Despite claims of a sweeping UKIP victory, only 10% of the UK electorate voted for them; even so, the disaffection they represent remains a danger

Europe, and the UK in particular, has this past week staved off the illiberal threat of the far right - at least for now. In the European and local elections, despite the general perception of widespread successes (BBC, 2014), the far right has largely failed to deliver any complete and comprehensive victories. That news is tinged with sadness though, by the far right's achievement of at least limited successes in Europe through UKIP and other nationalist groups such as Marine Le Pen's Front National in France.

However, UKIP's 'victory', with around 27 percent of the vote, is far less impressive when you consider the stats. With the UK's eligible electorate standing at around 46 million, the 4 million who voted for UKIP, under 10 percent the total electorate, is shown to be impressive only by comparison to the total number of voters, standing at a lowly 15 million (34 percent).

While the far right groups - nationalist and reactionary conservatives - have certainly made gains, they have yet to make truly dangerous breakthroughs. Despite excitable media coverage promising UKIP transforming into the dominant British party (Merrick et al, 2014), those fearful predictions have mostly failed to materialise, with results only given a sense of emphasis by public apathy towards voting.

Yet even in defeat and failure, the far right's propaganda remains dangerous to those watching with an uncritical eye. Their own supporters, though they will claim suppression and make excuses, and claim what little victories that they can, will only be but a few fringe extremist voices. The real danger will be amongst protest voters, frustrated by the failure of their new movement to become a major force, who may become a receptive audience to the far right's outcries.

The trouble lies with the system, and it's resistance to change for better or worse. For those who seek out radical or reactionary parties to propel the changes they believe will fix their problems, and find their attempts quelled and frustrated, failure brings with it the risk of looking foolish and being embarrassed. Combined with the promises of the far right, that is a dangerously toxic mixture. Disaffection and simplistic reactionary solutions tend not to produce particularly liberal outcomes.

That is a matter that needs to be particularly addressed. The solutions of the far right are intolerance and control. Closing borders, making criminal penalties harsher, and imposing and enforcing the dominant culture. Liberty becomes the privilege of a restricted few and identities are turned into chains - whether for better or worse. Difference, like homosexuality is suppressed and outcast; sameness, like nationalism, are championed and enforced. Even positive celebrations of identity become burdensome under the weight of things like patriotism, loyalty, obedience and compliance.

As long as the mainstream political systems and structures fail to offer solutions to, and fail to find ways to prevent, these immense economic downturns, then simplistic and even extreme solutions will continue to find appeal. It is no coincidence that extremism rears its head, and sounds off the loudest, during severe downturns, with the resulting struggles that people face.

As ever, the non-voters find themselves to be the most important group to take the measure of: as the real majority, understanding the causes of their disaffection would do much to give us a real context for the election results and to show us the real general feeling of people as a whole.

If the the far right and their brands of extremism and intolerance are to be warded off, the establishment has to change. Its first and most important task will be show that there is something in it for the disenfranchised and, if it can't demonstrate that, adapt in order to protect our rights, liberties and hopes within a tolerant and representative system.

==========
References:
==========
+ BBC's 'Eurosceptic 'earthquake' rocks EU elections'; 26 May 2014.

+ Jane Merrick, John Rentoul & Mark Leftly's 'European elections: Ukip set for landmark win'; in The Independent; 18 May 2014.

Why Europe matters so much, and why that provokes Nationalists and Eurosceptics

The European Union is, in its essence, a hopeful endeavour. From its origins as a supranational free trade agreement, it was designed to promote peace and liberty.

At first, this focused on taking away the causes of inter-nation strife that led to the nationalistic wars of the past. The earliest steps opened up access to European resources to try to prevent escalating squabbles.

Later, these efforts in Europe began to take on the outlines of a state. A state in which the rights and freedoms of the individual began to be placed higher in priority than the maintenance of a national order under traditional conservative structures.

A multi-member monetary union, based around a single currency with a central bank, was developed; free movement of individual European citizens around the countries of Europe and protections of workers rights and minimum wages followed. European justice courts interpreted these treaties, and European legislation, for the benefit of the member-states who signed treaties agreeing to comply.

These efforts have, however, provoked a reaction. For those deeply attached to the nationalistic orthodoxy, to the idea of nations ruling territories as organised states constructed around cultural traditions, the European Union presents a threat. In response to it, a deeply defensive Euroscepticism has emerged.

And yet, that perception seems to come from a differing ideological perspective, rather than from the facts.

Nationalism began as a project aimed at promoting the rule of the people over the rule of tyrannical monarchs and aristocrats. In time it embedded itself at the heart of the institutions of state, without fully dislodging the older traditions or structures, and itself became part of those elements.

In doing so it forgot the aspects of fallacy in its struggle. It forgot that Europe has many more nations than just those who rule one of the EU's member states: from the Welsh and Scottish, to Sámi and Catalan and Romany; there are many stateless nations with no less of a claim than the British, French, Spanish, Germans or Italians. And it forgot liberty of the individual.

