First Denmark, now France – Europe's dominoes are falling one by one
Marine Le Pen is right to say that Brexit would sink the EU. If the Eurocrats have any sense they'll give David Cameron what he wants

How will the European Union elites respond to the extraordinary success of the Front National in France’s regional elections? If recent history is any guide, they will try to pretend it didn’t happen. It is almost an article of faith in Brussels to ignore the concerns of the people. They are not to be trusted – and if you doubt that, just look at the ghastly parties they vote for.
Over the past 30 years, referendums in a number of countries have rejected plans to extend the reach of the EU’s institutions, only for voters to be told – twice in Ireland’s case – to think again. When a big country that cannot be bullied says “No”, as France did against the grandiose new constitution in 2007, the remedy was to recast the proposals in treaty form and ram them through that way.
But the time for turning a blind eye has gone. France, the most “communautaire” country in the EU, has had enough, or a large chunk of it has. In the first round of the regional elections, the FN secured 28 per cent of the vote, more than Ukip achieved here in 2014’s European elections. An institution created to dismantle the continental nation states that nurtured the rise of political extremism in the last century is now producing the conditions for its revival.
No longer can the UK be depicted as the most Eurosceptic country in the 28-member organisation. Indeed, anti-EU sentiment is on the rise everywhere. Last week, a referendum in Denmark rejected a government proposal to give European judges the final say over internal justice and home affairs matters, which would have reversed the opt-out the Danes obtained in 1992 in order to abandon their objections to the Maastricht Treaty. Voters were assailed with apocalyptic post-Paris warnings of the foolhardiness of not opting in to EU security arrangements. They were told that if they wanted to lie safe in their beds, they should agree to the new procedures.
But the Danes, like many in Europe, have lost faith in the promises of their politicians. They judged that the EU was not a defence against terrorists, international criminals, and mass immigration, but their cause. In France, Marine le Pen, the leader of the FN, aroused similar worries in a country that remains in a state of emergency after the worst terrorist atrocity in its recent history, while having shown no signs of economic recovery since the crash of 2008.
What does all this mean for David Cameron’s efforts to renegotiate Britain’s terms of membership ahead of a referendum here? At the very least, the French result should concentrate the minds of EU leaders desperate to stop the project collapsing. Miss Le Pen said a British exit from the EU would be “like the fall of the Berlin Wall” in its geopolitical impact, and she was not exaggerating.
There is a tendency for pro-Europeans to cast Mr Cameron as the pantomime villain to be booed and sneered at for triggering a referendum that has put his premiership in jeopardy. But he holds a far better hand than even he realised, which is why so many Eurosceptics feel his set of tame negotiating points are a missed opportunity to alter radically Britain’s relationship with the rest of the EU.
Mr Cameron scaled back his demands because he was being told that the Europeans would not agree to them. But, faced with the implosion of their great idea, who knows what they might have been prepared to give? We are reliably informed that next week’s EU summit in Brussels will not reach a conclusion on the UK’s four points and that this delay somehow represents a mortal blow to Mr Cameron. But official sources have for weeks been playing down the prospect of deal at this meeting. In any case, such an outcome would have exposed the whole exercise as a charade.
There is a time-honoured choreography to these events and everyone has to play their part. The Commission and its cheerleaders must scoff at the British demands and refuse to accede to them until Hell freezes over. Then, the Government denounces the other side and questions whether a deal is even possible. Mutterings are made about the Prime Minister reluctantly campaigning to leave because his fellow leaders are being so obdurate. Then, lo and behold, another summit is held to consider Britain’s position and an agreement is struck.
The model for this is the Fontainebleau process in 1984 by which Mrs Thatcher obtained a budget rebate for the UK. The myth is that she got everything she wanted when in fact she was forced to compromise, as Mr Cameron will need to do over the issue of benefit qualification rules for EU workers. But is the rest of the EU prepared to bring down the whole edifice over whether claimants should wait one, two or three years before claiming in-work benefits, even if it does infringe the “no discrimination” rule?
In his letter to leaders ahead of the summit, Donald Tusk, the EU Council president, said “there is presently no consensus” on this point. But a way through will be found; it always is. And what is going on in France, Denmark, Poland and the east European states, where fences are erected against the influx of migrants, should make those running the EU realise that their great ideal is facing an existential crisis. Perhaps they simply cannot see it. But they would be mad not to give Mr Cameron enough wriggle room to claim some sort of triumph on which he can campaign to stay in.
However, we might be past the stage now where that would make any difference. A deus ex machina under a supportive Dutch presidency at the summit in February may no longer be enough to win a referendum here, given the mood of electorates around the EU. The pro-European campaigners are likely to rely heavily on fear and uncertainty about the future to sway UK voters to stay in. Yet it is precisely these anxieties that are now turning people away from the EU’s beguiling paternalism, a disenchantment that may convince the British voters to leave.
In Europe, many people no longer see the EU, with its open borders and single currency, as guarantors of security and prosperity – but as conveyors of terror and unemployment. And an embryonic super-state that cannot fulfil its basic function to protect and enrich its citizens is doomed.

Bron: The Telegraph, 7 december 2015, 18:37,
First Denmark, now France – Europe's dominoes are falling one by one

Mening:
De Europese Unie staat op een gevaarlijk randje de afgelopen paar maanden, zo lijkt. Het Verenigd Koninkrijk staat, zoals ik in een eerder artikel al vermeld had, op het punt om de Europese Unie te verlaten, de zogenaamde "Brexit" van het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Persoonlijk lijkt mij het absoluut niet goed dat zowel de Franse bevolking als de Britse bevolking zo ongelofelijk "eurosceptisch" is, zoals het artikel zegt. Er wordt volgens die bevolkingsgroepen te weinig uit de Europese Unie gehaald, terwijl er te veel ingestoken wordt. Ik vind de tendens in de stemoriëntatie van de bevolking eerder "dismal", neerslachtig en zwart, wat ergens begrijpelijk is als je kijkt in wat voor tijden we momenteel leven, post-Parijs. Het zou volgens mij veel beter zijn, moest de gewone bevolking kunnen nuanceren in zijn stem, zonder daarbij vanuit het ene extreme in het andere extreme te vallen. Aan de andere kant vind ik wel dat, zoals in het artikel staat, de mensen die hogerop staan, net iets te snel zeggen dat "de mensen die zo stemmen, hetzelfde zijn als de partijen waar ze op stemmen." Het is niet omdat de mensen zo stemmen, dat ze zich vereenzelvigen met de idealen van de partij waar ze voor stemmen. Hun visie is gewoon verduisterd en geradicaliseerd nadat de aanslagen er geweest zijn. Ik ben ook verontrust over het feit dat op de website van het artikel, een poll staat waarin 14% stemt om in de EU te blijven en 86% stemt om te vertrekken.