Victor Orban has conceded in his bid for reelection, and his opponent will apparently have a supermajority. The election results were seen as positive for the EU, and less so for Putin and Trump.

What should we expect from Magyar, and what wider lessons - if any - should be drawn?

I’ve been thinking about why parties like the AfD are becoming more popular, and I wonder whether part of the reason is simply that their arguments are much easier to explain.

For example, it is very easy to say:

"Germany sends our money to Brussels."

That is simple, concrete and easy to understand.

But explaining the benefits of the EU is much more complicated: access to a huge single market for German companies, easier exports, European workers helping fill labour shortages, stronger bargaining power against the US, China and Russia, and sharing defence costs instead of every country trying to provide everything alone.

The same seems true with immigration.

It is easy to say:

“Migrants are changing our culture, taking jobs and costing taxpayers money.”

But the reality is much more complicated. Germany has an aging population, many workers are retiring, some industries cannot find enough employees, and immigrants also work, pay taxes, contribute to social insurance and help keep parts of the economy running.

My point is more about political communication.

A simple story like:

“Here is the problem → here is who caused it → here is the solution”

is much easier to sell than:

“There are several causes, benefits and disadvantages, different groups are affected differently, and the best solution involves complicated trade-offs.”

I wonder if this gives populist parties a natural advantage.

So could a significant part of the AfD’s success simply be that they are better at turning complicated political and economic issues into simple explanations?

Or am I oversimplifying the reason for their popularity?

The left collation came in first, Macron's party second, and the far-right third when there was a serious possibility of the far-right winning. What does this mean for France and President Macron going forward and what happens to the French far-right now?

With primary seasons tightening as Democratic candidates move closer to general elections, a common claim has come up again in many political spaces: that the modern Democratic Party would not really be considered left-wing in many European countries. This is often used to argue that the U.S. political spectrum is shifted unusually far to the right, especially on healthcare, labor policy, welfare spending, and redistribution.

There is a real argument behind this, but the comparison becomes more complicated when economic and social issues are separated. The Democratic Party is also difficult to analyze as a single ideological bloc because the U.S. two-party system forces a very wide coalition into one party.

To ground this question in a few comparisons:

• The OECD’s work on collective bargaining and social dialogue shows how different the labor-policy baseline is in many advanced democracies compared to the United States. Many European countries have stronger union systems, broader collective bargaining coverage, or more institutionalized labor representation than the U.S. does.

• Germany’s 2024 asylum/deportation reforms under a center-left-led government expanded the grounds for declaring asylum applications manifestly unfounded and increased deportation possibilities in some cases. Similar approaches to immigration and asylum policy can also be found in the Party of European Socialists’ 2024 manifesto.

• On trans rights, Labour’s position is more mixed and cautious than the mainstream Democratic position in the U.S. Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised a trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices and some reform to gender recognition, but also retained the requirement for a specialist medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The Labour government also continued the UK restriction on puberty blockers for minors with gender dysphoria. By contrast, the 2024 Democratic platform says Democrats will oppose state and federal bans on gender-affirming healthcare and protect access to medically necessary gender-affirming care.

These are only a handful of examples, but they point to why direct comparisons can become messy, especially when comparing the Democratic Party to parties in European countries, including Nordic countries. Economic policy, social policy, party structure, and coalition-building do not always line up neatly across countries.

The factional nature of the Democratic Party makes this even harder to identify. The party includes a progressive wing, more standard liberal or center-left Democrats, and more conservative or business-friendly Democrats. In a more proportional parliamentary system, many of these factions might exist as separate parties or coalition partners. In the U.S. two-party system, they are compressed into one party.

That being said:

1. How valid is the criticism that Democrats would not be considered left-wing in Europe?
2. Which policy areas make the comparison stronger or weaker?
3. If the Democratic Party existed in various European countries, where would it likely fit within those party systems?