In pursuing the freedom of the individual, the European Union has found itself at odds with the traditional structures of states in Europe. It has challenged the stranglehold on civil administration that corporate thinking has enjoyed, in which bodies of interested parties - collectives of individuals bound together by tradition or religion or identity or business, or all of them - struggled with and against one another for the institutional power to protect their interests.

Yet the European pursuit of individual rights need not be seen as the attempt to abolish the various and distinct national identities that some in their defensive attitudes seem to perceive it as. No more so than the pursuit of a separation of church and state represents an attempted to abolish religious belief. In both of these cases, the pursuit of liberty is not about abolishing these things, but about freeing people from being chained by them, or to them.

Ultimately, achieving individual liberty means ensuring that people have the right to choose. As long as they are bound to the structures around them, they will not have that right. And that's what puts the European project at odds with nationalism. In order to untangle individuals from their bonds, interests must be kept out of civil administration. Government must be kept free of prejudices regarding religions, nations and traditions so that individuals can be free to choose, and learn and align, and realign, themselves as they see fit.

These liberties cannot be, so long as interests such as national identity continue to have a hold on the structures that frame our lives. Both those interests and our individual selves would be better off free.

==========

References

==========

+ Robert Schuman's 'Schuman Declaration'; 9 May 1950.

What you're voting for at the European elections

In two weeks time, the UK goes to the polls to vote at the European elections. Those votes will shape the direction of the European Union for the next five years. It is essential therefore to be sure what it is that our votes mean, and what they will affect when we cast them.

The European Union (EU) as we know it today evolved out of a number of trade and diplomatic agreements, originating in an idealistic purpose. In the aftermath of the Second World War, with Europe's Nationalistic wars having once again torn the whole world apart, fostering a sense of European community and co-dependence was seen as something that might just take away the causes of strife. The European elections are the time when we decide on what principles that community is run.

In its modern form, the European Union (EU) has grown to include 28 member states, 18 of whom now share a common currency; Justice Courts whose members are appointed by the governments of the member states; the European Council, which gathers the heads of the governments of member states to define the strategy, direction and priorities of the EU; the Council of the European Union, which as the upper house in a bicameral legislative branch, comprising ministers of the member state governments themselves; and, last but not least, the European Parliament.

The European Parliament is the elected assembly of the European Union, working with the Council of the European Union to debate, oversee, vote on and ratify European Union laws and agreements. As such it has a voice in most decisions made at the European level, on matters affecting peoples of Europe across borders. This means weighing in on law-making in a number of areas, from agriculture & fisheries, to regional development aimed at bringing all of Europe up to the same standard on matters like basic rights, minimum wages and economic infrastructure.

The elections to the Parliament are conducted on the basis of proportional representation, where the seats are awarded in a manner that closely follows the proportions of the popular vote. There are a total of 766 seats in the Parliament.

Of these, there are 73 seats from the UK (the fourth largest total number after Germany, France and Italy), in 12 constituencies: East Midlands, East of England, London, North East England, North West England, South East England, South West England, West Midlands, Yorkshire and the Humber, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Those seats are elected on a region-by-region basis, by way of a proportional vote in each region.

The members elected for each region, to the European Parliament, will usually sit there as a member of their party and of the European alliance to which their party is affiliated. The major groups in Europe are: the European People's Party (primarily Christian Democrats and Conservatives), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (Social Democrats and Labour), the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (Liberals, Liberal Democrats, and Democrats). Other groups include The Greens-European Free Alliance, and Europe of Freedom and Democracy (home to Nationalists and Eurosceptics).

The Parliament and its parties also have an additional role. Each grouping can nominate a candidate for the President of the European Commission, the head of the executive branch of the European Union and the equivalent to the President of the United States. The nominee whose grouping gains the largest share of the vote in the European Parliament elections then must pass nomination by the European Council and a vote in the Parliament to be appointed President.

Once appointed, the President runs the commission, the European equivalent of the British Cabinet, made up of Commissioners for each of the portfolio areas from agriculture to the economy. The President and the Commission is responsible for proposing legislation, acting on the final decisions and taking care of the EU's day to day running - all under the oversight of the European Council, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

In short, your vote at the European elections will have two main effects. To decide the proportional representation of the European Parliament, which has oversight over, and votes on, regulations and directives made at the EU level, that affect the domestic politics of member states; and to nominate a President to the run the European Commission who, under oversight of the member state governments, proposes and drafts the regulations and directives and implements them once they have been decided.

The point of the European elections is to decide the ideological principles on which the European Union will be run. The principles behind drafting policies, and the principles that will scrutinise them and vote on them. The time to express concerns about membership is at the national elections, for the national bodies who will make those decisions.

==========
References:
==========
+ Neill Nugent's 'The Government and Politics of the European Union'; Palgrave Macmillan; 2003. [Buy Now]

+ Stephen George & Ian Bache's 'Politics in the European Union'; Oxford; 2001. [Buy Now]

For more on the European Union, or the European Parliament, follow the links.

