The Brussels terrorist attacks and the refugee crisis confront Europe, as perhaps never before, with a stark choice between idealism and realism. Both tragedies have been described as major tests, with many voices saying they have exposed Europe’s failures. Criticism is piling up, and comes from pro-European Union and anti-EU circles alike.

Explosions heard as Belgian police carry out terror raid in Brussels Read more

Calls for stronger law enforcement and better security will lead to heightened surveillance measures across the continent. These will be denounced by human rights campaigners as putting civil liberties at risk, just as the EU’s recent deal with Turkey, aimed at stopping refugee flows, has been roundly denounced as a betrayal of European principles. These are no light matters: if values aren’t defended, then what is the EU all about? But Europe’s existential challenges have taken on such proportions that some compromises, however uncomfortable, may have become necessary.

After the bloodbaths in Brussels and Paris, it is obvious that security has become paramount; and after the scenes of refugees drowning at sea or stranded at barbed-wire fences, it is hard to deny that chaotic migration flows must urgently be stemmed. These are two distinct issues. But a key reason why they must both be approached with a new realism is that if swift measures aren’t taken, not only will more lives be threatened but Europe’s far-right and populist movements will end up dominating the continent.

Citizens’ lack of trust in the capacity of governments to get on top of problems is what fuels the growth of far-right parties. These, in turn, threaten Europe’s democratic fabric and social cohesion. If these movements continue proliferating, they will spell the end of the EU as a project, and possibly the end of stability and peace in our region.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Don’t let Trump fool you: rightwing populism is the new normal – video

Stark realism is called for because we risk seeing the re-emergence of ghosts of the past, something resembling what happened in the 1930s when authoritarian regimes appeared, xenophobia grew, and weak democracies were overrun by fascism. In that kind of Europe, there wouldn’t be many civil liberties or human rights left to defend. In that kind of Europe, worries about police surveillance or about how asylum conventions are violated would become luxuries, or at least sideshows.

An awareness of this worst-case scenario is, I believe, at the heart of recent policy choices, chiefly the much-criticised deal whereby refugees travelling across the Aegean Sea to Greece will be deported to Turkey if they are not granted asylum. Whether those choices will bring the desired results will continue to be debated. But it is important to understand that a central motivation behind the EU’s new refugee policy, and behind renewed calls for tighter security on the continent, lies in the need to prevent Europe turning sharply to the right; these are steps taken to avert Europe’s self-destruction.

Europe’s problems are essentially political. Terrorism is a danger, but must be kept in perspective. In the last 12 years it has killed 400 people in Europe – a tiny fraction of the number of victims in other parts of the world. The refugee issue is important, but remember that the number of arrivals in 2015 represents just over 0.2% of the EU’s population.

Some of Europe’s vulnerabilities have technical causes: for instance, the Schengen area’s external borders have never been protected. But the main weakness is political. Europe has been hit by the fallout from external crises (the growth of Islamic State in the Middle East, and mass displacements of populations caused by the Syrian war), but the reasons it has failed to address these challenges are domestic. The EU has been paralysed by its divisions, and many governments have preferred to pander to populist sentiments than confront them.

Citizens’ lack of trust in the capacity of governments to get on top of problems is what fuels far-right parties

The first time extremist and xenophobic parties made headlines throughout Europe was in May 2014, when they won a third or so of seats in the EU parliament. That was before acts of mass terrorism were perpetrated by Isis in Europe, and before the refugee crisis took on unprecedented dimensions. The risk these parties will grow further – now that terrorism has become an obsession and refugees have at times been cynically conflated with radical Islam or crime (remember Cologne) – weighs heavily on Europe’s future. Fragmentation and xenophobia are growing: witness Ukip’s reaction to Brussels, and how Marine Le Pen and other populists who want to see the end of the EU have sought to capitalise on the tragedy.

This is not to say fundamental values should be sacrificed. Human rights organisations have sound reasons to criticise the EU-Turkey deal, if only because it entails mass expulsions, and will surely be challenged in courts. Nor does an EU agreement with Turkey’s repressive regime carry much glory.

But there is also a dose of high-minded idealism in this criticism that misses the overarching objective. The deal is meant to send a signal to EU citizens that action is being taken by Europe’s political leaders. It is meant to neutralise the narrative of Europe’s populist movements – something Germany’s chancellor feels strongly about.

European elections: results from across Europe Read more

The dangers Angela Merkel wants to avert are obvious. The UK is preparing for a referendum, and recent elections in Germany and elsewhere have shown that the anti-migrant, anti-Muslim far right is surging (in Slovakia a neo-Nazi party has just entered parliament). The EU-Turkey deal may well bring only a temporary slowdown in refugee movements. Smugglers will probably open up other routes, through the central Mediterranean or even the Black Sea. But the signal sent – even temporarily – to European voters has logic behind it.

European citizens will migrate to political extremes in even higher numbers if EU institutions and governments don’t manage to build trust in the system. Right now, that can be done only if decisive steps are taken both against terrorism and uncontrolled migration. It may sound cynical, but lofty idealism simply won’t do the trick.

Tolerance was once described by Merkel as “the heart and soul of Europe”. The painful paradox today is that halting the advance of parties that promote intolerance, want to bury the EU, and feel empowered by recent tragic events, may require some maximalist moral postures to be abandoned.