What Does Europe Want?

Giving into the demands of upset citizens, different political parties began to campaign with planks in their platforms dedicated to legally destroying immigration. The Austrian Freedom Party, for instance, campaigned to increase the amount of laws that prevent immigration and to make it more difficult for non-Austrians to live and work amongst the Austrian people (Doc 6). By creating a platform to change a country’s laws, it is clear Europeans were so upset with immigration that they wanted to make fundamental changes in their governments’ policies. People were unhappy with how their society was transforming and they wanted to put official rules in place that would allow Europe to return to its former state. Enoch Powell, a member of the Conservative Party, brought this common desire to light by explaining that people did not want to live in a country filled with immigrants, so action needed to be taken in order to curb the high immigration levels (Doc 2). The fact that many Europeans wanted politicians to take a stand against immigration shows how upset people were with the rising numbers of immigration, which became roughly 500,000 immigrants per year. By involving the government, European citizens were able to project their anti-immigration sentiment into the rest of the continent. Involving politicians and political parties shows how adament some Europeans were about keeping foreigners out of

In the recent referendum that took place 14th September 2014. The people of Scotland were asked, “Should Scotland become an independent country?” They had the choice of ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The outcome was 2,001,926 (55.30%) no and 1,617,989 (44.70%) yes, which meant

Following Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton’s comments on the ‘danger’ of ‘uneducated and illiterate’ refugees and immigrants being accepted into Australia, debate resurfaced regarding the issue of asylum seekers and immigrants in general, and whether refugees deserved to be resettled in Australia. In an opinion piece for The Age newspaper, Kon Karapanagiotidis argues that Peter Dutton’s claims are false and that on the contrary, refugees and immigrants have much to contribute to Australian society. His arguments are fashioned in a heavily emotive tone, and overall the piece is compelling and compassionate while also heatedly opposing Dutton’s views.

Democracy, by Abraham Lincoln’s definition, is ‘’government of the people, by the people, for the people’’ and referendums allow this to happen. They allow the people to make direct decisions on issues rather than allowing representatives to do so. This means that everyone gets a say and therefore encouraging and promoting political participation. As Dr. Adam Quinn, a senior professor of international politics at Birmingham University says, referendums “intrinsic worth is an exercise in direct democracy. Referendum campaigns engage national publics, often passive and sometimes actively excluded, in the business of political debate and decision-making. Those who see virtue in the idea of a more direct link between the popular will and the levers of power, therefore, admire them as an instrument of empowerment for the too-often neglected people”. Dr. Quinn describes how, using referendums, the majority of the public can take political matters into their own hands. This can be seen when looking at the 1997 election turnout of 76% compared to the turnout in the 1998 referendum ‘The Good Friday Agreement’ in Northern Ireland that had an 81% turnout, considerably higher than the election turnout. This would suggest that referendums do actively strengthen democracy because it allows the decision to be made by the very same people who will be affected by the

25: ‘The use of referendums in the UK since 1997 has done little to strengthen democracy.’ Discuss.

Born out of patriotism, xenophobia and a desire to “mark the moral boundaries of society” (Critcher, 2003, p.5), uncertainty over immigrants “resonates with deep-rooted anxieties about Australia’s national identity and way of life” (Martin, 2015, p.1). Following the ‘Signification Spiral’ model (Poynting & Morgan, 2007, pp.3-4), the issue of refugees intensified after September 11 2001, whereby inextricable links were produced between terrorism and Muslim boat people, eventually leading to the identification of refugees as fearful invaders. The Federal Elections that year took the emphasis away from domestic topics, and stressed national security and border protection (Mares, 2002, p.1); forming a moral panic that has remained up to the present day. Further, these groups as an entirety were associated with other problems occurring at the same time – embodying the concept of ‘convergence’ by linking refugees to increased violence, terrorism, wastage of the taxpayer’s money on ‘foreigners’ and the straining of resources and

Contemporary study on political opinions concerning immigration frequently pits points of view highlighting economic self-interest versus cultural or ideological rationalization. They (studies) are also based on the particular immigration policy at hand at the time, therefore, addressing only the power of that particular policy.