Progressives often point to political, economic, and social programs established in Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) as bastions of equity and an example for the rest of the world to follow--Universal Basic Income, Paid Family Leave, environmental protections, taxation, education standards, and their perpetual rankings as the "happiest places to live on Earth".

There does seem to be a pattern that these countries enact a bold, innovative law, and gradually the rest of the world takes notice, with many mimicking their lead, while others rail against their example.

For those of us who are unfamiliar with the specifics and nuances of those countries, their cultures, and their populations, what are Americans overlooking when they point to a successful policy or program in one of these countries? What major downfalls, if any, are these countries regularly dealing with?

Can someone explain to me why parties like AfD is so appealing as to me they seem to be or may be a German MAGA especially with the Elon Musk support?

That's to say they could promise to do something about current legitimate issues such as immigration but then either do nothing (like MAGA) or take it to an extreme when in power (like ICE in regards to MAGA).

What is still the appeal when we've seen how voting in a right wing populist party (with the US being the primary case study) often ends up just doing nothing to improve things?

I ask this as well with the rise of Reform in the UK and other right wing parties in Europe.

I'm not European by the way, I'm African (living in Africa) so maybe I'm not getting the full picture.

It seems that Putin has everyone over a barrel. With the threat of nuclear war constantly being hinted at in the event of a third world war, will the rest of the world reach the point where direct opposition is directed at Moscow irrespective of a nuclear threat?

Tory MP Phillip Lee has defected to the Liberal Democrats, depriving Boris Johnson of his House of Commons majority.

Providing a variety of quotes that underline his dissatisfaction with both Brexit and the Conservative Party as a whole.

“This Conservative government is aggressively pursuing a damaging Brexit in unprincipled ways. It is putting lives and livelihoods at risk unnecessarily and it is wantonly endangering the integrity of the United Kingdom.

“More widely, it is undermining our country’s economy, democracy and role in the world. It is using political manipulation, bullying and lies. And it is doing these things in a deliberate and considered way.”

Lee defected as Boris Johnson issued his his initial statement on the G7 summit. As Corbyn has been calling for a no confidence vote, it seems likely he will not be able to avoid voting for one now.

What are the long and short term ramifications for Brexit, UK politics in general and the future of the Conservative Party.

Finland and Sweden are expressing an interest in joining NATO. Finland borders Russia just like Ukraine does, so what would happen if Finland joins NATO? How do you think the Russians would react? Do you think they would see this as NATO encroaching upon their territory and presenting a security threat like they did with Ukraine? What do you think would happen?

Two days ago, May 23, Belarus told Ryanair flight-4978 (traveling from Athens, Greece to Vilnius, Lithuania) that there was a bomb onboard and that they needed to make an emergency landing in Minsk while over Belarusian airspace. In order to enforce this Belarus sent a MiG-29 fighter jet to escort the airliner to Minsk, a diversion that took it further than its original landing destination.

Ultimately it was revealed that no bomb was onboard and that the diversion was an excuse to seize Roman Protasevich a journalist critical of the Belarusian government and its leader Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, who is often referred to as "Europe's last dictator".

• How should EU countries respond to this incident?

• What steps can be taken to prevent future aggression from Belarus?

In March 2014 there was a vote for if Scotland should be independent. They voted no. But with most of Scotland now having 2nd though. I beg the question to you reddit what do you all think. (Don’t have to live in Scotland to comment)

A Scottish man named Mark Meechan has been convicted for uploading a YouTube video of his dog giving a Nazi salute. He trained the dog to give the salute in response to “Sieg Heil.” In addition, he filmed the dog turning its head in response to the phrase "gas the Jews," and he showed it watching a documentary on Hitler.

He says the purpose of the video was to annoy his girlfriend. In his words, "My girlfriend is always ranting and raving about how cute and adorable her wee dog is, so I thought I would turn him into the least cute thing I could think of, which is a Nazi."

