Holocaust revisionist ‘gaffes’ hide policies that target both Jews and Muslims

US White House press secretary Sean Spicer has been the target of a media firestorm since his unfortunate remarks at a press briefing last week comparing Assad to Hitler, with Hitler coming out favorably. 

“We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War Two. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons”…. “I think when you come to sarin gas, he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.”

(He later apologized.)

The remarks were clearly inaccurate, given that Hitler indeed used chemical weapons and deployed them against his own people. But whether or not Spicer was aware of that and simply misspoke, or is poorly informed on the history surrounding World War II, it provoked us at Migration Voter to reflect on recent similar “gaffes” from far-right politicians regarding the Holocaust.

For instance, Front National’s Le Pen said during an event with Le Figaro in April:

I think France isn’t responsible for the Vel d’Hiv…. I think that, in general, if there are people responsible, it is those who were in power at the time. It is not France.”

Vel d’Hiv is the shorthand for an event that occurred during the Holocaust when 13,152 French Jews were rounded up by French police at the direction of the Nazis and sent to Auschwitz, where they were murdered. France has taken responsibility for the atrocity in the past, but Le Pen implied this was hurting French pride, saying “France has been mired in people’s minds for years.”

And Germany’s far-right Euroskeptic party Alternative für Deutschland attracted a great deal of negative press following a speech in January by state leader of Thuringia Björn Höcke in which he discussed Germany’s dealing with their role in the Holocaust, referring to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews in central Berlin as “a monument of shame.”

“We Germans… are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of their capital city.” “We do not need any more dead rites in this country. … We no longer need hollow phrases in this country, we need a living culture of remembrance, which brings us first and foremost into contact with the great achievements of our ancestors.”

One of the reasons why the press has seized on these comments is because they supposedly give the lie to the strong stances these parties have each taken against anti-Semitism. These promises of being pro-Jewish and against forms of anti-Semitism have been coupled with a focus on casting Muslims, especially Muslim immigrants, as a threat both to Jews and to the nations in general.

  • Marine Le Pen of the Front National has promised numerous actions to target what she calls “Islamic fundamentalism”, proposing policies targeting mosques and Muslims (such as banning the hijab.) On the other hand, she has made conscious efforts to reach out to the Jewish community, banning anti-Semitic members of her party and sending FN party secretary Nicolas Bay on a goodwill trip to Israel. While there, Bay was interviewed by Haaretz (article behind paywall, but see Breitbart), where he made FN’s position clear: “[French Jews] understand that we’re the only ones who are clearly pointing to the source of the anti-Semitic attacks – the Islamists. Marine Le Pen has already said that the National Front is French Jewish citizens’ shield against these attacks.”
  • AfD takes a similarly strong stance against Muslims and immigrants from Muslim majority countries, stating in their program that “Islam does not belong to Germany” and introducing numerous policies against Muslim religious dress and immigration to Germany, while stating “ The AfD does not concur with the view which regards the criticism of Islam as islamophobic or being derogatory.” They have also spoken out often against anti-Semitism, however. For instance, in a press release in 2016 their Federal Councilor wrote, “The thought of what many of the Muslim immigrants bring along is characterized by anti-Semitism and the rejection of Western values…. Anti-Semitism must have no place in Germany. Many Muslims are still unaware of this and represent a danger to our values and our community.”

In short, despite statements that could be construed as Holocaust revisionism, the officials of the Front National and AfD have consistently been outspoken against anti-Semitism, claiming that their policies, by excluding Muslims and fighting “Islamism”, will be the best safeguard for Jews in their countries.

The complication with this argument, that the press has so far failed to discuss as far as we know, is that a large number of the policies aimed at excluding Muslim religious practices and Muslim immigrants would inevitably also target Jews, as well as other religious minority groups. 

Policies Targeting the Muslim Community that would affect the Jewish Community

Front National

Le Pen, for instance, promises to abolish dual citizenship (see presidential commitment number 27) for non-European holders of two passports. While this would no doubt affect a large population of French people with dual citizenship from Muslim-majority countries, she has stated that it would apply to Israelis as well. (Note, however, that we doubt this policy can go through as worded.)