Marvel's Cinematic Universe is exploring what it means to be a hero

This post may contain spoilers for Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Agents of SHIELD.

As well as bringing us a whole new way to enjoy comic book favourites, Marvel's Cinematic Universe has taken it upon itself to delve a little deeper into the nature of heroes. Marvel's Avengers, Captain America, and the tie in TV series Agents of SHIELD, have tied their plots up in separating right from wrong, in examining the balance between freedom and security, and in attempting to discern what it is that can be called 'right action'.

In the Marvel Universe, SHIELD is an intelligence organisation, with agents engaged in espionage and sent on missions to eliminate threats to security. The way we have been shown the organisation so far in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been in the form of an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand we have been shown a number of well-meaning and decent individuals who associate themselves with SHIELD, wishing only to serve and protect.

Yet, on the other hand, we have been shown that SHIELD is an immense, organised, well-funded institution, willing to construct deadly weapons, and use them; to take away people's rights, and to wield extensive and illiberal networks of espionage tools to spy on, and to an extent control, people in the name of security.

In the première Avenger's movie, SHIELD Director Nick Fury gives his justifications for the darker side of his organisation - and the methods and weapons he turns to in the name of security:

'The world is filling up with people that can't be matched, that can't be controlled.'

Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Agents of SHIELD have looked hard at that darker side of SHIELD through the screen of a Hydra infiltration. In The Winter Soldier, SHIELD's interest in control and order is exposed, explored and subverted. The determination of SHIELD's own people to believe in secrets, in covert operations, and in the projection of massively intimidating military strength, where all exposed by the emergence of Hydra. The course of power and secrecy that many had subscribed to where challenged by the revelation that they where the methods of Hydra - an intolerant supremacist organisation. In Agents of SHIELD, even before the Hydra infiltration is revealed, Skye's recruitment by Agent Coulson provokes an ideological struggle within his team. Skye's resistance to secrets, determination to find and expose the truth, and disapproval of the darker more militaristic methods, begins to challenge the established values of SHIELD.

In the episode Turn, Turn, Turn, once Hydra has revealed itself, the all of SHIELD's people are forced to examine the way they operate. Unshackled from institutional protocols, commitments to shielding liberty or enforcing order are exposed.

John Garrett: I'll say it again. Best bet to save her - use the ventilation system to get above the sit room. Drop down using Fitz's sweet, little mouse hole, and put two bullets through Victoria Hand's heart.
Leo Fitz: Yeah, it's an option, sir.
Phil Coulson: Without questioning?
John Garrett: Questioning what? Whether she wants to kill us fast or slow?
Phil Coulson: Last time we did that, we shot the wrong man.
John Garrett: Because she wanted us to! Phil, this is a battle for S.H.I.E.L.D.'s soul, and we're on the front lines. History will remember us this day.
Phil Coulson: That's right. It's for S.H.I.E.L.D.'s soul. And murder without consideration is a sure...
John Garrett: "Consideration"? Consider this. She had one of my men killed with a bomb rigged to his gas pedal. The other two were floating in the hotel pool, and they weren't doing the backstroke.
Melinda May: But we can just as easily ice her.
John Garrett: You don't put someone like her on ice. (from IMDB)

The eponymous Winter Soldier is only a dark counterpart to the experiments that turned Steve Rogers into Captain America. Hydra's intended use for the Helicarriers - the elimination of particular individuals who are calculated to pose a potential threat to their world order - is only a darker extension of the threat suppression and elimination for which SHIELD's craft where designed.

And at every stage, SHIELD personnel have been involved. From illegal tests conducted on humans to the construction of secret weapons, to the creation of secret weapon caches behind lies that claimed these dangerous and destabilising items had been destroyed. The heroes of these tales, from Captain America to Black Widow to Agent Coulson are being forced to consider the costs of power and secrets.

The question raised by these kinds of ethical quandaries are important to all of us. Where do we draw the line when we seek to ward off those who threaten peace and liberty, before we fall into treating liberty itself as a threat to security and order. The tales told in Marvel Cinematic Universe expose the way that adherence to protocols and submission to authority can be a dangerous path. By suppressing individual conscience and following orders, rather than thinking for and deciding for ourselves, we leave ourselves vulnerable to manipulation, exploitation and to the distortion of our values.

We expect heroes to rise above these limitations. To root out hypocrisies and corruption, to stand up for our better selves. But the Marvel Cinematic Universe is reminding us that the truth behind right action is much simpler. The methods we use to accomplish our goals matter. It is not good enough for them to simply be effective. We must also count their costs, and consider not just what ends they will accomplish, but how they will shape those ends.

==========
References:
==========
+ Joss Whedon's 'Marvel's The Avengers (or Marvel's Avengers Assemble)'; Marvel/Disney; 2012. [Buy Now]

+ Anthony & Joe Russo's 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier'; Marvel/Disney; 2014. [Buy Now]

+ Joss Whedon's 'Agents of SHIELD'; Marvel/Disney/ABC; 2013. [Buy Now]