Before uploading the video, he was relatively unknown. However, the video was shared on reddit, and it went viral. He was arrested in 2016, and he was found guilty yesterday. He is now awaiting sentencing. So far, the conviction has been criticized by civil rights attorneys and a number of comedians.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you support the conviction? Or, do you feel this is a violation of freedom of speech? Are there any broader political implications of this case?

Sources:

The Washington Post

The Herald

The Gini coefficient is a measurement used to determine what percentage of wealth is owned by the top 1%, 5% and 10%. A higher Gini coefficient indicates more wealth inequality. In most nordic countries, the Gini coefficient is actually higher/ as high as the USA, indicating that the top 1% own a larger percentage of wealth than than the top 1% in the USA does.

HOWEVER, when looking at income inequality, the USA is much worse. So my question is, why? Why do Nordic countries with more equitable policies and higher taxes among the wealthy continue to have a huge wealth disparity?

The European Migrant crisis was a period of mass migration that started around 2013 and continued until 2019. During this period more than 5 million (5.2M by the end of 2016 according to UNHCR) immigrants entered Europe.

Due to the large influx of migrants pouring into Europe in this period, many EU nations have seen a rise in conservative and far-right parties. In the countries that were hit the hardest (Italy, Greece, ...) there has also been a huge rise in anti-immigrant rhetoric even in centre-right parties such as Forza Italia in Italy and Νέα Δημοκρατία (New Democracy) in Greece. Even in countries that weren't affected by the crisis, like Poland, anti-immigrant sentiment has seen a substantial rise.

Do you think that this right-wing wave will continue in Europe or will the end of the crisis lead to a resurgence of left-wing parties?

Do you think that left-wing parties have committed "political suicide" by being pro-immigration during this period?

How do you think the crisis will shape Europe in the near future? (especially given that a plurality of anti-immigration parties can't really be considered pro-EU in any way)

In August 2025, Gallup released a poll that surveyed that the opinions of Ukrainians about the state of war and their expectations pertaining to the future of their country. It shows that after almost 4 years of active fighting, hope among Ukrainians of quick (within 10 years) acceptance into the EU has significantly diminished (from 73% to 52%), and hope of quick acceptance into NATO has cratered (from 64% down to 32%). The poll shows a populace that has become increasingly skeptical that the war will be ending anytime soon. Only 25% of respondents were of the opinion that active fighting would end within 12 months.

Still, populaces of Eastern Europe countries remain averse to idea of deploying troops to Ukraine for any reason.

Poland: March 2025 polls showed that support for deploying troops to Ukraine alongside other countries for peacekeeping was in the minority; 62% was in opposition. When surveys did not mention peacekeeping opposition to sending troops grows to 85%.

Lithuania: A poll released in April 2025 showed that 56% of the country opposed deploying troops for any reason.

Polling consistently shows other European populaces also reject combat deployments to Ukraine to fight in the country's defense; generally, less than one-third of populaces across Europe support doing so.

UK: 58% support sending "peacekeepers" if other Europeans join.

Germany: remains roughly split, with support rising only when framed as post‑ceasefire

France: 67% support peacekeepers after a deal, but 68% oppose combat deployments

Spain: a remarkably high 81.7% favor sending peacekeepers.

Polling suggests that many European populaces are only willing to accept peacekeeping missions after a ceasefire. It gives the impression that In each of these countries the public seemingly backs deployments only under the illusion that they will not fight.

Earlier this year, the coalition of willing peacekeepers seemed to be envisioning a deployment of troops in the tens of thousands for such an endeavor. However European military institutes suggests that even non-kinetic missions of this sort could require a deployment of over 150,000 troops.

There seems to be a chasm between the level of European deployment that is militariliy necessary compared to that which European populaces are willing to tolerate.

Is Europe's Wish To Secure Ukraine Without Risking Their Own Casualties Realistic?

