While the AfD celebrated a result few once thought possible in post-war Germany, the silence from Chancellor Friedrich Merz told a story of voters losing faith in the parties that once dominated European politics.

On Sunday night, jubilation erupted inside the AfD’s election gathering in Magdeburg. Party leaders embraced, supporters waved German flags and Ulrich Siegmund, a 35-year-old once presented as a figure from the political margins, stood smiling at the centre of the room.

Some 130 kilometres away in Berlin, Friedrich Merz watched the results arrive at Christian Democratic Union (CDU) headquarters before leaving without addressing the country. His party had just lost half its support in a state it had governed since 2002.

The AfD won 43.8 per cent in Saxony-Anhalt, more than doubling its result from five years ago. The CDU collapsed from 37.1 per cent to just 17.2 per cent. But this isn’t just a story of voters moving further to the right. It’s also a story of people who have stopped believing conventional politics offer anything to them or their country.

The voters who’d stopped turning up

Around 170,000 people who didn’t vote in 2021 returned to the ballot box specifically to support the AfD. Another 82,000 deserted the CDU for the party, while approximately six in 10 manual workers are said to have backed it. Voter turnout climbed from around 60 per cent to 77 per cent, the highest recorded in the state.

The election clearly wasn’t one shaped by apathy. It was an unusually mobilised electorate determined to make its anger visible. For years, established parties could dismiss the AfD as a protest movement on the political fringes, but that perspective becomes quite impossible to sustain when a party wins nearly 44 per cent and finishes first in every municipality in the state.

Saxony-Anhalt’s AfD branch is classified as a confirmed right-wing extremist organisation by the state’s domestic intelligence service, a designation the party rejects. But hundreds of thousands of voters supported it regardless. The harder question to ask is why, and what has changed.

Germany’s old promise no longer feels secure

Germany’s political centre rested for decades on a powerful promise: stable government, secure employment and an industrial economy capable of delivering a better life. However, for years now, that confidence has been badly shaken. Households have faced expensive energy and rising prices, while concern has grown over industry, employment and the future of Germany’s once-dominant economic model. Its struggling car sector, long a source of national pride and well-paid jobs, has become a symbol of that uncertainty.

In Saxony-Anhalt, voters identified the economy, social security and education among their main concerns. More remarkably, they increasingly trusted the AfD to provide answers.

In 2016, 48 per cent considered the CDU the party best able to advance the state’s economy. Only 5 per cent chose the AfD. This time around though, the CDU fell to 28 per cent and the AfD reached 30 per cent, according to exit polling for ARD, Germany’s main public broadcaster,.

A party once chosen principally to shake the system is increasingly being treated as one that might be fit to run it.

Migration remained one of its most effective campaigning issues, even though foreign nationals account for only around 8 per cent of Saxony-Anhalt’s population. Cultural disputes and anxiety over European security also contributed heavily towards voters’ arguments behind their decisions.

Above them all was a devastating judgement on those already governing: 87 per cent were dissatisfied with the federal government, and only one in five believed it could move Germany forward. Merz entered office promising decisive leadership and economic renewal. Instead, many voters see another government caught between competing positions and unable to explain where it is taking the country.

Spain has its own crisis of confidence

The political circumstances in Spain are different, but the public frustration is increasingly familiar. The fallout from the arrival of approximately 70,000 people in Ceuta from Morocco has been driven not only by attitudes towards migration, but by the impression that the government was slow or unable to control events. Approximately 63,000 people were returned within 72 hours, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez described it as one of Europe’s fastest return operations and announced €309 million for Ceuta. Nevertheless, a poll for El País and Cadena SER found that 72 per cent held the Spanish government responsible for what happened, while 63 per cent judged Sánchez’s response negatively. Seven in 10 wanted stronger border controls. And Vox, the far-right Spanish Party that champions intense nationalism, recentralisation of the state, and strict anti-immigration policies, was considered the party most capable of managing immigration, ahead of both the governing Socialists and the PP.

Vox consequently reached 17.8 per cent in the poll, while the PP (Partido Popular) and Vox together passed 50 per cent for the first time during the current parliamentary term.

As in Germany, this is not necessarily evidence of millions of people suddenly embracing every policy on the right. It also reflects a belief that the government reacts only after a crisis has escaped its control. Sánchez insists that he will complete his term, potentially leaving voters without a national ballot until 2027. That gives public opinion and frustration time to harden.

Britain has changed its leader, but not people’s mood

Britain has already attempted the political reset Germany and Spain may eventually face. Keir Starmer resigned after Labour lost more than 1,300 councillors in May. Andy Burnham became prime minister in July, promising a more direct style of government and declaring that Labour would not “out-Green the Greens or out-Reform Reform”.

Six weeks later, the national mood had barely moved. YouGov placed Labour and Reform UK level on 23 per cent, with the Conservatives behind both.

Earlier research found that only 16 to 17 per cent of Britons thought the government was performing well on the economy, immigration and taxation. Between 72 and 75 per cent believed it was doing badly.

