The Crocodile Tears of the Euro-defeatist Pouter
Not voting is casting your vote for the opponent
The recent European Parliament elections have concluded, with voter turnout hovering around fifty percent. The electorate can be broadly categorized into three distinct groups:
· Europhiles: These individuals, often described as "cosmopolitans," are comfortable with the European Union's current trajectory and hold no reservations regarding a more prominent European role.
· Fear-Motivated Voters: This group is driven by a deep apprehension of "radical right" parties gaining power. Consequently, they cast their ballots for socialist parties, even if their policy preferences diverge.
· Eurosceptics: This group advocates for significant change within the European Union. They believe the union should relinquish a considerable amount of power, with sovereignty returning to individual member states.
An examination of the recent European Parliament election results reveals a significant disparity. Approximately seventy percent of ballots cast expressed support for the European project, a clear majority compared to the thirty percent garnered by Eurosceptic parties. While the Eurosceptic tide has undeniably risen by five percent since the previous elections, such a shift represents a relatively modest change.
This discrepancy prompts a critical inquiry: how can member states, seemingly embracing a more conservative, nationalist course at the domestic level, maintain such steadfast adherence to the supranational ideal of the European Union? Does not discontent with the perceived overreach of technocratic governance, intrusive regulations, and the erosion of national autonomy fester within most member states?
Perhaps the answer lies not with those who actively participate in the electoral process, but with the substantial portion of the electorate who choose to abstain entirely. For many citizens, the European Union remains a remote entity, a political drama unfolding far beyond the immediate sphere of influence. This perception is further compounded by the opaque nature of the elections themselves. Voters cast ballots for national parties, often lacking transparency regarding the corresponding European faction they endorse and its underlying ideology. A party might vehemently oppose EU interference on the domestic stage, yet paradoxically join a pro-European coalition internationally. The Dutch BBB party serves as a case study: fiercely opposed to nitrogen regulations, they find themselves inexplicably wishing to align with the European faction championing these very restrictions. A cursory glance at the ballot could easily mislead a Eurosceptic voter into unwittingly supporting the very entity they oppose. Consequently, informed participation in European elections necessitates a degree of prior research, a hurdle a significant portion of the electorate is evidently unwilling to overcome.
Among those who abstain altogether resides a sizeable contingent of Euro-defeatists. These individuals harbor a profound sense of futility, convinced that their vote is a mere pebble tossed against an unstoppable avalanche. They view the European Parliament elections as a carefully orchestrated sham designed to perpetuate the illusion of democratic control. The EU, in their eyes, is an unaccountable entity beholden only to the demands of big business and bloated bureaucracies, with the concerns of the ordinary citizen relegated to obscurity. Casting their ballots is deemed a pointless exercise, a mere formality. Instead, they choose to stay at home, registering their discontent through a silent protest vote. When their self-fulfilling prophecy of Europhilic outcomes comes to pass, they erupt in pronouncements of vindication, triumphantly declaring, "See, I told you so!"
The consequences of inaction are undeniable; they are, in essence, the mirror image of the outcomes achieved through action. To abstain from voting is, by default, to cast a ballot for one's opponent. This fundamental truth eludes the Euro-defeatists. They, like all of us, are bound to the consequences of their choices. The EU's evolution has not transpired in defiance of our will, but rather with our tacit consent. For decades, we have either actively voted for parties that empower it, or passively acquiesced by failing to vote at all, thus indirectly granting this European superstate its legitimacy.
Ironically, the very arguments deployed by the Euro-defeatists to justify their apathy become compelling reasons to participate. Even those harboring an aversion to voting for "right-wing radical parties" (and I readily confess to being one such individual1) have alternative options. Parties exist that advocate for a reformed, less overbearing union, without seeking its complete dismantling. These options, potentially palatable even to a Euro-defeatist, were left wanting in the recent elections. A true missed opportunity.
While a single vote might feel insignificant, a collective effort can have a transformative impact. If all Eurosceptics took the initiative to vote, the entire outcome of the European elections could be demonstrably altered. Eurosceptic parties might not achieve immediate dominance, but they could solidify their position as a formidable minority. Such a strengthened opposition would compel the European Commission to adopt a more cautious approach, unable to simply steamroll over dissenting voices.
Beneath the surface, a current of discontent simmers regarding the perceived lack of democracy within the European Union. This discontent is often accompanied by fantastical notions of violent uprisings or public trials to punish the so-called "guilty parties." What is particularly striking about this phenomenon is the complete abdication of personal responsibility. Can one realistically expect the European Union to consider the concerns of those who relinquish their right to vote at crucial junctures? How can one lament the decline of democracy while simultaneously neglecting its core tenet: the right to vote? The democratic process is fundamentally straightforward: if one chooses not to make a selection, they are implicitly delegating that choice to others. This, too, is a cornerstone of democracy.
Is the European Union an opaque, undemocratic, technocratic superstate that habitually violates the fundamental rights of its citizens, restricts their freedoms, and seizes their financial resources? Indisputably! However, unlike many authoritarian regimes, the EU still permits periodic pronouncements of dissent. In the realm of democracy, silence is often interpreted as acquiescence. Be mindful of this fact!
For Dutch readers: you can read the same posts on my Dutch Substack Curlingkinderen:
While I hold no animosity towards right-wing populist parties, I firmly believe that National Socialism offers no remedy for the perceived ills wrought by globalization. In my view, a more constructive approach lies in the rekindling of independent thought and personal responsibility – principles I endeavor to explore more fully in my novel titled "Coddled Children."