What's happening in Europe? - The situation at the end of 2024

By Gerrit Jan Bouwhuis

Introduction

In the past months, several reviews of political developments in Europe were presented.  In this article I will give an update. The trends can be summarized as instability and intensified conflict. I describe the current political situation in several countries and in the EU organization. A broad outline is used to present what I see as the political essentials. Only a few numbers are used in this article. These can be found in the previous articles, especially in article 9. I discuss the countries from small to large and pay particular attention to countries where elections were held.

In general

The most important political dynamic in the West, as I see it, concerns the “cultural” war between progressives and conservatives. This war is about the question of the “soul” of Western democracies. It is about values, not about money. The classic left-right opposition was about money. The new left-right opposition is about values. In this article, I will also use the terms “left” and “right”, in line with the dominant usage in the media, although progressive and conservative would be better terms. The pejorative qualifications for “right” used by the left are: populist and far right. The pejorative qualification for “left” from the right is: woke. In this culture war of “left” against “right”, at least seven topics both in the USA and in Europe pop up: a) globalism versus national identity; in the EU countries this mainly concerns the question: more or less EU; b) related to the first point: more or less immigration; c) for or against “woke” (regarding the ideologies of “Western guilt” and free gender choice); d) more or less freedom of expression (censorship on social media or not, such as X); e) more or less climate policy or what form of climate and energy policy; f) more or less rejection of a compromise with Russia; g) support for the Palestinians or support for Israel. The last two points have been particularly relevant since February 24, 2022 and October 7, 2023, respectively.

 As regards Israel/Gaza and the associated strongly resurgent anti-Semitism in Western countries, it can be stated that historically the political roles have been reversed. The Holocaust was carried out by the Nazi “right”. The left was the opposite. Jews were almost all on the “left” politically. The condemnation of Israel and anti-Semitism now comes from the left. The left has formed an alliance with radical Islamists. Although anti-Semitism sometimes occurred in “right-wing” political movements in Europe, support for Israel now comes mainly from the right. Marine Le Pen threw her anti-Semitic father out of the party. Victor Orban, the right-wing Prime Minister of Hungary, who is handled as an outcast by European leaders, emphatically supports Israel. In the Netherlands, the right-wing Mr. Wilders is a fervent defender of Israel. Etc. In this series, I have not written an article about Israel/Gaza. My position will, however, not surprise readers: I am critical of parts of Israeli policy, but I fully support Israel’s right to self-defense. Not Israel, but Hamas is genocidal. I consider the arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court and the recent report by Amnesty International to be outrageous.

In light of this cultural war, the most important political event of the past year was the election of Donald Trump on November 5 as the 47th President of the United States. Although I am not charmed by Trump’s personality in all aspects (to put it mildly), his election was a great relief to me. I see his election as an important victory of right over left, of conservatives over progressives. And that has significance for all seven of the aforementioned topics. There is no guarantee that Trump will fulfill his presidency well in all aspects. My expectations regarding his economic policy are wary: protectionism is undesirable. However, the proposed candidates for office in his government create predominantly positive expectations. The resistance in the institutions, almost entirely in the hands of progressives, will be great. An important question is also whether he has sufficiently neutralized the neocons. I am not sure about that. The neocons have been the aggressive defenders of the imperialist geopolitical course of the US (the US as a hegemon) for the past three decades. Together with the ideological left, they formed the alliance that has made the USA act geopolitically irresponsibly for thirty years now, causing great damage, culminating in the conflict in Ukraine deliberately created by the Americans.

Trump's election casts a shadow over Europe. The two “right-wing” leaders, Meloni of Italy and Orban of Hungary, are presenting themselves as the bridge builders between the USA under Trump and the EU. Meloni also has good relations with Elon Musk. The left-wing leaders are currently in disarray, but the most important of them (Scholz/Germany and Macron/France) have even lost their political base in their own countries. In short, the coming year promises to be interesting, if only because of Trump.

