Anti-Immigrant Party Wins Slovenian Elections As Populist Wave Washes Over Europe

In early March, Deutsche Bank wrote that "the Liberal world order is in jeopardy" as a result of a global populist uprising to a level not seen since World War II, with DB strategist Jim Reid adding that "it's hard to get away from the fact that populism is currently going through an explosion in support at present." The unprecedented ascent of populism across Europe, where the ECB is rapidly losing the war against anti-globalist forces which made its creation possible, is shown in the chart below: it reveals that whereas in 2000 only 8.5% of the European vote went to populist states, in 2017 that number rose to 24.1%...

... tied with the highest print on record, achieved just before the start of World War II.

Well, as of 2018 we can make it well above 25%, because as of Sunday afternoon, Slovenia's anti-immigrant, populist party, Janez Jansa's SDS-EPP, has won the election with 28% of the vote, according to exit polls which were made available after voting ended at 5pm GMT. The preliminary result is due by 9pm.

In the hugely fragmented vote, the Adriatic country's 1.7 million-strong electorate was set to choose between 25 parties, with final opinion polls putting the centre-right Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) first on up to 24.5%. And, according to partial results late on Sunday, that estimate may have been low, with the party taking roughly 28% of the vote.

The problem in Slovenia, which now may face a period of government turbulence, is that most other parties have said they are reluctant to join a coalition with the SDS, whose leader Janez Jansa acknowledged any post-election negotiations would be difficult.

"We will probably have to wait for some time (after the election)... before serious talks on a new government will be possible," Jansa told reporters after voting in Sentilj pri Velenju. Jansa has already served twice as prime minister - from 2004 until 2008 and again from 2012 to 2013. However, he has been hampered by corruption accusations, even serving time in prison in 2014 on graft charges related to Slovenia's largest-ever corruption scandal, although the country's Constitutional Court overturned the conviction in April 2015.

As Reuters points out, the election was called in March after centre-left Prime Minister Miro Cerar resigned, weeks before the scheduled end of his term of office, after the Supreme Court ordered a new referendum on a railway investment project championed by his government.

While the final vote details are still pending, the divided nature of the vote means the SDS would need to ally with at least two other parties to gain a majority in the 90-seat parliament, the Telegraph notes. But so far most other parties have demurred at joining forces with the SDS, which has the open support of Hungary's anti-establishment Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and for obvious reasons:  the SDS wants to follow neighbouring Hungary's tough anti-migration policies, and according to the just concluded vote, so does a plurality of the Slovenian population.

"We believe that today a first step will be made towards Slovenia becoming a country that will put the well-being and security of Slovenians first," Mr Jansa said.

* * *

So what happens next as this tidal wave of populist sentiment continues to wash over Europe? Here is what Jim Reid said back in March:

As of now the rise in populism hasn't yet destabilised markets however we find it difficult to get away from the fact that uncertainty levels are bound to remain high while such power brokers remain in major elections. Indeed the unpredictability of  Trump's policies is such an example, with the recent tariff threats which have subsequently escalated market concerns about a trade war being one. At a time when global central banks are moving towards an unprecedented era of tightening and dealing with years of massive asset purchases, risks from rising populist support has the ability to seriously disturb the prevailing equilibrium of the last few years and subsequently markets.

While Reid notes that this is more of a slow burning issue over the next few years, he concedes that populism remains the biggest threat "to the post-1980 globalisation/liberalism world order." But the biggest risk, of course, is that the last time populism and populist anger was this high, the world was wrapped in a war that killed tens of millions of people. One wonders what happens this time when the biggest distraction ever created for mass consumption: the idea of paper wealth and unbooked profits - evaporates following the next market crash, and how many millions will die as a result. One thing is certain: the global drums of war have not beaten louder in almost a century.

Comments

whackedinflorida Joebloinvestor Sun, 06/03/2018 - 16:34 Permalink

Its real simple.  In the short and medium term, mass immigration helps the wealthy (drives down cost of unskilled labor and increases the value of real estate and adds to the number of consumers), and helps the employees of the government (social work, teachers, cops).  Plus the SJWs like it.   The politicians and media and influencers hang with those people.  Its all they know.  So there is a huge bubble of people in favor of mass immigration.  It self reinforces.

A few years ago, anyone against unchecked mass immigration was called a racist, deplorable, etc. by those people in the bubble.  The opposition to mass immigration had not yet jelled in a way to take action.  

It has now jelled.  Its called populism, the far right, other insults by those people in the bubble.  But the opposition represents a majority of the population.  It increases over time as people wake up and refuse to be labeled as a racist for wanting to preserve their culture.  When Hillary called the half of the population in the US that disagreed with her deplorables, she only increased their numbers and mobilized them. 

