Euroscepticism in Europe is increasingly influenced by the behaviour of mainstream political parties, not only by openly anti-EU movements. As noted by Euronews during the 2024 European elections, several centre-right parties have shown greater openness toward cooperation with populist and eurosceptic actors. This shift has gradually changed how criticism of the EU circulates within established political spaces.

Instead of questioning EU membership, these parties focus on specific aspects of EU governance, such as regulation, institutional authority or policy constraints. The goal is rarely withdrawal. More often, EU criticism is used to respond to electoral pressure while remaining within the European framework. Over time, this approach makes it harder to distinguish between pro-European and eurosceptic positions.

This matters politically. When EU criticism becomes routine within governing parties, responsibility for policy outcomes is increasingly displaced onto Brussels. Euroscepticism therefore emerges less as a clear rejection of integration and more as a consequence of strategic choices made inside competitive national politics.

EU decisions on defence and military support to Ukraine since 2024 provide a concrete illustration of the EU’s democratic deficit. Key choices concerning arms deliveries, defence funding and strategic coordination have been shaped primarily by the European Council and national governments, often through ad-hoc instruments such as the European Peace Facility. Although the European Parliament has formally been involved, its role has remained largely marginal, limited to ex-post debate rather than substantive influence over decision-making.

This decision-making pattern reflects a structural feature of EU governance in sensitive policy areas. When security concerns dominate, executive actors tend to prioritise speed, unity and intergovernmental coordination, while parliamentary scrutiny is reduced. As a consequence, political accountability becomes fragmented and it is difficult for citizens to identify where responsibility ultimately lies.

The EU’s response to the war in Ukraine thus shows how democratic deficits can emerge not from institutional absence, but from an uneven distribution of power between representative and executive bodies.

Source: Le Monde (2023)

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/23/strikes-and-protests-underway-across-france-against-macron-s-pension-reform_6020420_7.html

Inequality remains one of the strongest forces shaping political attitudes today. When living costs rise faster than incomes and social protections weaken, many citizens feel left behind. This sense of unfairness quickly becomes political: trust falls, polarization grows, and confidence in institutions collapses. 

A clear example came from France during the 2023 pension reform, when millions protested a measure widely seen as regressive for lower-income and manual workers (Le Monde, 2023). For many people, the demonstrations were not only about retirement age, but about the feeling that institutions fail to protect those most exposed to economic pressure. Inequality is therefore not just an economic issue: it has become a key democratic challenge that shapes how citizens judge fairness, voice, and representation.

The Pew Reserach Center's study highlights how polarization in the U.S. goes beyond policy disagreements — it has become affective, meaning people feel intense dislike and mistrust toward those on the other side. Many Americans now fear politically motivated violence, showing how emotional and social divisions can spill into real-world consequences. 

The article finds that a growing share of citizens sees such violence as increasingly common, often as an inevitable outcome of deep ideological divides. Strikingly, both Democrats and Republicans share this concern, yet each blames the other for escalating tensions. This mutual mistrust distorts political debate and citizens’ perception of reality. When fear replaces dialogue, democratic norms weaken, and governance becomes more difficult. The study demonstrates how affective polarization threatens the foundations of democracy, highlighting the urgent need for restoring trust, empathy, and cross-cutting connections across political divides to preserve both social cohesion and functional democratic processes.