The rules regarding deficits and debt established by the European Union—based on the Maastricht Treaty—and the requirement to adhere to them (precluding the adoption of more relaxed policies that might bypass the demands of the markets) pose a major obstacle for the governments of EU member states.
Currently, no EU government is satisfying its citizens. The mass, often violent, protests across European nations, coupled with the rise of extreme populist and far-right parties, represent the voters’ reaction to these challenges.
The root causes include the high cost of living, a lack of prospects for young people, and profound economic inequalities.
Regrettably, the European Union finds itself at a critical juncture, struggling to address the multiple crises unfolding simultaneously.
The war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East, rising defense spending, the transition to a green economy, the pursuit of energy independence, the energy crisis, inflation, the housing crisis, job-market uncertainty driven by artificial intelligence, and the issue of migration are all concurrent challenges—challenges expected to reach a peak by 2027. At the same time—in 2027—many European countries are holding elections, and in all of them, populist and far-right parties are seeing a significant surge in the polls.
Without specifying exactly which policies they intend to pursue or how they plan to address existing problems, these parties are attracting vast numbers of voters who are dissatisfied with their governments.
Voters want change, and some are even turning to authoritarian parties in a desperate attempt to improve their lives.
Regardless of the slogans chanted at demonstrations—whether in Paris, Milan, Madrid, Belgium, Athens, or anywhere else—the primary demand remains the same: an improvement in the citizens’ economic situation.
And while this is perfectly clear—and well understood by governments—political leaders across these nations are failing to satisfy their voters.
Why? Because they are all, without exception, bound by European fiscal rules—rules so rigid that they have become stifling for the people of Europe. The rules of the Stability Pact—which lie at the heart of all these problems—prevent governments from pursuing an independent economic policy, even though such a policy might be essential not only for the political survival of those governments but also for the specific needs of each national economy.
The European citizen is not at the center of European policy. No indicator of citizen well-being is evaluated—or even mentioned—in any European treaty as a criterion for success, whether for European policy or for the national policies of individual countries.
All indicators are geared toward satisfying international markets, which provide the funding for everything. Debt as a percentage of GDP and the deficit as a percentage of GDP—these are the two metrics that determine the standing of any nation’s economy.
Although Europe decided decades ago to aim for the convergence of these indicators within a specific range—a step intended to make the integration of their economies feasible—this never came to pass.
European economic and political integration are no longer even discussed. Europe is, in reality, nothing more than a monetary union, with its policy dictated by an all-powerful bureaucracy that remains ostentatiously indifferent to the problems faced by its citizens.
Furthermore, while the European Commission forbids any increase in deficits or debt, it simultaneously imposes policies that cause the cost of living—as well as the cost of production—across Europe to skyrocket.
It sets excessive targets and mandates their implementation, showing no regard for the costs that taxpayers will ultimately have to bear.
The “Anti-Systemic”
The high cost of living across European countries has reached a critical peak, putting a strain even on those with high incomes.
For the Greek consumer, the situation is dire. They face soaring prices while simultaneously having some of the lowest incomes in Europe. The cost of living has skyrocketed, and the standard of living has deteriorated.
At the same time, a housing crisis has emerged—young people can no longer afford to rent even the smallest apartment. Artificial Intelligence has already begun to eliminate jobs, and the rate at which many professions disappear is set to accelerate in the coming years; consequently, young people struggle to envision a promising future.
Governments are unable to protect their citizens from either the high cost of living or the impact of technological developments. This is partly because they are bound by stifling European regulations, and partly because “establishment” politicians themselves believe in the validity of the “system”—in the case of the EU, this means believing in the soundness of the rigid rules that govern how European economies function.
An “establishment” leader cannot bypass these rules. “Anti-establishment” voters believe that extremists and populists will bypass the established order—and that is why they vote for them.
In practice, this has not happened so far—not even when anti-establishment governments were put to the test, as was the case with the Tsipras administration in Greece.
However, it is not impossible that this could occur if far-right political forces—which currently show strong polling numbers—were to come to power simultaneously in several major nations, such as France, Germany, and Poland, all of which have elections scheduled for 2027.
In such a scenario, the European Union would be fundamentally altered, and national economies would face severe shocks should these new leaderships begin to experiment. This is not necessarily because the experiments themselves would fail, but because the markets—which ultimately dictate everything—would shift their stance toward these European countries.
There is no guarantee that things would improve in such a situation—neither for the economies nor for the citizens.
Yet, judging by the polls, Europeans appear willing to take a risk on anti-establishment forces, as they believe that the current “establishment” leaderships are incapable of solving their problems.