Ireland (5.2 million inhabitants) 

Ireland is an outsider politically: the rise of populist political parties has passed Ireland. Ireland thus far has been politically fairly stable, despite heated discussions about  - among other issues - migration and housing. What is also specific to Ireland is that in the background there is always the question of whether there will ever be a reunion with Northern Ireland. Politics is dominated by three parties, all of which score around 20%. Two of these (Fine Gail and Fianna Fail) are in the political spectrum from right to centre. The third, Sinn Fein, is on the left. In this case, these designations still more represent the economic spectrum. The “right-wing” parties sometimes have “left-wing” positions. Within the EU, Ireland is, for example, one of the most outspoken anti-Israel countries. In addition to the three major parties, there is a number of smaller ones. Elections were held on November 29. The turnout was historically low at 60%. As expected, the three major parties held their ground. Fine Gail and Fianna Fail have announced that they will continue their coalition. It is striking that the Greens lost all but one of their seats. The low turnout could possibly be seen as an indication that there is also potential for political discontent in Ireland. But at the moment that’s not relevant.

Austria (9,1 mln inhabitants)

On September 29, elections were held in Austria for the national parliament. Migration was and is a major issue. These elections were won by the right-wing FPÖ. The ÖVP (Christian Democratic) lost its position as the largest party. The socialists came third. The Greens lost heavily. It is customary to charge the largest party with the task of forming a government. Austrian President Van der Bellen (Greens) has abandoned this rule. He has charged the incumbent Prime Minister and leader of the ÖVP, Karl Nehammer, with this task, effectively creating a cordon sanitaire around the FPÖ, although this party has previously participated in cabinets and is currently co-governing in three Austrian provinces. Nehammer is now trying to form a cabinet together with socialists and (left-wing) liberals. The negotiations are proceeding with difficulty and have not yet been completed. They seem to be in a critical phase. In the meantime, regional elections were held in one of the provinces on November 24. These were won overwhelmingly by the FPÖ: a doubling of its support to 35%. The ÖVP lost considerably. The result was seen by the FPÖ as the voters' reckoning for the state of affairs in Vienna. Austria is not stable.

Belgium (11,7 million inhabitants).

Belgium is a difficult country. The contrast between French-speaking Wallonia and Dutch-speaking Flanders dominates the country. Almost all political parties are “double”. This contrast has reinforced the rise of “right-wing” parties. In Flanders, there are two: the more radical Vlaams Belang and the more moderate Nieuwe Vlaamse Alliantie (NVA) of Bart de Wever. A cordon sanitaire is established targeting Vlaams Belang, also supported by the NVA. In the EU Parliament, Vlaams Belang coöperates with the “patriots” of Orban and Le Pen. The NVA is seated with the “reformers” of Meloni (see article 9). There are no right-wing parties in Wallonia. The socialists have ruled there for decades.

In Belgium, national and federal elections took place at the same time as the European ones on the 9th  of June 2024. These elections showed important shifts, especially in Wallonia. There the socialists lost their position of power and conservative liberals and centrists (former Christian Democrats) took over. In Flanders, the NVA became the largest party again. And then the formation began. Formations in Belgium usually take a very long time. Belgium holds the world record: 541 days in 2011. The regional governments in Flanders and Wallonia (and four others) have now been formed. Not so, however, the national government. Bart de Wever was charged with the task of forming a cabinet. Five parties are needed. He started working together with the Walloon liberals and centrists and the Flemish Christian Democrats and socialists. At first there was hope for a cabinet in September, but unfortunately, that did not materialize. The formation has now passed several stations. De Wever has returned his assignment a few times, but was always charged with a new assignment. 

There was a brief excursion to the Flemish liberals (losers and more left-wing than their Walloon counterparts, the party of the incumbent prime minister De Croo, but at the moment talks are being held with the aforementioned five. The stumbling block in the formation mainly concerns the disputes about the finances between the socialists on the one hand and the other four on the other., especially between Wallonian liberals en Flemish socialists. December 8 again differences came out as too big between these two. However, I expect that this formation in the end will succeed and that Bart de Wever will become the Belgian prime minister. There is hardly an alternative. 

