The Tribune

A tidal wave of refugees and prolonged economic stagnation are fuelling discontent and identity crises in countries across Europe, Peter Young says . . .

Amidst the current fierce controversy surrounding Britain’s future in Europe, the rise of nationalism on the continent seems so far to have escaped serious public and media scrutiny.

While NATO is responsible overall for the defence of Europe, claims that the European Union (EU) continues to maintain peace amongst its 28 member states within the bloc are now looking increasingly hollow as existing divisions and conflict grow.

Terrorism and moves towards closer integration are causing concern. But the two main issues, together with a wave of anti-establishment populism, seem to be the refugee crisis and economic stagnation and uncertainty arising mainly from a faltering eurozone. These have aroused alienation, xenophobia, fear and distrust amongst individual EU countries, leading to widespread discontent and a resurgence of nationalism involving mostly far-right extremism.

The consequent disarray has become sufficiently serious for seasoned and respected commentators now to suggest that the EU has become ‘a union of discontent’, to such an extent that the whole project could unravel, and that this will become more likely if Britain decides in its referendum later this month to leave. Even the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, has now stated publicly that the dream of a one-Europe enshrined in the treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon has become an illusion.

The worsening migrant situation involving the mass movement of people in an upheaval which threatens to swamp Europe has resulted in growing pressure from public opinion to return to the security of national borders in place of the Schengen agreement, which allows passport-free travel among its signatory states.

In the face of increasing social tensions and unrest, the reaction of EU countries to the migrant crisis has varied from Germany’s open-door policy to Middle East refugees to a tough anti-immigrant stance by countries like Hungary, Poland, Austria, the Czech Republic, Croatia and Slovakia, some of which have erected border fences; and, in defence of what they see as their national interest, they have rejected the imposition by Brussels of refugee quotas.

German leaders regard acceptance of refugees as an obligation in upholding European values, while former Soviet bloc nations place greater emphasis on protecting the way of life and newly-won rights and freedoms of their own citizens.

This tidal wave of migration to Europe from the Middle East and North Africa will surely continue as a result of the turbulence and destabilisation there - and Italy and Greece, as the first points of entry, will struggle to cope with overwhelming flows of new migrants, some of whom are genuine refugees escaping conflict in their own lands while others are simply looking for a better life elsewhere.

Linked to this is the issue of free movement of people within the EU, which is causing difficulty for the rich northern nations like Britain whose generous welfare system is a magnet for those from the relatively poorer south as well as for new migrants who succeed in entering an EU country and gaining the right to stay. This situation will be exacerbated by the admission to EU membership of so-called accession countries like Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and, most of all, Turkey, whose citizens are soon to have visa-free travel to the bloc.

As for the economy, the French finance minister has said that Europe is experiencing the most prolonged period of stagnation and instability (made worse by sanctions against Russia, its third largest trading partner, over Crimea and Ukraine), as well as political unrest, since the end of the Second World War.

There is a growing realisation that the eurozone is a flawed concept because of the disparities between its members’ economies, which cannot operate with the same interest and exchange rates. The only hope for its survival is to impose more centralisation with some sort of fiscal and banking union and further restrictions on the economic independence of its member states.

While Spain, Portugal and, to a lesser extent, Italy, have experienced economic difficulties, Greece’s indebtedness, in particular, has required bailouts from the European Central Bank and the imposition of austerity measures. But, with a serious economic downturn, there is now opposition from within the EU to its propping up Greece financially and, more generally, to the prospect of the northern nations continuing to provide fiscal transfers to the south even though these are conditional on imposing more control over the national budgets of the recipient countries.

The level of public discontent and the demand for change is clearly growing. Perhaps the most striking example of political upheaval has been in Austria, where the far-right Freedom Party came within a hair’s-breadth of winning the recent presidential election. In France, too, where riots against reforms to rigid labour laws are causing havoc, the anti-EU and anti-immigrant National Front has steadily become a real political force in what has been described as a battle between the ‘sovereigntists and globalists’.

There is a rise in nationalist and anti-immigration sentiment in Germany, with a far-right party surging in the polls, and similar trends in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands - where an anti-Islam and anti-immigration party is thriving - while in Spain the left-wing Podemos party has ended traditional party politics and Greece has had a far-left government since 2015.

All this has changed the political landscape of Europe. Confidence in the EU amongst the general public in its member states is waning, though the poorer Baltic and southern ones value membership as a bulwark against Russian expansionism and as a route to EU funding.

The response of the EU Commission to opposition or setbacks in relation to the EU’s progress towards ever-increasing union is invariably ‘more and more Europe’ with excessive interference and regulation from Brussels. However, some now say that enforcing integration and common policies across a continent through a centralised bureaucracy will no longer work.

The EU has succeeded in its original aim of keeping the peace between the traditional antagonists France and Germany, but its stubborn and unyielding insistence on transforming the organisation from a free trade area into a political and economic union has helped to precipitate a resurgence of the nationalism which it was designed to prevent.

The European Council president has conceded that eurocrats obsessed with the goal of a European superstate ignore the fact that the ordinary people of Europe do not share their enthusiasm and have little appetite for further integration at the political level.

The evidence suggests that, to many people, the nation states with their varied history, culture, traditions, customs, languages and way of life remain sacrosanct and should retain control over their own affairs (not least at the present time in relation to immigration) including responsibility for their own laws and justice systems.

Nonetheless, Europe as a geographical entity requires unity and co-operation among its many nations for the benefit of all, and this is already happening. The scope is enormous: free trade in a customs union and single market in goods and services, co-operation in areas like security and crime, the environment and scientific research together with cultural, educational, technological, medical and sporting exchanges.

In the view of many, however, such co-operation does not require full-scale political union and the absorption of individual nations into an EU federal state. If it is sufficiently wide-ranging, it should unite countries and ensure a substantial measure of interdependence at many levels so as to minimise or prevent the sort of international conflict which the EU was designed to pre-empt.

The rise of nationalism looks to be unstoppable if the EU continues on its existing path, but Donald Tusk has suggested a re-think and a new debate about its future development. He may yet go down in history as the man who prevented its collapse.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.