European Union is now the most illegitimate of the empires,
the insipid Junker-Merkel duo, standing in the shadows of the charisma and genius
of Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon and Charles V...
We always keep in mind a European horizon, but by the formation of an alliance
between sovereign European nations, for the defence of their own interests, as well
as our common civilization, but not for the interests of international finance.
Soon, the British will have an unprecedented opportunity to completely reshuffle
the game at the European level. We have all watched with dismay the drama and
the acting that accompanied the signing of the European Agreement of 18 February
that is supposed to convince the British that they would have received as many
concessions as Margaret Thatcher in her time, or Charles de Gaulle when he practiced
the politics of the empty chair in Brussels to remind European bureaucrats of the true
nature of Europe.
This recent ´agreement´ has proved that the direct expression of the people is
extremely difficult, considering the incredibly hard negotiations with the EU that were
required. Mr Cameron in the end has received barely anything of what he asked for
23
and without any legal basis. Essentially, he obtained nothing. Democracy should
be common sense and simplicity, respect and dialogue. Yet, the negotiations
with the EU show that there is no room for the genuine expression of the people.
In short, once again, this involves, like with every consultation of the European
peoples, the mock concessions of bureaucrats who fear the verdict of the polls
in this political and democratic referendum. It is not a fully integrated approach,
that is thoughtful, intelligent and respectful of the people and which offers a
coherent and realistic future for each of the European nations.
After the referendum, the same policy of systematic erosion of democratic
prerogatives of sovereign nations will resume in the same irresponsible logic
as the negation of frontiers on the economic, social, cultural and national level.
Since the 1990’s this has been the hallmark of this Europe and the acceleration
of the federalist integration. Who can believe that the UK will be allowed to keep
these hollow concessions, or be allowed to resist other attempts at integration?
The British know this and this is why the referendum was requested by them,
forced by UKIP, and now the people have their choice to vote In or Out.
I have full confidence in the common sense, in the wisdom and courage of the
British people. Evidenced by the reaction, upon signature of the agreement, the
British press in general pointed to the absurdity of the Brussels drama and the
paucity of gains. It was exactly eight centuries ago, that King John found the
Magna Carta imposed on him, which constituted the first real political and legal
instrument for the protection of basic rights of the human being. This makes
Britain, I believe, the first real “country of human rights” ... Who will prevent us
from hope that in the 21st century, the British will seize the historic opportunity
to remind the European Commission that we, the people, no longer want this
Europe that has deprived us of our political freedom?
For us, the British and French free men and patriots, human rights, inseparable
from those of citizens’ rights, can only exist under the umbrella of a united nation,
free and sovereign.
Finally, dear Janice, dear British friends, please allow me to remember the
memorable words of St. Francis of Assisi, echoed by Margaret Thatcher on the day of
her entry at 10 Downing Street in 1979:
“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may
we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is
despair, may we bring hope. There is now work to be done”
Photo by Stefano Cavicchi
Between a federalist Europe that we reject together, and the open seas which
is not desirable either for us or for Britain, we propose the creation of a common
Europe of Nations and Freedoms. We reject the Europe of Brussels but also the
madness of the Transatlantic Treaty which ultimately condemns the sovereignty
of nations who are signatories.
I have full confidence in the mission led by Janice Atkinson on my side, who
has chosen to remain consistent in her European engagements and respecting
her initial convictions. The challenge is considerable, but we will meet together.
As in the heyday of the Entente Cordiale...
24
25
Marcel de Graaff
Partij Voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom)
The Netherlands
Co President Europe of Nations
and Freedom Group
Who does not dream of a rich and prosperous country to live in? A country full
of activity and commerce, where jobs are well paid. A country where beautiful
products are for sale at a reasonable price. A country that is proud of its own
culture and history.
Where it is safe and where justice will prevail when safety is under threat. In
short, a life in freedom and prosperity where citizenship and economic activity
can optimally flourish.
A beautiful and fundamental endeavour for those who embrace Western
civilization and sovereign nation states. Yet, the activities of the political elite
are not aimed at that. Not in the European Union, nor in the Member States.
On the contrary.
Based on false grounds of unification and peace among peoples, a dictatorial
monster is being put in place. A monster that strips proud peoples of their
identity, to make way for a dispirited and helpless mass. In fact, an endeavour
that we know from Communist times. It is therefore not surprising that the EU
is often referred to by critics as the EUSSR super state. It´s a horror against which
we must rise in the interest of our children and grandchildren.
Through outright lies and sheer intimidation, the European population
has been deceived and manipulated towards political union for decades.
Threatening that without the EU and the Euro, war, hell, and damnation await
us, have always been standard responses to anyone critical on the Euro and
the EU. But in recent years there has been a fundamental shift. Citizens in the
Member States have opened their eyes and no longer allow anyone to fool
them. This, understandable, is a direct result of the dramatic and negative
26
impact of the EU and the Euro on the economies of the Member States.
The enduring crisis which holds the once prosperous countries in a gridlock directly
results from the megalomaniac EU project that aims, besides political unification, to
merging divergent economies into a single monetary system. We now witness the
dramatic consequences for the economies of the member states. But even after a
debacle such as in Greece, EU disciples insist that political union remains the only
pathway to peace and stability. A political super state. Whether the people in the
countries like it or not.
In the Netherlands, the population opposed such schemes in the 2005 referendum.
But the massive No against the European constitution, a profound symbol of a
political union, was brushed aside by the political elite. An affront to the opinion of
the people. This is in fact remarkably similar to what we see on a daily basis in the
European Parliament where any form of EU critical debate is silenced and where the
voice of the people merely seems unsurmountable ballast.
In the euro membership debate it is often argued that is impossible for countries
to return their own currency if they so wish. Not only because of the stability of the
Eurozone and the Euro, but also because it would cause great harm to the countries
themselves and that it would cost countries more to leave the Eurozone than they
would benefit from it. To further support this argument, citizens in the European
member states are deceived with statistics that suggest that prosperity has increased
since the introduction of the Euro and the Lisbon Treaty. With unprecedented ferocity
the claim is asserted that in order to prevent war there is no alternative to the EU and
the euro. Even references to the 30s and 40s of the last century are not shunned. No
one wants to be held responsible for that.
The PVV, however, rejects this scaremongering and instead focuses on the facts.
That is why we have had a survey conducted by the renowned research institute
Lombard Street Research (2012), which has examined the effect of the euro on the
Netherlands. Capital Economics (2014), studied a withdrawal of the Netherlands from
the EU. A Nexit.
The Lombard Street Research shows that the costs of the Euro for the Netherlands
outweigh the benefits. Continuing on the path embarked in will only bring more
misery. Yet, there certainly is a way out. The way out is the Dutch Guilder. This robust
currency was a constitutive part of a prosperous Netherlands that we remember from
times before the Euro. The research conducted supports the proposition that the Euro
isn´t money, but instead costs us money. A maxim the citizens of the Netherlands
know is true, i.e. the have less money in their pockets for spending. With our own
Guilder, we shall be back in control. It´s up to us to decide what we do with our
money, allowing us to self-adjust when the country so requires. Control and power
exercised by Brussels and Frankfurt must be retrieved in the interest of our future.
The survey of Capital Economics, winner of the prestigious Wolfson Prize, shows
that the Netherlands will be better off outside the EU. A so-called Nexit will ensure
27
economic growth that may be as much as 10% higher by 2024 compared to
growth levels if the Netherlands remains in the EU. The net gain for every Dutch
household would average nearly €10.000 a year. A wonderful prospect.
Billions of which we now see squandered to keep bankrupt countries like
Greece afloat will be available for spending in the Netherlands. We can devote
billions to our own country, as we halt this austerity obsession, forced upon
us by Brussels. It is a way to leave the crisis behind us, allowing our country to
recapture a healthy state. In sum, a country with lower taxes, more jobs and
increased prosperity.
Europhiles noticeably enjoy the dependency of countries such as Greece, and
the stifling effect that the EU has on countries across Europe. They will therefore
continue to do all that is possible to perpetuate the Euro and the EU. In practice
this will imply that the EU will make countries so deeply indebted, that we can
rest assured that the money will never come back. Unless the current monetary
union transforms into a permanent transfer union in which the Netherlands will
be taking over the debts of other parties. This is something taxpayers will not
forgive these smug Europhiles and which will further erode the support for the
EU and the Euro.