Moreover, even when looking at the people who did vote and the outcome which was achieved, referendums can never truly represent everyone and meet society’s needs as a whole. This is because although a majority of people voted a certain way, there is usually a very slim margin between this and the

Some experts argue that the recent rise in xenophobic promises and policies in European countries has to do with the populace’s fear over job loss, pensions and benefits cutting, and a fear in the loss of a national identity—which some

For decades immigration has been a long-standing and often controversial economic issue surrounding governments. However more recently it has become the central theme engulfing debate on public policy. As a direct consequence, many academics, believe immigration to be the primary fuel for the rising support of populist movements, which have disrupted the fiscal landscape in many of the world's western economies (Betz, 1994). Many notable economists and political scientists, such as Inglehart and Norris (2016) believe that these "anti-immigration sentiments" have had large resulting global economic impacts, such as the EU Brexit referendum and the resulting political and global financial market uncertainty that followed. This is further evidenced

While immigration does harbor benefits to our economy, culture, and lifestyle, we believed that it must be controlled to protect the citizens of Britain first. When renegotiating terms with the EU, we will assert the stance that EU migrants must reside and contribute within the UK for at least four years before receiving welfare benefits such as child benefits, tax credits, and consideration for council housing. By doing so, the financial incentive will be reduced for lower skilled laborers to migrate to the UK. We will introduce reform into the system to crack down on illegal immigration and overstayed visas by putting sanctions on businesses and colleges that fail to enforce that their migrant students or workers are here on legal grounds (“The Conservative Party Manifesto”).

The Immigration’s Political Policies have gone through great political changes since the turn of the 20th century for many countries. The legal and moral issues within these countries like Syria, Mexico, Germany, Ireland and other countries concerning immigration have been debated and continue to be debated through the political views within the government each and every day. Individuals within the political realm who believe that it is morally wrong for a country to deny immigration status argue that immigration promotes democracy, egalitarianism and libertarianism but on the other hand, people who believe that countries have every right to deny individuals who seek immigration argue that immigration taints the cultural roots of a country, weakens national security and reduces the natural resources that would have been distributed to the original citizens of that country.

The article “European Populists Who Aped Brexit and Trump Rethink Their Approach” by Stacy Meichtry, Anton Troianovski and Marcus Walker, supports the idea that globalization is an ideology. However, the populist politicians believed this would be a year that they shook up the establishment, instead, their attacks on the European Union brought election losses. This has caused the populist politicians to rethink their positions. Most of Europe’s far-right politicians believe now that their attempt to align themselves with the antiestablishment uprising behind the U.K.’s vote to exit the EU and Trump’s U.S. presidential victory backfired. A far-right National Front parliamentary candidate Hervé de Lépinau, attacked his own party, saying that making a French exit from the euro part of their platform was an absurdity. While the far-right and populist parties is running high, with the economy gaining steam, some voters say it wouldn’t take much for them to switch their support back.

Analyses show that by 2015 voter survey, the Leave campaign had a massive impact on the older population who was tired of the government ignoring them and not listening to their stresses. A portion of the votes to leave was done so in frustration in hopes it would get their officials attention, rather than actually wanting to actually break with the European Union. UKIP supporters have been predicted to be the driving force in the name of leave, coupled with the Conservative party and the Labor-Liberal Democrats the “Vote Leave” was pushed through the media by storm to circulated what they deemed as a well-needed independence.

However, it was not the anti-EU sentiment among Brits that ultimately lead them to vote for a withdrawal, it was the anti-establishment sentiment found in the recent resurgence of populism. This rise in populist, anti-establishment voting patterns is not an isolated tendency. It happened in America with the election of Donald Trump; and it happened in the UK with the referendum vote to withdrawal from the EU. Populism is not likely to isolate itself in those two countries, it is very likely to affect politics all over Europe and the world. In fact, a quick look at the results of the recent French presidential election will show that populism has already taken a grip on the majority of French voters. The two political parties battling for the presidency in the final round of elections were the Nationalist Front and the En Marche!. The Nationalist Front is a 44 year old party that is described as a “right-wing populist and nationalist political party”[15]. This populist party received the vote of 34% of French voters. En Marche! was created in