In another example, Le Pen promises under the banner “Eradicate Terror and Break Up Islamic Fundamentalist Networks” that she will “ban foreign funding of places of worship and their personnel.” Although she explicitly mentions Islam in the title, her language clearly indicates (“places of worship”) this would apply to synagogues and Jewish religious activities (as well as other religious groups, presumably.)

Even more obviously, in her plan “to defend French unity and the national identity” Le Pen proposes constitutional and policy changes that would certainly apply to Jews, Muslims, and any other minority group.

Capture

It is difficult to parse what consequences these changes might have for religious minorities, but it would seem to change their constitutional status and ability to retain their own culture, if it differs from the majority culture. Commitment number 97 is particularly interesting, given Le Pen’s comments on France’s role in the Holocaust.

Additionally, Le Pen and FN have advocated for the elimination of any special religious dietary options in French public schools. In a 2014 interview, Le Pen outlined her position on the issue.

“We will accept no religious requirements in the school lunch menus,” Mrs. Le Pen told RTL radio. “There is no reason for religion [dietary options] to enter into the public sphere.”

This would eliminate any halal but also any kosher options. Therefore, if something banned by both Islam and Judaism – such as pork – was on the menu for that day, then pork is what Muslim and Jewish students would also be served. 

Alternative für Deutschland

In zeroing in on policies they hope will fortify and promote German “high culture” (Leitkultur) and move away from multiculturalism, AfD also promotes ideas that would harm German Jews as collateral damage in their fight against Muslims. For instance, in their platform (pg. 46), they state that German culture is composed of three main sources: Christianity, “scientific and humanistic culture” and Roman law, and that multiculturalism poses “a serious threat to social peace and the survival of the nation-state as a cultural unit”. Judaism clearly lies outside of their three main pillars of German society- does it also form a threat that must be protected against?

Capture

Under the section “End foreign financing of mosques” there are some additional provisions that would be problematic for the Jewish community. AfD calls for a ban on foreign financing of mosques, the banning of any language other than German spoke during religious services, and for imams to get government permission before preaching in Germany. It is difficult to see how these laws could comport with the German constitution generally, but if they would they would necessarily have to apply to all religious groups. This would disproportionately impact Jewish communities as it would ban foreign (such as Israeli or American) donations to synagogues, ban speaking Hebrew, and require visiting rabbis to get permission. German Christian congregations are primarily German-funded, speak primarily German, and are led primarily by German priests, necessarily making the impact of such policies far stricter on religious minorities and immigrant groups.

Again, its worth noting that many of these policies, as stated in their party program, are completely in contradiction with German domestic law and European Union law. However, whether or not they can be achieved, they allow insight into the stated aims and goals of the party.

Why analyze “gaffes” when the policies are clear?

Like with Sean Spicer’s remarks, the Holocaust revisionist statements by Le Pen and Höcke sparked minor scandals and caused many people to ask: were these accidental gaffes, or intentional anti-Semitic messages to voters?

In the case of the FN and AfD, it isn’t necessary to get at the innermost hearts and minds of the party elite via their speeches, because we have access to their direct, stated goals and programs.

If voters are worried about anti-Semitism in populist parties out of concern for its implications for the Jewish community if these parties were to come to power, it is very clearly worth understanding that many of the policies that are meant to target Muslims will harshly affect Jews as well as other minority religious groups, especially those with numerous co-religionists in other countries. Laws restricting the ability to dress a certain way, eat a certain diet or connect with (and fundraise from) people in other countries will evenly impact any person of faith connected to a minority religious group.

Voters who are concerned about anti-Semitism because of the historical context of what happens when a minority religious group is demonized and cast as a threat to the people and their national identity do not need to look too far to see that these parties already do precisely this with Muslims. For some people, that’s part of their appeal. For others, it may be a good reason to weigh their vote carefully.