It is not only for the Netherlands that leaving the EU would be a prudent decision.
According to chief economist and managing director of Capitol Economics Roger
Bootle, Britain too should leave the EU. He calls the euro a complete disaster and
indicates that a Brexit could give a boost to the economy. According to economist
Vicky Redwood a Brexit would be a challenge for London in the short term. But
in the long run the benefits will outweigh the costs. Importantly, according to
Redwood, Brexit will create new opportunities. Once Britain is freed from the
EU´s shackles it will be able to conclude bilateral agreements with emerging
economies outside Europe, thus creating new lucrative opportunities that can
benefit the financial sector. Contrary to what doomsayers would have us believe,
London shall maintain its prominent position in the financial world. Former head
of the German central bank and current chairman of the Swiss bank UBS Axel
Weber, underlines this premise.
In any case, the EU and Euro project are doomed to failure. It is up to Member
States to decide whether they want to be part of a torturous path towards an
uncontrolled exit or to take responsibility in the interest of their countries.
The PVV has made a clear choice. We want to be in charge of our own country
again. Reintroducing the Dutch Guilder and leaving the EU. Towards a Europe of
cooperating sovereign states. Towards more freedom and prosperity. Towards a
Nexit. The sooner the better!
28
Janice Atkinson
United Kingdom
Vice President Europe of Nations
and Freedom Group
A few reasons why Britain should Brexit. I recently made the case in the British
newspaper, the Daily Telegraph - why women should vote for Brexit.
I have long championed women entering politics but never by the Left’s
path of gender quotas. When I was in the Conservative Party I worked with
Women2Win, a vehicle set up by senior women in the party to encourage and
help more women into politics.
I also took on that role within Ukip.
The current debate on Brexit is looking a bit male and pale which, to be fair, is
the make-up of Westminster and European politics. Slowly women are making
the difference - Marine le Pen, Alternative for Germany, Poland’s Law and Justice
party, Angela Merkel, to name but a few parties who have female leaders.
The following is the case for women voting for Brexit (but it applies to men
too!)
In the previous budget period British taxpayers paid 41.1 billion euros for the
EU´s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), of which 32.5 billion euros returned to
our farmers and landowners, meaning that we actually lost 8.7 billion euros over
the budget period on the EU CAP. So to say that this EU policy also supports
British farmers is laughable, as we first pay a vast sum of money, then getting
back only part of it to support our farmers. We could have easily supported UK
farmers with all the money we now pay into the EU budget, but it would be up
to the UK to decide on how to spend it, not the EU dictating the rules. The costs
of the CAP are in fact even higher than just the contributions to the EU CAP
budget. For not only do British taxpayers pay an awful lot into the EU budget,
we also have artificially high food prices as a result of Common Agricultural
Policy. The EU policy is protectionist, stopping us from importing cheaper high
quality food outside Europe.
Estimates are that compared to world market prices we are paying 17%
more for our food than necessary. The combined costs of paying into the EU
29
budget and the higher food prices means that the costs for the UK are at least £10.3
billion on a yearly basis, with other figures as high as £16.7 billion, equalling 1.2%
of GDP per annum. These are staggering numbers, so what does this all mean for
British families? For all of us who have a household to take care of, buying groceries
to feeding our families, this EU agricultural policy costs the average British family at
least £398 per year. Since this is based on the most conservative figures, in reality it is
very likely even higher than that.
So taxpayers are paying vast sums into the EU budget to get higher food prices in
return. But that is not all. Because the EU CAP is protectionist, using trade barriers, it
negatively impacts developing countries which are unable to export their products
to our country. At the same time EU products receive export subsidies resulting
in these products being dumped on markets in developing countries on below
market prices. All in all, world GDP could increase by €33 billion if the CAP would
be dismantled. If we would Brexit and have free trade agreements with developing
countries, we would we save British families hundreds of pounds annually on food,
with developing countries selling their high quality and cheap food commodities to
the UK.
This would be the best type of foreign aid we could give to the developing world.
It would also allow us to stop wasting money on foreign aid and charities and use
it for different purposes. For example, of the £385.5m charities raised by Oxfam in
2012; just £211m was actually used for charity work, a mere 54.7%. Another charity
´champion´ the Red Cross has a similarly bad track record. They raised a half a
billion dollars for Haiti, yet nobody really knows where the money has gone. Of the
supposed houses for 130,000 persons, only six permanent houses were in fact built
by the charity organisation.
policies´. If we Brexit, however, we will no longer be forced to abide to the climate
goals of Brussels, meaning your household will be able to save all this money.
Article published in the Daily Telegraph, 7th January 2016
Photo by Stefano Cavicchi
A Brexit would allow us to have a sensible and controlled migration policy that fits
the needs of our country. Current migration levels have a devastating impact on our
social system, our schools, housing, and healthcare. For every 100 migrants employed
in the UK, 23 Britons lose their jobs. Migrant women have more children - 2.28 - each
compared to 1.89 for UK-born women. The demand for primary school places for
migrant children has thus skyrocketed over the last decade. House prices have been
driven up because of the steep increase in demand, caused by a net migration influx
of over 130,000 per year. Our society cannot handle this, our lives and wellbeing and
that of our families suffer as a result. We need to get back control over migration,
which we will only get if we Brexit.
The Green taxes that result from Brussels´ imposed European Trading Scheme
(ETS) and Carbon Price Floor (CPF) dramatically increases the energy bills for already
hard-pressed families. Every time you pay your electricity, take a plane or drive
your car you are paying into this scheme. In 2012 UK households paid an average
of £765 in environmental taxes. This is rising even further as environmental taxes
are continuously increasing. In fact by 2020 households are expected to paying
a staggering 41% more for their electricity bills as a result of the so called ´green
30
31
Gerolf Annemans
Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) Belgium
Treasurer Europe of Nations and
Freedom Group
Brexit may save the European idea
Currently the European idea and Europe, this proud image of a unique cultural
entity, is hijacked by the phenomenon of the European Union. The European
Union is systematically confused by its proponents and those in charge, with
what I consider being this positive cultural concept of “Europe”. They constantly
refer to “Europe” whereas in reality they merely talk about “their” European
Union.
We must reinstate confederal cooperation. However, the question is how do
we bring this infernal mechanism of “ever closer Union” to a standstill?
How on earth will we be able to stop, once and for all, this logic of European
authorities (what a paradoxical notion, incidentally)? Ending this logic, this
approach which continuously increases pressure, causing subordination,
because the more they push forward their integration, the more they must
continue in order to eradicate and repair the consequences of their own failures.
It´s the same logic of those who insist that all the nonsense, treaties, failures
and plasterwork, “were decided on in agreement”. We supposedly “mutually
agreed”... on all of this, while fewer and fewer people in fact feel represented by
EU decision-making ... More and more people turn away from it, and in various
states they have voted for alternative political parties in 2014, not for those in
charge. This occurred in Flanders as well with regards to the “tripartite” - a term
with a negative connotation - made up of the Socialists, Christian Democrats
and their liberal “servant maid for all the dirty work”.
Since these elections, EU-criticism has become clearly visible for this blind
herd of tripartite parties in the hemicycle of the European Parliament. However,
as they conduct their politics from a narrow 50 + 1 concept, and cramped as they
32
are for the sake of preserving their rule, they refuse to acknowledge the existence of
this essential democratic feature of a political movement (in this case our political
movement that calls into question the continuation of their “ever closer union”).
Consequently they can more or less continue on the path of federal integration,
which flies in the face of this political movement. They insist on continuing, despite
these shifts. Stubbornly pushing ahead is what they do, as did every Ancien régime
in history.
This blind ignorance is dangerous; this clinging to power is dangerous. Ever since
the 90s clear signals were received in different countries, which were privileged to
having had the opportunity to speak out in referenda on the future of the European
Union. Majorities oppose this evolution, as it was outlined in Brussels, but the
institutions of the European Union simply pushed ahead with a system of mutual
compromise and blackmail. The population was haughtily put aside.
