The problem of the "Eastern Camp" in the European Union

The scandal surrounding the anti-immigrant Dutch website has subsided, leaving only a vague impression in the public sphere of a general resentment of Europeans against the xenophobic policies of the nationalist party. This resentment, unfortunately, was not the result of a consensus among Western governments in defense of Eastern Europeans and in condemnation of xenophobia (hatred of foreigners). There was a sharp reaction mainly from the Eastern members. They tried to defend themselves, because of the conclusion that no one else would do it for them.

Nowhere was an answer given to the question of whether Europe is truly distancing itself from discriminatory practices aimed at the right to work of EU citizens in the various countries of the union. The noise surrounding the rejection of this practice was the result of the angry responses (in the form of official statements, letters and speeches in the EP) from the affected countries. Their number is large enough to create an unfounded impression of an officially declared position of the European institutions (the victims are Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania).

It was also officially acknowledged by Viviane Reding that the site is in conflict with the principles of equality, freedom in the labor market, solidarity and integration. An unfavorable fact is that this position was requested and loudly stated only by the affected countries. The truth is that these principles are currently being neglected by Western governments more than ever. This is mainly due to economic concerns - loss of jobs for the potential electorate due to the influx of immigrants, financial damage at the expense of failed governments (let's not forget that Greece is also part of Eastern Europe and absorbs a huge part of the Union's rescue funds, while the rest in the Balkans are still seen as "disobedient students of the West").

Chart 1: Unemployment rate in the Netherlands motivating anti-immigrant sentiment:

The scandal with the ethically controversial website has once again proven that the debt crisis is leading to an unprecedented escalation of nationalist sentiment.

A more disturbing aspect, however, which has not been sufficiently analyzed, is the fact that nationalist parties are those whose main tool in winning the electorate is populism. It is such parties that respond affirmatively and encourage the popular sentiments of a large part of civil society, and not only of their supporters.

The question is valid: does Western society want to encourage sentiments against Eastern Europe and to such an extent should xenophobia against the "young" members escalate not so much on an institutional level as on a social level?

The Freedom Party, which created the site, is the third largest parliamentary party in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament. As long as Mark Rutte's government is in a minority, he will have to tolerate, or at least not enter into conflict with, the parties in parliament. This means that even if he wanted to, he would not be able to distance himself sharply from the anti-immigrant sentiments of those on whom his power depends. This is bad news for Bulgaria, given the influence of the Netherlands in decision-making at the European level.

Figure 2: The current structure of the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament. The scandalous website is the work of the PVV – Party for Freedom.

To better illustrate the “turn” in the Union’s policies regarding the freedom of movement of people and their right to work, examples from recent years can be given. In 2008, the Dutch government categorically distanced itself from the messages of the film Fitna (a work by the Freedom Party), which denounced and attacked Islam. The figure of the far-right Prime Minister Orbán has also recently acquired a largely negative image in the European institutions due to his nationalist and compromising religious tolerance policies.

Today, the Dutch Prime Minister's messages can be read through two phrases: "Let's not make a big deal out of a fly" and "I bear no responsibility and do not distance myself from other people's actions," while those of the European Commission: "This is a problem for national governments."

The summary is this – until recently Europe was much more categorical and self-confident in its policies of encouraging tolerance, and now it is markedly passive and even timid in its disagreement. The process of resolving the problem with the Dutch site can be described as a continuous passing of the ball from the EU to the Dutch government and from the Dutch government to the groups in parliament. And the site itself was not taken down for a long time after the scandal broke.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!