 

Sources and Further Reading
Sean Spicer apologizes for gaffe” The Guardian, April 2017
Le Pen reopens old wounds” Reuters, April 2017
For Le Pen, France is not responsible for Vel’d’Hiv” Le Figaro, April 2017 (in French)
Vel’d’Hiv Roundup, Wikipedia.org
Chirac admits to France’s Atrocities During WW2 (video), Associated Press (1995)
Transcript of Höcke’s Speech in Dresden, Der Taggespiegel, (Jan. 2017) (in German)
144 Presidential Commitments (PDF), Front National 2017
‘We Just Want to Preserve Our Identity – Like Israel and Trump,’ Le Pen Party Official Tells Haaretz.” Haaretz (Jan. 2017)
French populists visit Israel to build relations“. Breitbart (Jan. 2017)
Manifesto for Germany- AFD party program (PDF), AFD 2017
Pazderski: Many immigrants bring along their anti-Semitic worldview. AFD Press Release (June 2016)
Le Pen Calls to Ban Special Dietary Restrictions, The Telegraph, (April 2014)
Cover image: Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. Via Olly Coffey on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2nY8ahi (CC by-NC 2.0)
Advertisements

Le Pen’s Promises on Citizenship and Asylum: A Closer Look

By Christian Jorgensen

Leading French presidential candidate for the far-right Front National party Marine Le Pen is running on a platform that she says will “free France”, and she has made 144-commitments that she promises will do just that. There are three that revolve around the topics of citizenship and asylum that deserve a closer look into what their impact on migrants and policy could be.

Promise 28: To return to the original spirit of the right of asylum which, furthermore, will only be granted after the filing of an application in French Embassies or Consulates in the countries of origin, or bordering countries.

In promise 28 of her 144 Presidential Commitments, Le Pen advocates a “return to the original spirit of asylum.” Expanding on that, she hopes to change the refugee application process, to only accept asylum applications from outside of France: in French embassies or consulates in the countries of origin, or in bordering countries. Looking at the 1951 Refugee convention, of which France is founding member, and French domestic law, Le Pen’s “return” may not be as easy to implement as she and the Front National may think.

Foremost, the Refugee Convention builds on Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)which recognises the right of individuals to seek asylum from persecution. Building on this right, The Refugee Convention of 1951 defines a refugee thusly:

”As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The key point here that Le Pen should be aware of is that a refugee is an individual who has been forced to flee his or her country of origin and most likely cannot return home or is afraid to do so. Le Pen’s proposal to require asylum to be requested in countries of origin is completely contrary to what the law states about asylum.  If an individual is forced to flee out of fear for their life, it is very unlikely that they will be able to request asylum at a French embassy in their own country.

Going deeper one can look at France’s own constitutional law on the issue. French law dating back to the preamble to the constitution of 27 October 1947, “[a]ny man persecuted in virtue of his actions in favor of liberty may claim the right of asylum upon the territories of the Republic.” This was again strengthened in 1993 in a report by the Constitutional Council, “asylum is a [French] constitutional right for persons who qualify for it” (emphasis mine.) Furthermore, the Constitutional Council found that asylum applicants have the right to reside in France until their asylum request has been processed and decided upon, and those who qualify for asylum must be allowed to stay in France. Le Pen’s promise requiring asylum seekers to file their requests overseas contradicts not only international law but French constitutional law as well.

Additionally, there is some confusion in the language she chooses to use. In response to her claim “to return to the original spirit of asylum,” what does she exactly mean? In 1951, as the United Nations led by France and the other major world powers sat at the table, they drafted the 1951 Refugee Convention to create a set of rules that address the refugee issue that had been created by WWII. Thus, France along with the other UN leaders created the original spirit of asylum. This spirit was one that emphasized the principle of non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. One could argue that Le Pen’s plan to return to the original spirit is completely contrary to what the original spirit of what modern asylum law is, perhaps she would like to return to the days of cathedral sanctuary?

Through a legal lens it is highly unlikely that promise 28 will be able to be kept entirely, as there are many aspects of international and French law that Le Pen seems to disregard.

Promise 27 To abolish jus soli (right of the soil): it will only be possible to acquire French nationality by filiation or naturalisation, the conditions for which will be tightened. To abolish dual nationality for non-Europeans.