And this takes place even now, however strong the verdict of the European peoples
in 2014.
The decommissioning of democracy became utterly apparent in the arrogant
way in which the European Union pressed ahead its fantasies of free movement
of people and a single currency, all so done in the context of illegal migration, as
well as supervision and financial transfers in the context the euro. Not to mention
the preposterous genuflection for Turkey’s Erdogan early December 2015. None of
these agreements could achieve even having the appearance of being backed by the
majority of the people, and indeed the drama is precisely that the European Union
runs without such support.
Therefore - I fear - the internal struggle within the European institutions, while
important, is only part of a broader struggle and the rebellion must come from
the member states themselves. And to bring the enormous inertia of this giant EU
machine to a halt and to reverse it will require the larger member states.
This is the profound significance of the ENF group that we have created within the
European Parliament, revolving around the strong political personality of Marine Le
Pen. The significance of the Brexit referendum in the UK should be considered in a
similar fashion. Here the population of a large member state will be able to give its
verdict on the evolution and membership of the European Union. Here it is Janice
Atkinson that represents the opposition to the European Union, campaigning for
Brexit, on behalf of our group.
This is an historic opportunity to turn the tide and to reverse history. Blindly
continuing will merely fuel the incongruities within the Union, as we have witnessed
at our borders and in relation to the euro-crisis.
We are in favour of European cooperation, cooperation based on a confederal
system. Thus permitting cooperation that is mutual beneficial, conducted in
openness and in transparency, with democratic participation of the peoples.
33
Europe is knotted together as a cultural entity, which may form the base on
which to build a modern form of cooperative connections, bypassing state
borders. We do not want to return to Europe of the early 20th century and the
demons of the past.
But the excesses of the EU-machinery at the beginning of the 21st century
should be brought to an end peacefully, in the interest of Europe and of the
peoples of Europe.
Large countries like France and Britain, together with the political opposition
forces within the European Union institutions, hold the key to change.
We must work together, because all the clout available will be required.
The European Union must never again be confused with Europe. In the
European Union it is us, who question this “always more, always further” dogmas,
who are treated as being mentally ill. However, in Europe we are the forces of the
future.
What we challenge is the European Union that is implementing the dangerous
ideologies of multiculturalism and supra-nationalism.
Finally, I have two pieces of advice. First, do not underestimate the opponent
that radicalizes with its hunger for unification, locking us up in a concrete
strongbox on the road towards more European Union.
And secondly, in the interest of the European idea, we must never allow our
political opponents dictating the terminology used, and never again, never again,
never again confuse Europe, this beautiful cradle of our wonderful civilization,
with the oppressing steamroller that bears the name of “European Union”.
Good luck with the Brexit campaign!
34
Matteo Salvini
Lega Nord (Northern League) Italy
Vice President Europe of Nations
and Freedom Group
After the end of WWII, all countries in Western Europe were blessed by decades
of peace and economic growth, with a steady and impressive improvement in
the welfare and the living conditions of their citizens.
With the fall of the iron curtain, this wave of development and the consequent
optimism reached even the States of Eastern Europe, previously excluded from
this “European miracle”, because of the suffocating dictatorships imposed by
the USSR in those satellite countries.
Against this background, the idea of a sort of European Community of
National States came up as a way to prevent new armed conflict on European
soil. In addition it helped countries to extend their cooperation in that new,
globalized world of prosperity and wealth, were businesses were expanding
far beyond national borders and millions of common people started travelling
through Europe for business or leisure.
As everyone knows, this community kept growing -not only by broadening
its borders, but especially by taking away more and more sovereignty from
Member States- eventually becoming the European Union as we know it.
However, Europe is now facing the worst crisis since the end of the Second
World War; a crisis that is not just economic, but also social and political.
For the first time since the EU was founded, citizens of our countries feel
today poorer, more pessimistic about the future and more scared about crime
than they were ten years ago.
In fact, it would be easy to write down a long list of problems, beginning
with the crisis of the euro-zone and ending with the recent mass immigration
waves. All problems that the European Union has not been able to face with the
necessary strength and resolution.
The weakness of the inefficient, self-focused European bureaucracy, not so
evident before, has been made clear by these difficult years. The EU appears,
35
today, more as an old, rugged wreck slowly sinking into the sea, than as a safe
harbour in an age of storms.
It is interesting to point out that, among EU Member States, the ones that have
chosen to remain more independent from Brussels, thus only ceasing to the EU a
-comparatively- small part of their sovereignty, are exactly the ones that proved
able to cope with the global economic crisis and to face quickly and effectively
the challenges of this decade.
Indeed, the UK is definitely the EU country that has proved itself more capable
of preserving its sovereignty, also thanks to its almost unique geographical
characteristics and to its long history as one of the most influential countries in
the world.
If this hostility of the UK to give up its sovereignty may have looked years ago
as an obstacle to a full and advisable integration of the UK in the EU, it is now
evident that choices like refusing to give up its currency in favour of the Euro and
to join the Schengen area, left the UK free to do whatever is needed to protect
its citizens and businesses in difficult times, while other Member States are
struggling to cope with the unreasonable diktats of the European bureaucrats.
Also, I wish to underline that these choices have not affected the capability
of the UK to make business with other Member States and to make profit of an
always increasing globalization; instead, being able to manage more freely its
own internal affairs, UK has developed one of the most dynamic economies in
the world also with respect to international trade.
So, why should we be surprised if the UK is evaluating the opportunity to get
totally rid of the EU´s constraints?
In this day and age, Brexit could open a wide range of extremely interesting
scenarios. Despite the condition of the UK being pretty unique, so that we could
not assume that leaving the EU would be as much advisable for all other EU
Members, Brexit would be the strongest signal ever of the dramatic need of a
deep, structural reform of the EU.
to trust each other and work together without need to cease their sovereignty to a
third entity that imposes its decisions over them. The European institutions, as they
are today, appear totally inadequate, out of touch with reality and often redundant.
This can no longer be ignored, but, when it comes to finding a remedy, a whole range
of options is available, and it goes from leaving the EU to pursuing an internal reform
of the EU.
I believe that each Member State is now called to reflect on which solution best fits
its needs, since it would be naive to think that the same solution could fit equally 28
different countries.
However, Brexit may be the first step towards a new and better balance of powers
in Europe, in which we will see the EU losing a huge part of its powers in favour of a
greater role reserved to National States.
What I have no doubts about is that all the fears about Brexit are really unreasonable:
the UK wants -and has to- get rid of the interferences of the European bureaucrats,
but certainly it has no intention to give up the extraordinary common cultural
heritage that bonds it to the other European Countries.
Leaving the EU does not mean leaving Europe and, let’s be clear, Europe is -luckily!a lot more than what the eurobureaucrats in Brussels wish us to think.
When the UK will be able to keep making business and cooperating with
EU countries as smoothly and extensively as before, even if outside of the EU
framework, this will make clear that for a well-working democratic State there
is no need to give up huge portions of its sovereignty in order to be able to
cooperate well with its neighbours.
For sure, this would be the tombstone over the nightmare of a European SuperState, where everything is decided at central level by unelected bureaucrats and
where people have little or no voice at all over decisions impacting their daily life.
But let’s look deeper than just at the tip of the iceberg: the European spirit, a
heritage of centuries of history and civilization that unites the European States
while respecting and recognizing their peculiarities, is something more than a
bunch of directives and treaties signed in some grey palace in Brussels.
I am sure that, thanks to this common heritage, European Nations shall be able
36
37
Harald Vilimsky
Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs
(Freedom Party Austria)
Vice President Europe of Nations
and Freedom Group
Eric Arthur Blair, better known by his pen name George Orwell, defined the
term “patriotism” as “devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life,
which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other
people“. If there is no particular place to which we feel attached, we will never
find a place that we can call our home. We identify ourselves with our values,
the way we deal with societal issues, our rule of law and we are proud of being
part of a western value system. We are a part of our nations and we belong to
Europe. We therefore advocate cooperation within Europe on a level playing
field. As co-operating partners and within a Europe of nations on intimate
terms with each other.