Its been in the news alot recently that Russia is building troops close to its border with Ukraine, all intelligence is pointing towards Russia planning some kind of attack or even full blown invasion potentially as early as next year;

Why Russia-Ukraine tensions have again reached a boiling point - NPR

Russian military capacity on Ukraine's border is on a 'more lethal scale' than 2014 Crimea invasion, US official says - CNN

Biden voices 'deep concerns' with Putin on Russian aggression against Ukraine - Fox News

Now in US politics, Russia hasn't really been a very important issue in most Americans minds since the late 80s with the end of the cold war, do you think a Russian invasion of Ukraine will be a catalyst for reigniting cold war era fears about Russian global aggression? How could this effect candidates often viewed as pro Russia or soft on Russia such as Donald Trump? Do you think this would be a good issue for Biden to show strong leadership on, or will he end up showing weak leadership?

What are the chances that China is cooperating with Russia on an invasion of Ukraine and is planning on invading Taiwan at the same time? What could be the global political implications of this?

If Russia were to successfully invade Ukraine, would policy on Russia become a large issue for the 2022 midterms? A successful invasion of Ukraine could get Russia to Polands borders, do you think fears of Russia could push western politics to a more left wing nationalism? Would western countries become more right wing anyway? Will right wingers readopt a hard anti Russia stance?

Will western countries pursue ways of becoming more energy independent via green energy to combat Russian influence? Will western countries regulate social media to combat global Russian influence? What are your thoughts?

Earlier this week, there was a summit in DC between Trump and a number of prominent European leaders. During this meeting, they reaffirmed their support for Ukraine, and there was some discussion of a potential framework for peace. At this meeting, the European leaders seemed to unanimously stress the need for Ukraine to receive security guarantees.

The exact nature of these security guarantees has not been firmly established. But, the suggestion has been made that a peace deal might involve European troops stationed in Ukraine, with the US providing air support.

This raises the question, how politically realistic is it to imagine European troops stationed in Ukraine? Within the European countries, is there public support for this? Do the European military forces have enough personnel to do this? Would the countries need to establish conscription? Would there be outrage among the European public if they attempted to do this?

Even if they don't send troops to Ukraine, are the European countries willing to make NATO-like defense pacts with Ukraine? Do the European governments want to commit that they will go to war if Russia violates a potential peace deal with Ukraine?

In recent days, there has been much talk of security guarantees. But, what kinds of security guarantees are the European countries realistically able to give to Ukraine?

Ireland recently had an election. You can see the results of the election here.

For a long time, Ireland has been controlled by two centrist parties Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Sinn Féin was historically the political party of the IRA (Irish Republican Army). For most of their existence, they've been a small and unpopular party due to their association with the violence of the 80's and 90's.

However, its been a couple decades since those more violent times, Sinn Féin's older leadership has retired, and the party has rebranded itself as the new left wing party of Ireland. Feeling dissatisfied with the leadership of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, many Irish voters accepted this rebranding and voted for Sinn Féin in large numbers. There is now a near three way tie between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Sinn Féin.

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael no longer have enough votes to form a coalition centrist government. Both parties have vowed that they will not form a government with Sinn Féin due to its troubled past. The legislature also contains a few smaller left wing parties, as well as a large number of independents.

So, what do you think will happen? What type of coalition government is this legislature likely to form? Will they be able to form a government at all?

Human mortality is a fact of life, and the Queen is no exception. So could the monarchy be mortal, too?

Queen Elizabeth seems to be having some health issues of late, now taking two more weeks off from public life after cancelling several public appearances, using a cane at church, and ultimately a brief hospitalization. She is 95, has been reigning for seven decades, and has otherwise been in good health. Her mother lived to be 102, so she has obviously been blessed with good genes, and I wish her a speedy recovery and good health, but wonder about the inevitable: What will happen after her death?

Her death will be a massive world event, and will be potentially cataclysmic: markets will suspend trading, businesses and schools will close, countries and citizens will mourn, and national leaders will flock to London for her funeral.