Le Pen has made her 27th commitment to completely change the system in which French nationality is acquired and change the rules for all individuals who currently hold dual-citizenship.  With the jus soli legislation of the current French Civil Code, French citizenship can be obtained by individuals born in France in four ways:

  1. At age 18 if individual has held French residency for five years since the age 11;
  2. Between the ages of 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if the individual has been a resident of France for at least 5 years since age 11
  3. Between the ages of 13 and 16 upon the request of the child’s parents and if the individual has been a resident of France for at least 5 years since age 8.
  4. Immediately at birth, if the child is stateless

Now, per Le Pen and the Front National leaders, they want to abolish all of it. First it should be noted that to keep this promise Le Pen would need to put forth an amendment to the current French Civil Code and get this approved by the French National Assembly. With the current makeup of the French National Assembly, which is controlled by the Socialists, it is very unlikely that such a measure would pass without much contention.

The real question is the legality of the denial of jus soli citizenship for those born in France who would otherwise be born stateless. Is this legal, considering that jus soli is a safeguard against statelessness? There is an international treaty, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness that may lead to Le Pen violating numerous areas of international law. It should first be noted that France has signed the 1961 convention but has yet to ratify it. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is considered by many states and international bodies to be customary international law (see ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case), states that being a signatory alone, “creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.” Therefore, as a signatory to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, France is bound to not purposefully do anything that violates the 1961 convention, which eliminating jus soli citizenship at birth for stateless individuals arguably would. It could violate Article 1(1) and Article 1(4) of the 1961 convention. Article 1(1), the first and most important article, binds states to grant citizenship to persons, otherwise stateless, born in their territory.  This may be in any matter they seem fit within their national law, but a path to citizenship must be available to those stateless individuals born on their territory. Article 1(4) requires states to give nationality to a person, otherwise stateless, who is legally precluded from assuming his/her birth of nationality.  This could extend for example to individuals born to Jordanian national single mothers to receive French citizenship, since Jordanian citizenship cannot be maternally inherited.

The last part of Le Pen’s 27th promise is that dual-citizenship would be removed from all Non-European French-naturalized-citizens.  She explains further, this would allow naturalized French citizens with dual-citizenship in other EU countries and even non-EU European countries such as Russia to keep their dual-citizenship but would require naturalized French citizens such as French-Israelis or French-Americans to choose one citizenship over the other. The inclusion of Russia begs the question of who is implied by “European” in Le Pen’s definition. Russia is not in the EU, but is in the Council of Europe and continental Europe- as are Turkey and Azerbaijan. Would this mean that all Turkish and Azerbaijani dual-citizens would be able to keep their dual status as well?

Without clarification (if she, for instance, just means EU members plus Russia), Le Pen’s ad-hoc definition of European could arguably fall under UDHR Article 15 , which states that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality. (Although not a binding legal treaty, many provisions of UDHR have achieved status of international customary law, and this is one of them). The UN has addressed the issue of deprivation leading to statelessness and have found for it be in violation of international human rights law (UN HRC report).

Additionally, this is not something Le Pen can unilaterally enact. To keep this promise Le Pen would have to call on the National Assembly to add additional reasons for citizen deprivation, which is dictated by Article 25 of the French Civil Code and currently only allow for deprivation of citizenship because of criminal and treasonous acts against the French Republic and not because of the state or region where an individual has additional citizenship.

Promise 31 To combat jihadi networks: stripping of French nationality, expulsion and banning re-entry into the country for any person with dual nationality linked to a jihadi organisation. To apply Article 411-4 of the Penal Code on passing intelligence to the enemy and to place any individual with French nationality, with links to a foreign organisation promoting hostile activities or aggression against France and the French people, in preventive custody. To draw up a list of such organisations.