Pride of Nations and the European Union
Great Britain has always been a proud nation and has every reason for showing
its pride and identity. Predictions in 2010 tried to draw a picture of a declining
patriotism, but we can definitely see that this is not the case. Polls published
in the Daily Mail in 2010 asserted that the English rated themselves the least
patriotic nation in Europe. Those polls also showed that a lot of English people
were scared to show their flag and were worried that if they do so they would
have been instructed by officialdom to take it down. Four out of ten people
said they felt England had completely lost its identity. This was mostly caused
through a loss of identity in the face of European interference and political
correctness. In reality, in 2015 the English are currently showing their pride and
strength to the rest of Europe. The English identity is getting stronger again
and so does patriotism also among young generations in European countries.
Leftist parties try to convince the general public of patriotism being a bad and
dangerous thing, but there is no dark side of patriotism however. Quite the
contrary, patriotism is a powerful force and patriotic parties across Europe have
the potential of changing the aberrations, which have been provoked by the
38
European Union and its wrong decisions. Within the last two decades the European
Union has been eroding continuously and has not been learning from any mistakes
it has made. European citizens feel that the gap between them and those who are
ruling is growing. They no longer feel represented by those politicians.
Critics are desperately trying to find an explanation for the rise of patriotic
parties such as we experience it currently in Great Britain as well as in France, Italy,
the Netherlands, Austria and other European countries. In times of a global world,
growing unemployment all over Europe, multicultural misguided developments,
social pressure, an unsolved financial crisis, a migration crisis and the threat of losing
national identity people are looking for an alternative. They are looking for political
alternatives they can trust and on which they pin their hopes on. Patriotic parties are
not presenting illusions as others do. They are not ignoring worries and fears. A nation
that loses its identity is a lost nation. And patriotic parties all over Europe are trying to
keep the identity and the culture of European countries as well as the diversity across
Europe. Patriotic parties simply do not want a European Union, which equalises its
member states in all policy areas. There is a natural disparity between European
nations and patriots are appreciating it. This has nothing to do with populism;
it is simply all about democracy. Supranational European institutions implicate
supranational democracy. As we experienced, democracy on a supranational level
is impossible and faces a democratic deficit. In order to preserve stable democracies,
nations are needed. If the aim is to destabilise democracies all over Europe, the
European Union should get strengthened. If we want a Europe composed of stable
democratic nations with their own identity, traditions and languages, we need to
bring sovereignty and authority back to the member states. Robbing the member
states of their national idiosyncrasies and democracies will not strengthen a European
democracy, it will destroy democracy all over Europe.
Therefore it is a welcome development that patriotism is getting stronger in
European nations. Patriotic parties are succeeding in elections and leading the polls.
Just remember the last European elections and how nervously the bureaucrats and
politicians in Brussels acted. They warned of rising populism and labelled patriotic
parties as a threat to democracy. It was their aim to impede any electoral success
of patriotic, democratic parties all over Europe. Indeed, they failed. The European
elections in May 2014 did not demonstrate a rise of populism, but a victory for
democracy. People were no longer buying the lie that patriotism is dangerous, they
are rather rediscovering their pride and identity.
Motivation of Patriotic Parties
But what are patriotic parties doing better than others? Another tricky question,
another simple answer. Well-established parties in power are stuck in their
ideological opinions and fail in evolving. They have been forgetting who they are
obliged to and who they have to represent. They are simply representing themselves
although the citizen is the one whose interests they should represent and defend.
What distinguishes patriotic parties is that they take problems of the present age
serious. They are developing over time. This does not mean that they act optionally
or populist. It does simply mean that ideas and conceptions, which were appropriate
ten years ago, do not have to be adequate to present answers for any problems
39
nowadays. In identifying the problems of today the media has a very powerful
influence. It has the ability to tell us what issues are important. Agenda-setting
for example is a combination of public awareness and concern of salient issues
by the news media. Press and the media do not reflect reality, they simply filter
and shape it. There is also a huge variation of agenda-setting potentials among
the media. Patriotic parties also understand it to use communication channels
other than the classical media such as newspapers, television or radio. They are
aware of using new and social media for spreading their ideas. Through those
possibilities of new communication they get in touch with citizens directly. In a
different way than the established system parties, patriotic parties have no fear
of encountering with people directly. This is the reason why, although patriotic
parties across Europe are not facing governmental responsibility yet, they are
dictating which issues are important and have to be put on the political agenda.
They are able to speak out the truth without censorship because they are the
only ones that are connected to the citizens. Patriotic parties are driving their
political opponents in front of them. They are setting the agenda and they are
broaching those issues within political discussions. Patriotic parties are also
ascribed to implement political claims they put in.
This very situation can be observed in Austria. The Freedom Party won the
recent elections in Vienna in October 2015 and received more than 30 per cent.
Historically seen this has been the best result in elections in Vienna ever. Currently
the Freedom Party is ahead in all the polls, nationwide. The Freedom Party is
demonstrating the potential and force of a patriotic party, which represents the
interests of the Austrian population, defends Austrian identity and culture and is
very critical concerning the European Union and all misguided developments it
causes. The same trend can be observed all over Europe in France, in Italy, in the
Netherlands and of course also in Great Britain.
Commitment to our Identity
We are those patriotic parties. We are the representatives of our citizens. And
what we need to keep in mind is, that the only back door we have for preventing
our citizens across Europe of morbid prospects for the future is the strength and
the force of patriotic parties such as we are engaging in. We have to do what is
in our power to forge and broaden our alliance of democratic, patriotic parties.
We are standing for the re-establishment of sovereignty and freedom of our
nations. It is our responsibility to prevent our home countries from falling down.
The future generations are entitled to experience a Europe of nations, a Europe
of economic wealth, a Europe of cultural diversity and a Europe of member states
that are proud of their differences and act on intimate terms with each other. The
trend of a rising patriotism in Europe will continue. Europe is on the verge of a
revolution. The European Union will continue working as a catalyst for patriotic
parties to become successful. In 2019 the revolution will face a preliminary
summit and it will be our commitment to bring back identity, honest democracy
and sovereignty to our nations.
40
Michał Marusik
Kongres Nowej Prawicy (Congress of the
New Right) Poland
Vice President Europe of Nations
and Freedom Group
The eventual withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union
structures has a fundamental meaning, not just for the UK, but for all the
European countries. There has to be a first to leave this Union, because there
always must be a vanguard. We can expect that the role of vanguard will be
taken up by the United Kingdom at least for two reasons:
-Firstly: the United Kingdom is the leading European power that realises its
own imperial policies at a worldwide range and character. Thus certainly – in
the realisation of its own politics – the United Kingdom would not allow itself to
be dependent upon a structure as weak and chaotic as a bureaucratic structure
like that of European Union.
-Secondly: The withdrawal from the European Union initiated by some
smaller state would be ignored and therefore has no further consequences.
Only two European states, apart from Russia, play a major role in global
politics: the United Kingdom and France. Only these two states possessed
a large enough military, economic, territorial, demographic potential and
necessary natural resources. The EU emerged as these countries joined with
Germany. The strategic interests of these three states shows the true (in a clear
contrast to the declarative) mission of the European Union. Domination of
these three countries of the rest of the European continent seems to be at the
centre of the European integration formula.
At the same time the consensus, or rather –the lack of consent between these
three supreme powers, for the further limitation of their own sovereignty sets
boundaries for the process of further integration. Since these three supreme
powers clearly do not reconcile on further limiting their own sovereignty –
the European Union remains only to practice a harmful process of unification.
41
The realisation of consecutive “European Standards” is nothing else than the
elimination of competiveness that drives the economy in all areas of the Unions
interest. (Not to mention the pathetic deliberations on topics such as “gender
parity”)
Having available the huge political weight of these three supreme powers
soothes the bureaucrats’ totalitarian aspirations for common control and “the
equalization of chances”. Somehow these issues happen to be the only practical
area of political activity. (If we shall ignore quite serious incidents of economic
lobbying)
A clear denunciation (done by one of these supreme powers) of agreement
to this paralyzing unification and the escape from maintenance costs of this
giant bureaucratic machine, creates enough reasons for withdrawal from the
Union structures by the United Kingdom, and shall allow – and maybe even
ostentatiously – its entrance to its sovereign “path to growth”.