In Europe this is important, because after the Netherlands it means an additional shift in the signature of a prime minister from expressing strongly federalist views on the EU to more emphasis on national sovereignty. December 10 is the next deadline. We will wait and see. If it were possible to arrive at a politically sufficiently homogeneous cabinet, Belgium could assume and deliver some stability.

Netherlands (17.8 million inhabitants)

In the Netherlands, after seven months of formation, the Schoof cabinet took office on July 2, based on four parties: Wilders' right-wing PVV, the largest party, winner of the elections in November 2023; the liberals (mixed conservative and progressive); New Social Contract (NSC), a new party of the former Christian Democrat Pieter Omtzigt; and a farmers' party, also new since 2021. The cabinet is led by the non-party former top civil servant Dick Schoof. So far, it has not been a success: the mutual relations are difficult. Tweets regarding public positions on X are quickly resorted to. This is partly due to the personalities of Wilders and Omtzigt, both in Parliament. Wilders feels free to go against the cabinet. Omtzigt has been absent for two months with a burnout. Rumour has it that emotions run high in his presence. In addition, NSC is also accused of amateurism. Clashing personalities and possible amateurism reinforce the ideological contrast that exists between PVV and NSC in particular. So far, NSC mainly has acted as a brake on more right-wing policies, particularly where immigration is concerned.         

The most dominant theme in recent months has been the rising anti-Semitism in response to the events in Gaza and the question of where that anti-Semitism comes from. The latter concerns the question of how explicitly one is allowed to speak of an “integration problem” in some groups of immigrants, especially young people of Moroccan descent. Heated discussions arose about “racism” and “Islamophobia”. The images of the “Jew hunt” on Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters went around the world. This had already been preceded by many pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Amsterdam, including in the vicinity of the President of Israel when a Jewish memorial museum was opened and riots around the commemoration of October 7. All this happened in Amsterdam. Wilders demanded the resignation of the mayor (political signature: green). There were also heated discussions in the cabinet. This led to the resignation of a State Secretary of the NSC of Moroccan descent. She could no longer accept the “tone” of the discussions. She denied, however, that there was any racism within the cabinet. Subsequently, two more MPs left the NSC faction for the same reason.

At the moment, things seem to have calmed down somewhat, but leading political journalists do not rule out that there will be elections again next year. I am somewhat more optimistic, especially because I think that the politically neutral prime minister can grow in his ability to continue unperturbable and keep things together (as a teacher with a nursery class). But ultimately, Omtzigt's role will be decisive. And considerable uncertainty exists about that. So far, there is no political stability in the Netherlands. A well-functioning alliance between the right and the centre has not yet been achieved.

Romania (19.1 million inhabitants)

From November 24 onwards, Romania suddenly attracted attention. On that day, presidential elections were held. Since december 6 it holds the record for the most spectacular developments. Let’s tell the story.

In the first round of the presidential elections november 24 totally unexpected Câlin Georgescu came out on top. He is a politician considered to be far-right and pro-Russian, but till november 24 he was largely unknown. As an “explanation” for his unexpected victory, Tiktok and Russia were pointed to. Number two was Elena Lasconi, a liberal-progressive, TV personality, pro-European. And only in third place came Marcel Ciolacu, the current socialist prime minister, also pro-European, who had given up his position to go for the Presidency. Only 2700 votes were between him and the number two. But well, he was out. The second round on december 8 would be between Georcescu and Lasconi. But Ciolacu requested a recount. The Constitutional Court had to decide. Monday december 2 it judged that the result was correct. No change. Second round as foreseen. So far, so good.