Promise 31 is one of the few similarities between Le Pen and current French President Francois Hollande, who earlier in 2016 tried to add a similar provision to French Nationality Law.  However, Le Pen would like to deprive French nationality to all individuals with connections to “Jihadi” organizations.  French Civil Code under Article 25 would allow for deprivation of citizenship for French citizens and dual nationals who carried out terrorist attacks, but it has only been acted on a few times and the courts are very reluctant to deprive individuals of their French citizenship. Based on the court’s history of deprivation Le Pen might have a much harder time with carrying out deprivation even further.  Currently, Article 25 states that an individual who has been sentenced for committing a crime against the state may constitute legal reason for deprivation of citizenship, however, this doesn’t extend to someone who is suspected of terrorist activity or suspected to have connections to terrorist organizations.  Le Pen would have to further define what she defines as a connection to such an organization.  Is it having cousins belonging to terrorist cell? Is it indirectly fundraising for an organization determined to be a terrorist organization, whether one consciously knows it? Additionally, does this only apply to Islamist terrorist organisations, as using the term jihad implies, and not apply to terrorist organizations on the far left, or right, or terrorist organizations with a Western Religious Ideology such as Catholic or Protestant Christianity?

There is another problem with Le Pen’s vague wording, in that depriving someone’s citizenship for ill-defined connection with an organization could violate the freedom of association and legal privacy of life promised by the French Constitution. For Le Pen to keep true to her promise in this regard, she and the Front National must make this promise a great deal more specific for it to have a chance of becoming French legal practice.

Conclusion
Overall vagueness, disregard for existing law, and feasibility all seem to be reoccurring issues with Le Pen’s promises on migration and citizenship. It is one thing to make policy promises and another to navigate the pathway to successful policy implementation and this is something Le Pen and Front National should keep in mind.

READ MORE
1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
French Civil Code
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Ways to French Citizenship
More on VCLT and why it is customary international law
Marine Le Pen’s 144 Commitments (in English)
The Refugee Convention of 1951
Preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1947
More on Statelessness
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
More on Le Pen and only dual-european nationals (video)
Image via Pietro Piupparco a flickr (cc By-SA 2.0) http://bit.ly/2nTYNKq

Unsubmissive, apolitical, revolutionary: the diverse migration views of the French presidential candidates

The French presidential race is just around the corner (April 23rd, to be exact) and the strongest performers couldn’t be more divided on the topic of immigration. Here’s our sum up of where the top five stand on migration and asylum.

To read about how the French election works, read our handy election explainer!


Marine Le Pen – Front National

imageedit_11_8581682719

I want to put an end to immigration, that’s clear.

Since the start of her campaign, far-right Front National candidate and current forerunner Marine Le Pen has argued for “one culture and one language.” Thus, simplifying her immigration policy.  Le Pen calls for France to leave the Schengen zone and increasing the requirements to become a French national- eradicating so-called jus soli citizenship, and dual citizenship for non-Europeans. Additionally, Le Pen says that her immigration policy will reduce annual legal immigration into France by 80% , to about 10,000 individuals per year. Le Pen advocates the continuing of asylum applications overseas in French embassies and countries of origin, but states that many of the current migrants in France requesting asylum are illegal (undocumented) immigrants. She thus advocates a swift deportation policy and makes it impossible to legalize their situation. For immigrants who commit crimes, she suggests establishing bilateral treaties that allow people convicted in France to serve out their sentences in their countries of origin.


Emmanuel Macron – En Marche!

imageedit_9_7827606301

The European Union cannot accept on its soil all those who are in search of a better life.

Former banker and finance minister Emmanuel Macron is the great question mark in the campaign- the leader of a brand new political party, he’s never held an elected post but is nevertheless steadily polling among the top two along with Le Pen and is likely (at this point) to make it to the runoff. His political stance generally rejects simple categorizations of left and right, but his immigration policy takes a relatively standard center-right line. He says the EU must continue to accept its “fair share” of refugees, while ensuring anyone not entitled to asylum is promptly deported, with decisions being handed down within 8 weeks of arrival. He also expects immigrants to integrate into local communities and introduces policies aimed at increasing integration, such as mandatory (funded) language courses. Finally, he wishes to make France more attractive for desirable types of migrants (desirable to Macron at least) such as researchers, students, investors, and artists.


François Fillon- Les Republicains

imageedit_5_8469689078

Our demography is one of the most dynamic in Europe so that, in contrast to most of our European neighbors, we do not need immigration to support our growth.