Thus, if the United Kingdom did not yet withdraw itself from the structures of
European Union, it might be thought that the reasons of this situation lies in the
analysis and predictions in connection to its relations with the USA. Speaking
colloquially –it also depends on whether the United States are interested in the
creation of relations with each European supreme power separately, or if they
rather wish to use the relations European Union – USA? It is here too perhaps
where the United Kingdom should seek the answer to the question: leave the EU
or stay inside?
If in such important matters a referendum is considered, it would serve one
important purpose – that is to build up the atmosphere that bonds government
with society. Governmental decisions are not always the most accurate but the
government cannot let the society to be hostile towards it.
The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the structures of the European
Union does not automatically imply a limitation in the flow of people. It does
not have to mean any other “automatic” limitations either. In many aspects
it might be just the opposite: the United Kingdom may offer Europe (and the
world) larger openness in many areas in comparison to the so-called respect
to Union standards. Decrease in omnipotence of public authorities, limitation
in bureaucracy or the reduction and simplification of taxation might make the
United Kingdom the open country that uses its openness.
All countries could maintain a good relation with the UK, involving – mutually
beneficial relations without expensive mediation of the EU bureaucratic
structures. Without any doubt these types of relations would create some kind of
“chain reaction”. Abolition of all these mandatory “unifications” and compulsory
“standards” would help Europe to regain economic prosperity and recovery of its
position in global politics.
We can go further in taking into consideration the eventual possibility – only
theoretically – of the dissolution of the European Union as a whole. Unfortunately,
the basic instinct of every organism – whether biological or political – is the instinct to
live. It cannot be reasonably expected that an organism consciously and purposefully
contributes towards its own demise. The European Union will do all it possibly can to
defend its right to exist.
Congress of the New Right (Kongres Nowej Prawicy) which I have the honour to
lead wishes the European Union at its present form to cease to exist. The present
structure of the European Union is the result of the realisation of certain individual
interests as well as Union institutions, both at the expense of the sovereign interests
of the countries which form this Union. We therefore should concentrate our effort
to the dismantling of the European Union, rather than its total demise. At first, there
should be an end to referring to the European Union as an individual legal entity, and
a return to the term of nations within the European Union. Sovereign decision from
individual subjects (member states) can intensify, thereby smoothly leading to the
natural disappearance of this structure. That kind of outcome serves well the interest
of all the member states and the overall interest of Europe. Peaceful competition
between sovereign states is the only sound solution to development without a
dominant controlling structure. It would thus eliminate this parasitic and colossal
structure´s effect on the economy of individual states, that inflicts disastrous damage
upon their specific culture and traditions.
A national referendum may be an instrument in gaining political popularity as well
as an instrument in strengthening the integration of certain nations. Parliaments and
governments led by the interest and sovereignty of their own states should adopt
clear decisions about the withdrawal from the Union – even without the necessity of
holding a referendum. Popular referenda are not the only measure of legitimacy of
political decisions. We do expect rather responsible parliamentary and governmental
decisions, whereas a referendum result is also dependent on the effectiveness of the
campaign.
If the Polish government and the Polish parliament would like to, in the best
interest of Poland, propagate the necessity of the withdrawal from the Union, and
subsequently organise a referendum in this case, it would receive our full support.
However, of crucial importance is the political objective, instead of the methods
leading towards it; we should only employ methods that will be successful.
Of course, speaking as a Pole, the greatest wish would be that my Fatherland
would also embark on its sovereign path of growth. However it is not proper to
wish ill fate to one’s neighbours.
42
43
Laurenţiu Rebega
Forţa Naţională (National Force) Romania
Vice President Europe of Nations
and Freedom Group
As a maritime trading nation, the UK has always been involved in Europe, yet
never itself being part of the continent. Despite this British exceptionalism, the
UK has strong ties with Europe, and as an EU member it has in fact become
increasingly intertwined with countries on the continent.
The underlying rationale of EU membership is to gain from it as a nation,
in terms of increased power, prosperity and opportunities. In this respect, EU
membership has been a disappointment for the British people.
The UK cherishes its freedoms and independence like no other nation in
Europe. For many countries, it is through EU membership that they seek to
promote these ideals. Not so for the UK. For the UK to subdue to an external
authority in the form of the EU is against the very character of the British people.
From this perspective, the fact that the EU diminishes British parliamentary
supremacy is highly problematic. Thus, where EU membership may be
worthwhile for others, this is not the case for the UK.
The differences between the UK and the countries on the continent are
manifest indeed. The UK retained the pound sterling where most others
chose to adopt a common currency, the euro. Being an island group, thus by
default having a higher degree of control over its borders, the UK never joined
the Schengen area. Moreover, it was Margaret Thatcher who was a strong
proponent of deepening the internal market, yet she always opposed political
cooperation, and ´ever closer union´.
One could say that the membership that the UK signed up for in 1975
seemed sensible at the time. European cooperation of the European Economic
Community (EEC) was mostly an economic affair, thus fitting the UK’s own
ambitions hand in glove. The UK as a global trading nation has for centuries
focussed on nurturing international trade relationships. It was exactly the
44
economic character of European cooperation at the time that the UK supported.
The British people could not know however, what type of cooperation the UK really
embarked on.
This touches a pivotal difference between the UK and many other countries that
joined the EU at later stages. Countries such as my own Romania had good reasons
for becoming an EU member. As a nation Romania has always been strongly involved
in Europe. With the ending of the cold war and fall of communism, EU membership
for Romania was a sensible goal. And contrary to the UK, countries like Romania
knew better what they embarked in, when joining the EU.
The UK joined the EEC, not the EU, and the people never had any intention of doing
so. EU membership involving intensive political cooperation and loss of sovereignty
was later added as a fait accompli. This sums up the essence of the troublesome
relation between the EU and the UK.
Being the cradle of parliamentary supremacy it is simple unthinkable for the British
people to have a continental authority deciding on UK laws. For the UK, sovereignty,
and control over its borders, currency, and its international relations are fundamental.
The commonwealth spans the entire globe, and the UK´s outlook is therefore more
global than any country in Europe. The UK never has and never will limit itself to
Europe alone. That is what makes the UK truly exceptional.
From this perspective it becomes clear that EU membership confines the UK´s
political and economic ambitions, rather than expanding them. The UK therefore
has solid arguments to strive for a Brexit, notwithstanding that for other countries
the verdict turns out differently. It is up to every European nation to make its own
assessment and the UK should do what is best for its people.
To be sure, leaving the EU by no means equates to leaving Europe, or abandoning
cooperation with nations on the continent. European countries and the UK shall
cooperate and trade with each other. What is more, Europe and Great Britain will
always share the Western principles of liberal democracy.
As the UK leaves the EU, Romania and the UK may no longer live under the same
roof, but our nations shall continue having open and constructive relations as
partners. As fellow NATO members, the UK and Romania will remain a strongly tied
in the field of security policy. Our political and economic relations shall be based
on bilateral agreements, made with respect for each other’s values, interests and
sovereignty.
After Brexit, the UK will be in a position that much better suits its character
and position in the world. Most important, it will give back the freedoms and
independence that the British people cherish. An independent UK will not only be
beneficial for the UK itself. It will be valuable for countries across the continent, as a
happy neighbour is a good neighbour.
45
Tomio Okamura
Founder and Chairman of Svoboda a Přímá Demokracie
(Movement of Freedom and Direct Democracy)
Member of Parliament,
Czech Republic
The dream of a union of European states and peoples is already several
centuries old. Czech King George of Poděbrady presented such a project to
European rulers in the 15th century - he proposed a voluntary coalition of free
nations that will solve disputes between them by agreement, not by war. In
addition European states should deal with the danger of war against Muslims
invaders together.
The latest project in European history was the idea of a new Europe,
propagated by the Nazi Third Reich - which involved, however, the involuntary
subordination of European states to the dictates of Berlin.
The current European Union was established as a voluntary association
of sovereign states - in which states are gradually being deprived of their
sovereignty and are subjected to an ever increasing number of dictates from
Brussels.