In the meantime in addition to the presidential elections, there were also parliamentary elections. They were on december 1. These elections yielded the following results: Socialists (PSD): 22.5%; nationalists (AUR): 18.2%; centre-right (PNL): 14.3%; liberal-progressives (USR): 12.2%; two ultra-nationalist pro-Russian parties (SOS and POT): 7.7% and 6.3%; Hungarian minority (UDMR) 6.4%. This result means that nationalist-right parties have won considerably and that the socialists (PSD) and the centre-right (PNL) lost their majority. This is important. The European conservative (EC) learns me the following. Since 1990 the Socialists have been the most dominant political party. In second position mostly was the centre PNL. Together they mostly governed the country. Around these two parties allegations of corruption were frequent. Especially the progressive liberals, USR, were active in fighting corruption. Because of that the relations between PSD and PNL on the one side and USR on the other side are bad. A coalition between them is unlikely. Other coalitions are possible, but then rather easily there has to be dealt with less pro-european parties. EC judges the situation difficult and with the potential for more unstability and fragmentation, especially if new elections would be necessary. Romania could then end up on the same path as neighbouring Bulgaria, where four elections have already been held in eight years. For the EU and NATO it is especially important whether pro-Russian forces might gain influence. In Romania NATO has important bases.

But, the really spectacular development came december 6: the Constitutional Court (dominated by functionaries related to the socialists) annulled the first round of the presidential election. The reason is alleged Russian interference during the campaign, claimed by reports declassified at the last minute by the countries’ top intelligence agencies. The decision means also that for a new election each candidate will have to go through a new validation process. This is a dramatic development. Candidate Lasconi in a speech on television declared “God, the people, the truth and the law will prevail, and will find those guilty for destroying our democracy”. She warned that the Constitutional Court threw the country in “anarchy”.  She said this nevertheless the fact that in the polls it looked like she would loose (58-42). The leader of the nationalist party (AUR, 18,2%) called the decision a “coup d’état”, but urged his followers not the go on the streets. “The system must fall democratically”, he wrote on X. What to think about this. It has the look of a ruling elite clinging to power. We have to wait for further developments. So far about Romania.

France (68.1 million inhabitants).

     France and Germany are the most important countries in Europe. But also in these countries instability is substantial. This certainly applies to France. The story is quickly told. On the evening of June 9, Macron called new elections for the French Parliament in response to the elections for the European Parliament (in which elections his political base lost). Why he called those elections remains a mystery to this day. In the Assembly he had a workable majority together with the Republicans. He gambled and lost. The left formed a Popular Front. The Assembly split into three blocks: left, centre and right. The left is more or less led by the radical left of Mélenchon (73 years old). He has the biggest party in the block. On the right is Marine Le Pen. Of the three blocks, Le Pen received the most votes, but the fewest seats due to the collaboration of the left with the centre.

The three blocks are politically at each other's throats. There is little coalition culture in France. It then took two months for Macron to find a prime minister who was acceptable to everyone at that time. That became Michel Barnier (72 years old, Republican), the former Brexit negotiator. I am convinced that he could not have found a better one. Barnier has stature, is imperturbable and acts with dignity. He took office on September 5. His main task was to tackle the financial and economic problems. They are huge. The national debt is around 110 %. Interest charges are swallowing up an increasing part of the budget. Barnier drew up a budget with 40 billion in cuts and 20 billion in tax increases. Left and right turned against that proposal. When Barnier used a constitutional provision to push through the budget outside Parliament, Parliament adopted a motion of no confidence and sent the cabinet home.

That happened on December 4 (for the first time since 1962). On December 5, Macron declared he would soon appoint a new prime minister. He accused both opposition blocs of irresponsibility. My judgment is that Macron is himself most responsible for with his center has contributed to Le Pen's anger by the way in which it has kept Le Pen relatively small in Parliament with the help of the left. However, that has not helped him now. Le Pen’s power has increased as a result. The real target of both left and right was of course not Barnier. That is the downfall of of the President. However, Macron has announced that he will remain in office until the end of his term in 2027. The first instance he is able to call new elections for Parliament is in July 2025. But what would be solved by doing so? The majority of the French want Macron gone. How France should function politically in the coming two and a half years is now a mystery to everyone.

Germany (84.5 million inhabitants).   