Most people want to be viewed as "good," and being good was being in favor of mass immigration.  As people become aware of the problems with mass immigration, they no longer feel the need to be in favor of it. 

People know that they are not racists for wanting to restrict mass immigration.  Now there is safety in numbers in standing up to the elites and SJW's. 

The poorer countries on the periphery of the EU are of course the first to revolt.  They can't afford the good intentions of Herr Merkel.  Many poorer countries value their culture far more than the citizens of very wealthy countries.  If they lose their culture they lose everything.  

I am sitting here watching the movie Dunkirk.  England is ruled by the house of Windsor.  "The dynasty is of German paternal descent and was originally a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, itself derived from the House of Wettin, and it succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy following the death of Queen Victoria, wife of Albert, Prince Consort. The houses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Windsor have provided five British monarchs to date, including four kings and the present queen, Elizabeth II."  So we have Germans fighting with the UK Germans, and then fighting with the USA Germans (General fcking Eisenhower, anyone?).  History is nothing more than the elites screwing over their populations to maintain control and privilege.  Immigration is the current lever, because the population is riled up enough such that another world war with a draft would cause a pretty quick revolt.  

 

 

 

In reply to by Joebloinvestor

Endgame Napoleon espirit Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:58 Permalink

More power to them in implementing policies that represent the economic interests of Slovenian citizens, hopefully all of the citizens. In the USA, we haven’t seen it yet, or we have seen it for select groups of citizens and noncitizens, just like in other Uniparty governments.

So far, we just have another big, debt-financed tax cut for the rich, including for multinational corporations with mostly employees in foreign countries, a tax cut for domestic employers who staff many part-time positions with citizens and noncitizens who can work for less pay due to welfare-boosted wages and more progressive tax code welfare to boost up the wages of parents, including frequently absentee or part-time-working parents in dual-earner households and the part-time-working single parents on welfare.

For many of the part-time-working parents getting thousands in refundable child tax credits, government also covers the cost of groceries and rent that consumes more than half of the earned-only income of non-welfare-eligible citizens.

Huge numbers of womb-productive immigrants—legal and illegal—are eligible for all of this unearned income from government due to US-born kids and male breadwinners in single-earner households that stay below the income limits for the programs by strategically working part time for traceable income.

Regardless of how few hours these citizen and noncitizen parents work to stay under the income limits for monthly welfare, due to less withholding, their paychecks are bigger than the paychecks of non-womb-productive citizens in the same jobs. Their refundable child tax credits top out at $6,431, which is equivalent to 3 to 4 months of full-time wages for non-welfare eligible / non-womb-productive citizens.

Non-welfare-eligible, non-womb-productive citizens in single-earner households got a “tax cut” big enough to cover the cost of a membership in a discount store. Most are not buying much though; sales are low and retail is tanking.

Because.....

Most citizens of the USA are not parents with children under 18, and in fact, almost one third of the citizens in this country are over 40 and childless. But in all meaningful policy areas, the US government still represents the economic interests of womb-productive illegal aliens more than the interests of the millions of US citizens without children and the single citizens with children over 18.

The unrepresented citizens must cover rent that soaks up more than half of their earned-only income on part-time / churn jobs that cater to citizens and noncitizens with unearned income from spouses or government for womb productivity. Their unearned income makes low wages and part-time hours advantageous by keeping them under the income limits for the pay-per-birth government programs.

In reply to by espirit

BritBob Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:12 Permalink

Even the people of Gibraltar have had enough of the EU -

 

Sir Joe Bossano, former Chief Minister of Gibraltar , says the European Union’s negotiating guidelines for Brexit are enough to convert him, from a supporter of the EU, into a Brexiteer.

Speaking to GBC, Sir Joe said it was disgraceful that the EU has effectively given Spain a veto over the application to Gibraltar of any Brexit deals made with the UK. He said it was a complete betrayal of the trust that the people of Gibraltar had in the EU. (Gib Chronicle 31st Jan 18).

Even after effectively giving the territory away on 3 separate occasions Spain persists!

Gibraltar – Spanish Myths and Agreements (single page):

https://www.academia.edu/34608739/Gibraltar_Spanish_Myths_and_Agreements

 

Avichi Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:18 Permalink

WE THE PEOPLE- of SLOVENIA- WE THE PEOPLE in AMERICA heard your voices against the SOCIALIST/GLOBALIST at Brussels and the stooges Draghi and Drunk Juncker trying to suppress FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY and burden the WILL OF THE PEOPLE- CONGRATS !

WAKE UP AND REVOLT AGAINST THE GLOBALIST

farflungstar Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:21 Permalink

Import millions of retarded goat rapists with a huge chip on their shoulder

See fellow countrymen senselessly slaughtered and then others told to shut up when they question the wisdom of such policies

Then wonder why "populism" washes over the continent 

Are these people that fucking stupid? Or just intentionally evil?