From the original idea of a voluntary union of European nations it has become
a totalitarian empire, in which the sovereign states eventually disappear. In
other words - the EU has moved away from a free model as propagated by
George of Poděbrady towards Hitler’s totalitarian form.
The Goal is Freedom, not Restriction
A united Europe should liberalize markets and bring about economic recovery
and increase the wellbeing of its citizens.
Unfortunately, currently this process is reversed - the Brussels bureaucracy,
dictated by lobbyists from all fields, is becoming a greater burden. British
citizens have certainly had the opportunity to get acquainted with the
46
economic analysis, which calculates how much Britain actually could save, where it
not for the European Union.
These amounts are gigantic, and not just the net payments Brussels. What I think
is the fundamental problem, are multiplying costs associated with bureaucracy and
Brussels directives. The EU ban on mercury thermometers, for example, not only
financially burdened immediately all health facilities in the Union in the order of
billions, but also forced healthcare professionals to use digital thermometers, whose
reliability is an order of a magnitude lower than those of mercury.
Loss of Trust and Corruption
Paramedics usually use only the mercury thermometers, the European bureaucrats
are, therefore, unbelievable idiots. This of course weakens confidence both in the
European and national institutions and their ability to govern the state.
Such directives, are often costly, harmful and unnecessary. In addition, they slowly
become a burden like a leech on the national legislators. Having implemented these
directives is similar to the so-called gold-plating, these are expanding unwanted
guidelines in a way that brings new regulatory burdens without offering benefits to
the national legislation and competitiveness.
The new requirements of the European Commission, which should be implemented
as EU directives by the national authorities, represent 25-33% of added cost in the
Czech Republic. These “add-ons” are often an added problem for the company.
In the Czech Republic, for example, it was obligatory to provide special packaging
for donuts and for other food products. Eventually it was confirmed that unnecessary
additional national legislation was needed, and after a wave of criticism these were
subsequently cancelled. A similar demonstration happened when a new obligatory
directive was introduced to rebuild faucets in the proximity of dining facilities,
however it was only a recommendation from the EU and not as a requirement that
Member States must implement.
In return for the implementation of these directives businesses, municipalities,
regions and countries are subsidized which help them to have a good position at
the market. The fact is that corruption has become an incredible engine. Just for
processing an application to get the EU grant, a specialized company with the right
connections can be paid by up to 30 percent of subsidies. The actual subsidy is
granted in practice, regardless of effectiveness. The political goal in each country is
to exhaust the maximum level of the possible subsidies, therefore every project is
a good one. In the Czech Republic thousand kilometres of cycle paths were built,
which often lead nowhere at exorbitant prices, one kilometre cycle path is often
more expensive than one kilometre road.
We built bridges for lifting freight shipping on rivers, where no adequate shipping
exist, and remember the scandal when one village started to build a water park of
subsidies on a hill without water.
Brussels itself has become big business, which feeds tens of thousands of officials,
47
politicians, lobbyists and their clients to the detriment of citizens and national
states.
The performance of the UK brought billions in savings to its citizens and would
undoubtedly revivify its economy. The British referendum on the withdrawal, the
Brexit, has an additional very desirable effect: it is a warning memento, a pointing
finger for the Brussels based bureaucrats and Euro-federalists, which says that
in this form the Union is walking into hell and has no future. It has ceased to be
beneficial to its members and has become an unbearable burden.
The abolition of EU fishing quotas would lead to the revival of the sector
according to experts, while introducing an effective state aid could ultimately
lead to a budget of about 2.8 billion pounds. To comply with the “Union” rules
regarding the collection and environmentally friendly disposal of waste, every
British household reportedly contributes 70 pounds yearly.
What Shall be Done? Decentralization in Europe
The only reasonable solution is the political and bureaucratic decentralization.
It would guarantee the prosperity for Europe and the existence of sovereign
national states. The unified arrogance from Brussels lies in the elitist belief that
Brussels based bureaucrats and commissars know best what is good and right for
citizens in Europe because citizens are not at all competent.
It is a totally anti-democratic principle. Not even the most elite schools can tell
what is good for the village somewhere in the Scottish mountains or on the coast
of the Mediterranean Sea.
You need to do the exact opposite: the maximum possible transfer of decisionmaking to the lowest possible regional level.
The fact that we reject the Brussels bureaucracy does not mean that we reject
cooperation, free trade and free movement within Europe.
well, but dictating how and what kind of cheese or beer can be produced or for how
long the cooked meal at the inn could be sold are absolute nonsense.
Last Point - Mass Immigration
It is the suicide of our civilization, when political leaders cease to respond
innovatively to the issues and challenges that occur. We can see it live how Chancellor
Merkel is dictating the EU therefore how it responds to the migration crisis.
Throughout the years, there has been a steadily increasing flow of illegal economic
tourists towards Europe, migrants, from Africa and from the Middle East. Both the
European Union and the mechanisms of the Schengen area are unable to stop people
crossing the borders illegally, on the contrary with the proposal on quotas and their
ultimate acceptance generated an increase in the current illegal migrants, because
the Union has made it clear that an immigrant will be accepted and redistributed in
a country that will care for him. And not only for him, because European laws dictate
reunification of entire families, so after legally having regulated the status of one
person, his entire family is automatically entitled to be received.
The European Union is facing the biggest unsolved problem ever since its
existence, its politics has utterly failed and jeopardizes its member states and the
whole of Europe.
With the current response to the invasion of illegal migrants, it has turned out that
eventually each country will have to deal with the crisis individually and only a pure
nation-state is able and willing to primarily protect its borders and its country against
mass immigration colonization.
The end of the Union Could be a Great Start
The advantage of a united Europe is that any State can benefit as a member of
the European Economic Area and Schengen. And every country should have its
own responsibility, it chooses which regulations, codes and standards want to
adopt or not. That is a big thing, because European standards are a heavy burden
for many European companies in the competitive struggle mainly with Asian
economies that manufacture and produce virtually without any rules.
The end of the Union can be a great start to arrange alliances in Europe, so it
would be convenient for everyone.
Less is Sometimes More
Economists warn that “diminishing marginal returns is the ruthless law” of
a true integration in the Union. As written by Czech ex-president Klaus: When
having the same weights and measures, it is good to perform the same signs as
48
49
Sir Richard Body
Former Conservative Member of
UK Parliament
England will never fit in the European Union
Intellectuals on the Left shy away from speaking about a Nation. For them a
Nation can only be a crowd of diverse people who have nothing in common
except they happen to live in the same country. For anyone patriotically inclined
a Nation is a people so homogenous it has one mind frame in which a culture is
formed by many influences. These influences that interact may include religion,
history, a sense of justice, philosophy and geography as well as customs, habits
and traditions. A culture so formed is not imitable for it has a literature which
lets a culture evolve as it passes from one generation to another.
A culture is important as it tells of how a people may think, what it wants to
have and also what it wants the Government to do. A Government is unable to
do anything at all unless it primarily takes away people’s freedom or money.
It achieves the first by legislation and the second by taxation. These powers
may be used moderately when they will be accepted by the nation but they
can be used excessively to cause injustices and oppression. On the Continent
this has caused violence and revolution. England on the other hand has settled
political differences in peace for more than three centuries. All the countries
on the Continent have known some kind of revolution. England has also had
a revolution, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, carried out in peace by a king
who left to live abroad. These are not the only differences between the cultures
on the Continent and England, there are several others that deserve to be
emphasized.
Firstly there is geography. This has made England an offshore island
separated from the mainland by a sea wide enough to have prevented invasion
for nearly 1000 years. It has given the English a sense of security and isolation
has prompted her to laugh at the cultural ways on the mainland.
50
Secondly, the English have the freedom of worship; ever since 1661 when Charles
II was restored to the throne and decreed that there should be freedom of worship,
ordering the release of men and women imprisoned by Cromwell for their religious
views. England is firmly Protestant with an established church linked to the state and
was controlled by Parliament until the 20th Century. It has many denominations,
some so small as to have only one or two chapels whereas on the Continent religion
is not so varied.