In Germany, the so-called traffic light coalition has been in power since December 8 2021: red Socialists (SPD), yellow Liberals (FDP) and green Greens. SPD leader Scholz became Chancellor and succeeded Angela Merkel after 16 years of keeping office. Scholz has little charisma and is therefore, perhaps unfairly, seen as a weak leader. It is clear that the Greens left strong marks on policies with Robert Habeck as Minister of Economic Affairs and Annalena Baerbock as Minister of Foreign Affairs. The liberal leader, Christian Lindner, became Minister of Finance. It was the first time in the history of the Federal Republic that a three-party coalition was formed.

The coalition was confronted with the Ukraine crisis very soon after taking office. This crisis led to an energy crisis due to the loss of Russian gas supplies. The energy crisis has now led to an "industrial crisis". The Greens emerged as leaders of the war with Russia. In the discussions about arms supplies to Ukraine, Scholz in particular put on the brakes. Understandably: the SPD is historically the architect of the “Ostpolitik”, aimed at relaxing relations with Russia. Greens, Liberals and also Christian Democrats have no interest in that. Russia was sanctioned and weapons were supplied to Ukraine, although within certain limits.

The energy problems and the industrial crisis were further exacerbated by Merkel's legacy in the form of the exit from nuclear energy after Fukushima. The traffic light coalition pushed through this exit. Despite the energy crisis, the last three nuclear power plants were closed in April 2023. The traffic light coalition wants green policy… But it has made this extra difficult for itself with this exit. Germany emits more than twice as much CO2 as France. The industrial crisis is now spreading. The workhorse of the German economy, the car industry, is having a hard time. Companies are closing factories or moving away. In short, Germany is in dire economic straits.

The second problem area concerns about immigration, integration and internal security. Attacks involving Islamists occur regularly. This is the subject of heated debate. The Gaza conflict is also making itself felt in Germany. The Berlin police chief's advice to Jews and homosexuals not to show their faces in some neighbourhoods is symbolic.

And then came Wednesday November 5. After it had become clear in the morning that Trump had won, in the evening the news came that the traffic light coalition had fallen. Chancellor Scholz had dismissed his Minister of Finance, Lindner. He did so in words unworthy of a chancellor, in stark contrast to the words of praise that Lindner spoke about Scholz at the start of the coalition. The breaking point, as in France, was the budget for the coming year. The Greens and SPD wanted to spend much more than Lindner thought was responsible. It is clear that the coalition had been in a fighting relationship for quite some time.

New elections will take place February 23 2025. Scholz and Friedrich Merz have agreed on this. At the moment, it is expected that Merz, the current leader of the Union, will be the new Chancellor. At the moment, the Union polls above 30%, the SPD and the Greens between 10 and 16%. The Liberals poll below five percent, the electoral threshold. There are two fairly large uncertainties: how much support there will be for the right-wing AfD and for Sahra Wagenknecht's new party. The AfD has been polling around 20% (second party) for some time. Sahra Wagenknecht polled up to 10% for some time, achieved good results in three state elections in the former GDR, but then made the mistake of joining coalitions there and making major concessions. She is now being punished for this. She is polling just above five percent. It is also crucial that Merz has ruled out cooperation with the AfD. In doing so, he makes himself a prisoner of the SPD and possibly also of the Greens. The AfD is of course using this in its campaign. In my opinion, the AfD is unwise to adopt positions that are too radical, such as the idea of ​​leaving the EU. The German electorate will not value this.

A salient context is that Angela Merkel has published her 720-page memoirs in recent weeks. In it, she defends her policies. Her popularity seems to be undiminished. In my opinion, this is due to her personality: a decent, very common, woman, mother of the nation (Mutti). In my opinion, it cannot be due to her policies. I consider them largely disastrous: the nuclear phase-out; the weakening of the Euro, migration, the lagging infrastructure, etc. We must now first wait for February 23. Germany is not stable.