François Fillon is the candidate of the center-right Republicans, once thought to be a strong contender but now under fire constantly following a scandal involving alleged payments made to his wife (“Penelopegate”). Facing calls to step down, he defiantly remains in the race and can’t be counted out. Regarding his immigration policy, he is barely to the left of the Front National, calling for legal immigration to France to be reduced “to the bare minimum.” To this end, he proposes strict limits on family reunification and even ethnic quotas for various regions to avoid concentration of communities in the same municipalities. To the extent that EU standards conflict with his proposals, he wants to renegotiate. He would also significantly reduce benefits for migrants, including healthcare, limiting it to minors and emergency treatment. He also calls for restoring detention for asylum seekers, and would have decisions handed down within four months. Finally, he wants to restrict citizenship to those immigrants who have shown themselves to be “clearly assimilated”, and allow for citizenship applications to be opposed by the state in cases of doubt, especially, he says, in the case of children of undocumented immigrants.


Benoit Hamon- Parti Socialiste

imageedit_3_7006205659

The bulk of international migration is not on a South North Axis but a South-South axis. I will be working on both.

Benoit Hamon represents the French Socialist party (parti socialiste), whose currently reigning president Hollande declined to run for re-election. Hamon is the minister of education, and its fair to say that migration comprises a relatively minor part of a wide-ranging program,  focused on reforming labor, the economy, and the justice system. His migration proposals focus mainly on the European level. He calls for a reform of the Dublin regulation based on “welcome and solidarity” and proposes the creation of a humanitarian visa for refugee reception. Further, he endorses “fluidification” of labor migration (presumably making it easier for travel in and out of France for labor purposes.)


Jean Luc Melenchon- La France Insoumise

imageedit_7_5997101280

Turn off the causes of their departure one after the other.

Jean-Luc Melenchon’s  has argued that the immigrants that are currently here are not going anywhere, “Once people are there, what do you want to do? Reject them to the sea? No, it’s absolutely impossible.” As a result, his party presents a radical departure for the immigration system: decriminalizing undocumented migration, allowing more flexible work migration and easier acquisition of both residence rights and citizenship. The party also advocates standardizing asylum procedures across France and distributing asylum seekers equally across the country, and giving people who seek asylum the right to work while they await a decision.

In terms of restriction, Melenchon advocates a policy targeting the reasons that people leave in the first place. In a sense, Melenchon’s immigration policies are much more a preventative immigration type of foreign policy, suggestive of increasing foreign development aid. In his 2016 book “Le Choix de l’insoumission” outlines his position, “If we do not want people to come, it is better that they do not leave… We must stop believing that people leave for pleasure. So turn off the causes of their departure one after the other.” 

READ MORE
Candidate Programs: Le Pen, Macron, Fillon, Hamon, Melenchon
Penelopegate casts dark shadow over Fillon’s presidential prospects” (Jan. 2017) The Guardian.
Mélenchon, J., & Endeweld, M. (2016). Le choix de l’insoumission (1st ed.). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Analysis: The Far Right’s Coalition Conundrum (MV)
(Cover image via Mutualité Française on flickr, (CC BY-NC 2.0)

The Far-Right’s Coalition Conundrum

As elections approach in the Netherlands, France and Germany, people interested in immigration issues are no doubt focused on the chances of the far-right parties, whose platforms focus explicitly on reducing flows of immigrants and refugees. The Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) has promised to reduce immigration of Muslims, leave the European Union, and strengthen borders. The Front National‘s (FN) Marine Le Pen has similarly proposed a Brexit-like referendum to leave the European Union and opposes immigration of refugees and EU migrants into France. And Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) calls for closing German borders to Europe and revamping the law to reduce asylum.

All three of these parties have seen major increases in popularity in their home countries, with both PVV and FN leading in some polls, while AfD, although losing a bit of support, is still making a very strong showing considering the relative newness of their party and their position in comparison to more established national parties such as the Greens. As a result, some are saying that, after Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory in the US, Europe should be prepared for a big upset. Continue reading