Thirdly is a sense of justice. England’s criminal justice system is founded on ‘Trial
by Jury’ which consists of the defendants peers. England’s civil law is called Common
Law, founded centuries ago on existing customs which have since been enlarged or
modified by judges. On the Continent it is quite different.
A less obvious factor in a culture is philosophy. Here we have a stark difference
between the continent and England. All the continental philosophers have done
much to influence our opinion such as Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Spinoza
and believed that they could find truth by reasoning. On the other hand England’s
great philosophers such as John Locke, David Hume, JS Mills have been empiricists
and have done so much to influence our thinking. They believe that experience leads
us to the truth by induction and not deduction.
The philosophy of the former have been authoritarian because it’s reasoning can
be done by one man whilst the philosophy of the latter is libertarian and will include
the experiences of everyone.
Finally, the architects of the European Union envisage a European Nation. This
means that the cultures of some 40 nations must be fused into one or the European
Nation becomes homogeneous. To expect 500 million Europeans to agree is asking
too much.
The nations of mainland Europe will be no less determined than the English to hold
onto their separate cultures and the hope that Europe will have one nation with one
culture will melt away.
51
Rise of the European Patriots
The rise of the Dutch Patriots:
Party for Freedom
during a debate on the migration crisis, has named the Dutch Parliament a fake
parliament (´nep parlement´).
With so much momentum it is now a realistic scenario that the PVV will be
governing after the March 2017 national elections. That is, if the current government
does not collapse prior to the planned election cycle. From 2010 to 2012 the PVV
already supported the Dutch Government of Christian Democrats (CDA) and Liberals
(VVD), in a support agreement (gedoogakkoord). Chances now are, based on the
current polls that the Party for Freedom will govern; as it would be allowed take the
initiative to negotiate a coalition government.
The PVV´s momentum is part of a broader European phenomenon of a rise of
patriotic parties. Parties across Europe that plea for controlled migration want to
limit EU powers, and restore national sovereignty. It is also a manifestation of the
general discontent of the peoples in Europe with the political establishment and the
problems the ruling elites have failed to tackle for decades.
The Dutch political landscape has undergone a seismic shift with the rise of
the Party For Freedom (PVV) led by Geert Wilders. The party is best known for
its oppossition to Islam and Islamisation, its calls to stop mass-migration and
leaving the EU. The Party for Freedom propagates a Nexit, i.e. the Netherlands
leaving the EU. The party would prefer intergovernmental (trade) relations with
other states in a Switzerland type of arrangement.
In 2009 the party entered the European parliament with four MEPs. The
PVV has 4 MEPs in the current legislature. Feared by the political and media
establishments in the Netherlands, it has massive support among the Dutch
population. It is currently leading the opinion polls with a margin that is virtually
unheard of. According to some polls in February 2016, if elections would be
held today it would get 42 of the 150 seat Parliament (Tweede Kamer), the
equivalent of 28%. As the Netherlands is a multiparty system with currently
11 political parties and several independent MPs, 42 seats in the polls makes
the PVV a very powerful political force in the Netherlands. The numbers in the
opinion polls, if realized, makes it even larger than the ruling VVD (Liberals)
with its 41 seats. In fact, in the polls it dwarfs the second party in the polls, the
Christian democrats (19 seats).
This immense popularity of the Party for Freedom stems from the party’s
consistent opposition to islamisation, disapproval with mass migration and its
discontent with the EU. The PVV´s priority is to protect Dutch national identity
and interests, and taking care of Dutch citizens, in particular the sick and elderly.
Although the Dutch elites still stick to the old dogma´s of multiculturalism and
EU’s ever closer union, the success of the PVV proves that the Dutch population
holds a very different view. Indeed, the gap between Dutch parliamentary
representatives and the people is so large that PVV party leader Geert Wilders,
52
53
autumn 2015, even though a few months later several similar decisions were taken
by those politicians who were the first to condemn him earlier.
Rise of Hungary’s Patriots
What lies behind Viktor Orbán’s
Migration Policy?
Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, with the strongest electoral mandate
in Europe is criticized both by the European Union and the United States for his
anti-migration rhetoric.
In the spring of 2015, PM Orbán drew the attention of the EU to the upcoming
migration crisis, several months ahead of other mainstream European
politicians. His words were neither heard, nor well-received by most of the
leaders. Orbán’s main point was that the Hungarian authorities are no longer
able to protect the external borders of the European Union, because millions of
people are arriving, without any controls or information, from countries outside
the European Union. The Hungarian security agencies, secret services and the
Counter-terrorism Centre have been continuously warning the Hungarian
government that there will be serious implications for security as a result.
So the Hungarian government decided to construct a border fence between
Serbia and Hungary in order to protect the country and its own citizens, as well
as to protect Europe and European citizens by not letting people enter the EU
territory illegally. Contrary to the official EU opinion, the Hungarian Government
dared to point out that mass migration is not desirable at the moment, and that
most of the migrants are not refugees but economic migrants, often coming
from a completely different cultural, religious, social and economic background
to the EU. The majority of migrants are young or middle aged men and the
unaccompanied children between 14 -18 are mostly young boys, which may
result in gender imbalance in Europe in addition to many other challenges.
The Centre Right Hungarian Government was acting in the spirit of Europe
and in the spirit of respecting the EU Treaties, however the timing did not suit
the European politicians because it was premature to express such ideas and
to implement such physical measures. PM Orbán had been widely criticized in
54
In the summer, Austria’s interior minister, Johanna Mikl Leitner, strongly condemned
Hungary’s decision, saying: “Anyone who wants to have a Europe without borders,
needs to respect the Schengen rules and comply with Dublin III Conventions.”
A few months later Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann had been pursuing a
“campaign of lies” against Hungary, when he likened Orbán’s treatment of refugees
to the Nazis’ deportation of Jews and others to concentration camps. Whilst the
German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not condemn Hungary openly, in the Group
Meeting of the European People’s Party Group (EPP) in the European Parliament she
talked about the similarities between the Berlin Wall and the Hungarian border fence
declaring that all walls must fall.
PM Orbán pointed out that in his country there are no-Muslim minorities, therefore
the majority of migrants would have difficulties being assimilated, and Hungarians
would have difficulties integrating them. Donald Tusk, President of the European
Council, said Orbán was being “un-Christian” in stoking a clash of civilisations
between the west and Islam.
Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, and Martin Schulz,
President of the European Parliament, voiced their disagreements and called Orbán
“Europe’s leading bad boy”. Due to this misinterpretation, the United Nations also
condemned Orbán’s actions as inhumane and unacceptable when in September the
Hungarian government started to post ads in Lebanese, Albanian, Serbian, Turkish
newspapers warning people not to attempt to enter Hungary illegally.
The current migration crisis revealed a fundamental split within the European
political parties. Centre right politician, PM Viktor Orbán, whose party is a member of
the EPP Group alongside Angela Merkel’s and Rober Fico, Socialist Prime Minister of
Slovakia, leader of the Smer-SD, member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of
the Socialist and the Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D), think very much
alike when it comes to European migration politics. Both of them want to protect
their countries, their citizens and their boarders, as the EU is not able to do so at
European level.
In autumn when PM Fico expressed that Slovakia is ready to take migrants on
condition that they must have Christian values. The European Socialist Party was
considering the exclusion of Smer-SD. PM Fico is still convinced that the Muslim
migrants would not feel good in a country that does not have a single mosque and
the major cultural differences would result in individual frustration. In January 2016,
he openly called the EU migration policy as a “ritual suicide”, and has been calling the
EU to make an end of this uncontrolled daily flow.
Representatives of the Czech Republic pointed out very simple logistical problems
55
which are related to the language barrier between citizens and migrants. In
Eastern almost only Europe university professors speak Arabic, therefore the
integration of migrants who become students would be extremely costly and
difficult.
The recently elected Polish Prime Minister, Beata Sydlo, whose right-wing party
PiS is a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) sent
a firm message to the EU in her inauguration speech: “The issue of refugees is
making us aware that the question of solidarity must be defined clearly. One
cannot call attempts to export problems, which some countries have created
without others’ participation, solidarity.”
The European Commission (with the encouragement of Germany) has been
pushing: the politics of “welcoming all possible migrants” which has resulted in
estranging the Eastern European countries and has given rise to patriotic parties
as well. PM Fico several times declared that he sees the European “Welcome
Culture” as an utter failure.