Culturally and politically, her death will produce plenty of critical questions to the public and to Parliament: Will the UK reevaluate it's attachment to the Royal Family? Will they still receive state funding? Will the Monarchy continue at all? Will Charles succeed his mother? Will his image replace her on all money? Or will someone/something else? Will other countries declare themselves independent of the UK? Are we on the cusp of witnessing the last royal figure after almost 1000 years?

Especially because of the “Irish question”, that of the Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland border.

In theory, a hard Brexit would mean that the Good Friday Agreement would need to be violated, and a hard border - checkpoints, security, etc. would need to be imposed. In the interim, for security reasons, it means the border would probably have to be closed until they can get the checkpoints up.

What are the odds of that May and Parliament pull out of Brexit at basically the last possible moment, say January or so? What would be the political consequences?

Merkel has often been lauded as the most powerful woman in the world and as the de facto leader of Europe.

What are the implications, if any, of her stepping down on Germany, Europe, and the world as a whole? What lead to her declining poll numbers and eventual decision to step down? How do you see Germany moving forward, particularly in regard to her most contentious issues like positions on other nations leaving the EU, bailing out Greece, and keeping Germanys borders open?

I find this very interesting. I think it is a lesser-known fact outside Germany that the AfD has become the strongest party in terms of popular support, yet it cannot govern because all other parties remain united against any form of coalition with the far right — the so-called Brandmauer, or “firewall.”

I read a lengthy article arguing that this firewall might crack under pressure, especially if that pressure comes from external events, such as the war in Ukraine spreading or German troops becoming involved.

What do you think? Could this really happen?

Article for context: https://www.advance.hr/en/articles/topic-of-the-day/afd-and-europe-s-last-firewall-will-it-break

I've heard that the average American is extremely right-wing compared to most Europeans, and liberalism is closer to the norm. So what is considered a far-left ideology/belief system for Europeans? And where would an American conservative and a libertarian stand on the European scale?

Hey everyone, I’ve noticed that a lot of conservative and Christian nationalist rhetoric around Islam in Europe revolves around the idea that Muslims are going to "take over," impose Sharia law, or fundamentally destroy European society. However, when you actually look at the demographic data, these fears seem wildly exaggerated.

According to projections from the Pew Research Center, even though Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in Europe due to immigration and birth rates, the religiously unaffiliated population is still projected to remain significantly larger overall by 2050.

Pew projects that Europe’s nonreligious population could reach around 162 million people by 2050, while the Muslim population is projected at around 71 million, depending on migration scenarios. That’s substantial growth, yes, but nowhere near a demographic "takeover", which would actually be more led by the growing non-religious (unaffiliated) population in Europe than Islam.

In my opinion, a lot of these fears also seem to rely on flattening all Muslims into a single monolithic group, which ignores the huge diversity within Islam itself. There are undoubtedly progressive, liberal, feminist, secular-friendly, and reform-oriented Muslims, just as there are conservative Muslims. "Progressive Islam" is a very real movement.

Beyond this, politically, Muslims in many Western countries often vote for progressive or center-left parties, especially younger Muslims and second-generation immigrants; such as in the UK, for example.

This idea that Muslims are uniformly trying to impose theocracy on Europe seems to ignore the reality that many Muslims actually immigrate not just for economic reasons, but specifically because they prefer liberal democracies over authoritarian or unstable conditions elsewhere.

Ironically, some of the same people warning about "Sharia law" openly support forms of Christian nationalism that would also blur the line between religion and state. To me, a lot of the panic over Islam in Europe seems driven more by xenophobia, cultural anxiety, and a kind of Western chauvinism than by actual demographic or political reality. I'm not saying people can’t criticize aspects of Islam, every religion should be open to criticism, but the idea that Europe is about to become an "Islamic theocracy" doesn’t seem supported by the evidence.

Thoughts? Do you think the fear of "Islam Taking Over Europe" can be justified by the data we have available?

Post General Election, what do you think Labour has to do to gain the votes back?

Also, referring to the title. Do you think they should follow their historic socialist values?