UK (non-EU)

In the UK, Labour, this time led by Keith Starmer, has been in power since the elections on the 4th  of July. Starmer has a large majority in Parliament. However, this majority offers a flattering picture. This majority came about because the Conservatives lost many votes to Nigel Farage. Furthermore, the turnout was low. The bottom line is that Starmer governs with an electoral mandate of 20%. This does not contribute to political legitimacy. In addition, the problems are huge. These problems also concern the issues of immigration and integration in the UK. There has been substantial social unrest. There was much criticism of the government's handling of this. Another striking fact was that Starmer explicitly supported Harris' campaign. There was a lot of fuss recently about a bill for "assisted dying", which has now been passed by the House of Commons. Since November 2, the Conservative opposition is led by Kemi Badenoch, 44 years old, of Nigerian descent and a staunch Conservative and anti-woke. The UK is an interesting panel in the cultural war in Western countries in the coming period.

EU

Just a few points:

• After lengthy negotiations, the European Parliament has approved the new Commission led by Ursula Von der Leyen. The main problem involved a few proposed appointments. The Spanish conservatives voted against the socialist candidate from Spain because she was held responsible for the poor governance during the serious floods last autumn. The left-wing parties objected to the Italian candidate from Meloni’s ECR. They did not want a “fascist”…. In the end, the objections were cancelled out. The votes in favour of the Commission were only 60%, a historically low. Of the 27 commissioners, 15 belong to the centrist EPP including von der Leyen herself, Renew (liberals) has five commissioners, the socialists have four, the conservatives have one. Two are independents, among them the Hungarian, near to the patriots. This is far from proportionate. 17 are men, 10 are women. This against Brussels’ gender orthodoxy (that’s more important than competence), but this is more than compensated by the fact that the in the Presidency of seven, five are women, among them Von der Leyen herself.  The new Commission started working December 1.

  
  

• Another highlight is the fact that Hungary is chairing the EU for the current six months. Victor Orban, the scapegoat of the Brussels’ elite, has used that position, among other things, for a peace initiative regarding the war in Ukraine. He went to talk to Putin and also to China and Trump (who had not yet been elected at the time). Brussels did not appreciate this. Orban was also the first to congratulate Trump on his victory. Italian Prime Minister Meloni has openly praised Orban for the way in which he has filled the presidency this half year The latest Brussels decision is now (according to information in the European conservative) “that Hungary is on track to permanently lose access to € 1 billion worth of EU-funds unless it manages to “correctly” implement over a dozen anti-corruption and conflict-of-interest reforms and also receives EU Commission approval by the end of the year—a task practically impossible within the current bureaucratic framework—Politico reported on Thursday, December 5th, citing unnamed EU officials with knowledge of the proceedings. The money is part of Hungary’s €16 billion cohesion and pandemic-recovery funds which are still frozen by the Commission due to the country’s alleged rule-of-law shortcomings, a measure that conservative lawmakers in Brussels often regard as “a tool of ideological blackmail” against governments that refuse to subscribe to the EU mainstream’s liberal “values.” So far about Hungary. It is cozy in Brussels!

  
  

• As far as policy in general is concerned, Von der Leyen is very federalist and sees herself as the president of Europe. Which she emphatically is not. I would like to remind the readers that for policy the European Council (the joint heads of government) is the most important. The Commission and Parliament are secondary, with the understanding that the Commission does have a great deal of bureaucratic power. But because the European Council ultimately makes the decisions, it is more important which heads of government sit there than who is the commissioner. And as far as Parliament is concerned, it plays along with the balance of power in Europe. The Parliament consists of three blocks: left-wing federalists (Liberals, Greens, Socialists); right-wing pro-sovereignty of countries (Reformers/Meloni; Patriots/Le Pen/Orban and the group around the German AfD) and the center, the European People's Party, Christian Democrats. We can see some movement from left to right policy. Examples are the weakening of a law concerning nature and the lowering of the protected status of the woolf. In this last case maybe it helped that a woolf killed Von der Leyens little and most beloved horse.

Conclusion 

When there is a lot of news to report, I will write another article. And an advice. A possibility to follow “Europe” is reading the European Conservative. A broad spectrum of articles. Good journalists. You can read it for free. They live from donations.

---

About the author

Gerrit Jan Bouwhuis (1948) was advisor to the Minister of Finance in the Netherlands. After his retirement he made study trips to Africa and Eastern Europe. Since 2018, he has worked as an international election observer in Ukraine, Iraq and Turkey.