I kept saying they should have just brought in Flips if they needed extra workers at least they're Catholic and can be educated...not these chimping, stabby, exploding trucks of peace type desert semites. Why Muslims? Ask the kikes who have a wall built around their country to keep them out surely they have all the answers. 

hooligan2009 Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:28 Permalink

once again, sigh, misreporting at the base level. let's say it again.

THE ENCUMBENT POLITICAL PARTIES ARE "POPULIST".

by definition, any party that wins an election is a populist party.

what we have in europe ARE POPULIST SOCIALIST PARTIES. in my words, Libtard demoNrat socialists that spend like drunken sailors and have no intention of EVER paying back a red cent they borrow to fund the embedded fraud, waste and inefficiencies that rot the core of the welfare entitlement/socialist state.

oh and by the way, nobody in any european country voted for an influx of 25 million moslems over the last ten years - only Hausfrau ScheizerKopf Merkel did that.

Avichi JoseyWalesTheOutlaw Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:33 Permalink

Good luck with Donald Tusk Tusk...Drunken Juncker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU and IMF Christian Lagard GLOBALIST (BTW Bilderberg Group is set to meet this week, is SOROS invited to the party ?)come to rescue the Brussels, fucking bastards are bankrupt and leeching and terrorizing on small countries like Slovenia economy to support their "Lavish Lifestyle", "Mother Merkle" well your German Citizens will be bailing NATO out soon..get ready with your cheque book... I guess you still want to sell BMW/ VW /BENZ/AUDI in America markets don't you European Union and Angela Merkle ?

In reply to by JoseyWalesTheOutlaw

Is-Be Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:31 Permalink

the world was wrapped in a war that killed tens of millions of people. 

Sheeting the war home to "populism" is a bit of a stretch.

How about mind-numbingly stupid debt imposed upon the Europeans by our august politicians?

DocBerg Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

Why blame populists for World War Two? The European Theater was basically a civil war between the National Socialists and the International Socialists. Neither of those protagonists were in any meaningful sense, populists. It is even doubtful that the Italian Fascists were populists.

SaudiMail Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:39 Permalink

Extremist liberal Governments are the sole cause of the rise in populism because they didn't listen to the people they were employed to represent.

oncemore1 Sun, 06/03/2018 - 14:43 Permalink

What do you call populist, dear ZH?

 

Jansa was, and is, "Slovenia first".

If you call this populist, then you need to read any book about politogy.

JoseyWalesTheOutlaw Sun, 06/03/2018 - 15:27 Permalink

The Don is shaking all the trees across the world...He has cost the NWO/Globalist/Jewis Banker/Jewish MSM Cabal billions of dollars already and the total will only increase.

 

The CrossRoads are here.........pick a side and saddle up

Lokiban Sun, 06/03/2018 - 15:28 Permalink

I always said, what would have happened with WW2 if there was Internet then?

They are getting their comeuppance, Internet changed the centralized game into becoming decentralized and cryptos and blockchain is up next to up that ante.

waspwench Sun, 06/03/2018 - 15:59 Permalink

Only 25%?   What is wrong with the Europeans?   It ought to be 100%.   They are being destroyed.   It is heartening that we are finally beginning to see some push-back, but it will take a great deal more than 25% to topple the despotic govenments of much of Europe and in Brussells.   Additionally, the imposition of hate laws and the destruction of free speech, if not dealt with soon, will prevent any peaceful reform.   If people cannot effect change at the ballot box they will effect change by violent means.   Perhaps this is what Brussells wants - or perhaps they do not understand that very basic fact.

The tone of Jim Reid's comments in this article demonstrate the establishment mindset.   It is implied that "populism" is a bad thing.   It is implied that it will inevitably lead to war.   And if those two things are implied, then that implies that the present globalist/liberal/progressive/communist order is a good thing.   It is one thing for editorials to have a point of view but we are tired of the entire MSM having a point of view and one so biased as to make their "reporting" worthless.   Merriam-Webster tells us that a populist is a "believer in the rights, wisdom or virtues of the common people."   Is that a bad thing?   I think not, and using the term as a smear for any person or position that (((They))) dislike  does not change the dictionary definition.

BTW a curtain of silence seems to have descended on the TOMMY ROBINSON affair.   The MSM are being helpfully silent and TPTB are hoping that the problem will go away if it is ignored.   WE MUST NOT LET THIS HAPPEN.   Never forget: if justice is denied for Robinson, it can be denied for any one of us.

 

WebPundit Sun, 06/03/2018 - 16:54 Permalink

A lovely little country Slovenia is, and I hope it remains that way. They certainly do not need a large influx of barbarians sponsored by EU/Globalist diversifiers. If I want to see what that does, I can go get stabbed London, or shot in Molenbeek.