The Hungarian Government together with the Members of the Visegrád
Alliance (Slovakia, Czech Republic and Poland) commonly rejected the European
Commission’s schemes on the quota system for relocation and resettlement of
migrants. PM Orbán has even announced an upcoming referendum on the EU
quota plan in Hungary.
Together them, they want to eliminate all forms of illegal migration that Europe
is facing. The four Visegrád countries are sharing their views and are trying to
limit the federalist ideas of the EU. They are commonly controlling the border
between Serbia and Hungary in a sign of real cooperation, and they are also
helping in the reinforcement of the border control in Macedonia and Bulgaria,
because they believe Greece is no longer able to protect the external EU border.
Even though the majority of the citizens of these countries agree with their
governments’ migration politics, international organizations such as the UNHCR
keep criticising them, saying that Visegrád Four Alliance should demonstrate
more solidarity towards migrants.
taboo in Western Europe, but totally accepted and getting stronger in the Visegrád
countries. However, the Eastern European countries may lose today by leaving the EU
as they are still on the path of economic development, compared to Britain, which is
a country with an independent past and stronger economic background.
Written by Jouteux-Kada Ágnes, ENF Group Advisor in the Committee on Civil
Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Visegrád Alliance: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary
At the last Visegrád Summit in Prague, Viktor Orbán had pointed out that
currently there are approximately 38,5 million migrants living in countries
around EU. This mass of people can start moving towards the Member States
at any moment. In order to manage this unwanted flow, the Visegrád Group has
outlined a new plan to protect the common EU borders and to commonly block
the migration flow at the Balkans route. This unanimous proposal of the Eastern
European countries is not in line with the German desire and deeply offends
Chancellor Merkel’s interest.
PM Orbán decided to impose strict controls of the external borders by giving
priority to the Visegrád Alliance regional cooperation above the EU. Since the fall
of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the gap has never been as wide
between Germany and the Visegrád Four as today. The newly emerging forces
in Eastern Europe increasingly include anti-EU and nationalist rhetoric which is a
56
57
Patriotic Parties
and their support across Europe
All over Europe patriotic parties are on the rise. These parties stand for a
restoration of independence and national sovereignty. Patriotic parties want to
either drastically limit EU powers or leave the EU altogether. Election results and
opinion polls are encouraging, revealing the immense support they receive
from the peoples across Europe.
58
•
Front National in France received 28% of the votes during the first round of
2015 regional elections.
•
Lega Nord scores in average 30% of the votes in the North of Italy and around
15 % countrywide.
•
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders´ Party for Freedom is far ahead in the polls
with 28%.
•
In Austria, Austrian´s Freedom Party (FPÖ) consistently scores over 30% in the
polls, putting it in first place.
•
In Poland, the Eurosceptics from Congress of the New Right and the governing
Law and Justice received a combined 37% of the votes in the 2015 General
elections.
•
In Flanders, Flemish interest is gaining momentum again with currently over
11% of the votes in the polls.
•
In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats are the largest party in the opinion polls,
scoring 28%.
•
Similarly in Denmark the Danish people´s party lead the polls with 20%.
•
The Finns Party, after receiving 17% of the votes in the last general election,
are currently governing in Finland.
•
Hungary´s Victor Orbán and his Fidesz-KDNP are governing after receiving
a staggering 44% of the votes, that guaranteed 66.83% of the seats in the
national parliament
•
Meanwhile, in Germany, the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) has risen from
4.7% in the 2013 national elections to 13% currently.
59
Conclusion
At the time of writing the date for the referendum has now been confirmed
as 23rd June 2016.
Having looked at the ‘negotiation’ and attended the Conference of Presidents
on behalf of my group, I know that Mr Cameron cannot deliver change.
EU leaders were incensed that he chose to meet a small number of party
leaders, shunning the Greens, the GUE, ENF and EFDD. This was a strategic
error, mainly because Cameron did not want to be in the room with myself and
Nigel Farage.
The four groups he shunned represent hundreds of MEPs. Most of those MEPs
believe in a social and just Europe. That all citizens are equal. The derogatory
term of ‘migrants’ to describe workers who seek jobs in other EU countries is
detested by most. You are either an EU citizen or you are not. To have a twospeed, second class EU is unworkable and undemocratic. Either you sign up to
the whole regime or you go.
Mr Cameron has not delivered for the British people because he has not
asked for real change and secondly, what he has secured amounts to 1% of
what he actually asked for.
Hollande and Merkel have both said there will be no treaty change. The
EU’s treatment of our country and prime minister has been like dealing with a
recalcitrant child at nursery school.
Those of us who want Out know that he could never deliver meaningful
change. It will be the slick salesman - which he is good at - selling the Emperor’s
New Clothes but the British public are not stupid and the debate has already
been very well covered in the media.
The outcome will depend on a number of factors:
1. Mr. Cameron is not selling his vision of the UK in a reformed EU very well.
2. Mr. Corbyn’s Labour is campaigning for In, even though his natural
instinct is Out. It is another fight he does not want with his own enemies within,
who are strongly In supporters.
60
3. The migrant crisis is not diminishing as was thought because of the onset of
winter. Calais gets worse, jihadi attacks, Charlie Hebdo, Paris and now Brussels and
the continuing threat to the UK, terrorists seeping through our porous borders, the
sex attacks across the continent and the inability or political will to reject Schengen,
the free movement of people and failure to close our external borders.
Unfortunately, I predict that it will be the migrant and jihadi crises that will
determine the outcome of the referendum, not our loss of sovereignty, the need
to re-assert democracy, the problems with the European Courts (human rights and
justice) and not the need to reform CAP or other domestic issues.
It is a shame but it is events, dear boy, events that sometimes determine outcomes,
no matter what the politicians say or do.
What happens if Brexit fails? The Right needs to unite across Europe.
It is a possibility. What’s the contingency plan? The uniting of the Right.
There were some moves to do this in Britain before the 2014 European elections.
Honourable people such as Toby Young, Dan Hannan MEP and others dreamed of
uniting Ukip and others back into one big ‘Conservative family’.
I was fully supportive, I was and remain a committed Thatcherite. And then I started
campaigning across the south east. I knew that Ukip got support from across the
political divide but what we didn’t realise was the Labour support in the south east
was very high. When former mining villages in Kent vote Ukip and support me, a
loud and proud Conservative, I knew we were onto something and could probably
get four or five Ukip MEPs in our region (we previously had 2-3 depending on how
the wind was blowing).
The Uniters were citing how Canadian politics had to go through similar infighting
and splitting before uniting under Stephen Harper. The plan was that if we united
then Labour would be consigned to the opposition benches forever. Well, certainly
in England and, following a disastrous 2015 election for Labour in Scotland, this is
certainly still a possibility.
On election night I was asked by a prominent politician to help Unite the Right. And
whilst I believe this has to happen it is very difficult when Ukip are now pitching for
the Labour vote in the north of England ahead of the next General Election. Whether
this will work for Ukip I am not so sure but all the time that Farage and Cameron hate
each other than any unification will not work.
Then there was the inevitable in-fighting, and the plan was dropped at the behest
of Mr Cameron, I am told.
I do not know exactly what went on behind the scenes but this predicament is not
unique to British politics.
If Britain fails to vote Brexit then to save our nation states the only way forward is
for all the conservative and right-leaning parties in the European Union to form a
large block.
61
If they were to be pragmatic about it (but politics will get in the way) a new
alliance may look something like this:
If the ENF would join forces with the EFDD (without the Italian 5 Star movement)
this group would consist of 66 Members from 11 different countries.
If this group would be joined by eurosceptic parties such as The Finns,
Germany´s AfD, Danish People´s Party and Orban´s party from Hungary, this
´United Right´ would have 86 members from 15 different countries, making it the
third largest political force in the European Parliament.
However, ever the optimist, I believe voters will vote for Brexit and the above is
up to the remaining European political groups to decide.
62
MEP Janice Atkinson (Editor)
33787
Vice President of the Europe of Nations and Freedom Group
in the European Parliament