Changing the person at the top has seemingly unaided the change in feeling that the system beneath him is failing.

Keeping the AfD out will not make the anger disappear

Despite its victory, the AfD remains three seats short of a majority in Saxony-Anhalt’s 83-seat parliament.

The CDU, Social Democrats, Greens and Die Linke refuse to govern with it but cannot easily form a stable government themselves. Five representatives from the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance could now decide what happens. Daniel Günther, the CDU premier of Schleswig-Holstein, described the result as “a shocking moment for our country”.

Germany’s established parties may still prevent the AfD from governing. But keeping a party out of office is not the same as answering to the people who voted for it. Across Germany, Spain and Britain, parties that once relied on habitual loyalty are confronting voters who now feel poorer, less secure and increasingly ignored. Calling their choices a swing to the right describes where many votes are going and how public opinion is swaying in frustration, but it doesn’t fully explain why they are abandoning their previous parties’ support.

That is the question Europe’s political establishment can no longer avoid. As more voters tire of promises they feel have changed little in their wages, bills or communities, whether those in power can offer anything more convincing may determine where Europe turns next.

A home, a family and decades of memories have not been enough to protect hundreds of Britons in Sweden from being forced to leave. Sweden has confirmed that 458 British citizens have been deported or forcibly removed since Brexit, revealing the scale of a residency crisis that has been quietly building since the UK left the EU. 

The figure has drawn attention because these are not simply people arriving in Sweden after Brexit and being refused permission to settle. The cases concern British citizens who failed to secure the post-Brexit residency status required to remain in the country, including people who had established their lives there before Brexit.

Thousands applied, thousands were rejected

By the end of 2024, 14,233 applications for post-Brexit residency had been submitted in Sweden, according to the Swedish Migration Agency. Almost 4,000 were rejected. Of course a refusal does not automatically mean deportation, but Swedish authorities say the 458 figure refers to cases where rejection of an application for residence status was accompanied by a deportation decision. 

However, the refusal rate has raised eyebrows, analysis by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office found Sweden’s refusal rate was 27.5 per cent, around three times higher than in any other EU member state and far above the EU average of roughly 3 to 4 per cent.  Separate Eurostat figures show that between 2021 and 2025, 2,490 UK nationals were ordered to leave Sweden. That represented almost a third of all UK nationals ordered to leave an EU country during the period, although the data does not establish exactly how many had been living in Sweden before Brexit. 

The numbers may not tell the whole story

Campaigners representing British residents in Sweden say the newly released 458 figure needs to be treated carefully. The number does not necessarily include people who left Sweden voluntarily after discovering they were unlikely to secure residency, nor does it necessarily capture Britons who obtained another form of temporary residence after their original application failed. That means the number of people whose lives have been disrupted by the residency rules could be considerably broader than the deportation figure alone suggests.

David Milstead, who heads the 9,000-member Brits in Sweden campaign group, has called for fuller and more transparent information about the circumstances behind the removals.  The concern is particularly significant for Britons who believed their established lives in Sweden were protected by the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

Why are people losing the right to stay?

British citizens who were legally resident in Sweden before the end of the Brexit transition period were covered by the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. But Sweden operates an application-based system, meaning eligible British citizens had to apply for the relevant residence status. Late applications can still be accepted where there are “reasonable grounds” for missing the deadline. The dispute has centred on how strictly Sweden has interpreted that provision. The UK government has repeatedly raised concerns about the approach, with officials saying that, in practice, late applicants in Sweden are unlikely to have their reasons accepted as reasonable. 

Swedish authorities reject the suggestion that they have failed to implement the Withdrawal Agreement correctly. The Swedish Migration Agency maintains that the rules have been applied properly and that applicants have had access to appeals. Migration minister Johan Forssell has also defended the system, while leaving the door open to possible changes to make the process easier in future. 

Pressure is now coming from Brussels and Sweden

The issue is no longer confined to campaign groups and affected British residents. The European Commission is pressing Sweden for answers over its treatment of vulnerable British citizens, according to government correspondence obtained by The Local. The pressure follows reports of removal orders involving elderly and seriously ill residents.  The UK’s Foreign Office has also continued raising the matter with Swedish authorities through the mechanisms established to oversee citizens’ rights under the Withdrawal Agreement.

Meanwhile, Sweden’s opposition Centre Party has promised to reopen the application process for affected British citizens if it enters government. Its migration spokesperson has argued that people who had already built established lives in Sweden should not lose their right to remain because of administrative problems.  For Britons still caught in the system, the issue is therefore far from settled. Sweden has now put a number on those already removed, but campaigners are demanding to know how many more people have been forced to leave, remain on insecure temporary permits or are still fighting to keep the lives they established in Sweden before Brexit.

Imagine if you’d spent decades saving money for a secure retirement, healthcare, or just to have a comfortable life, and then suddenly found out you had to hand over nearly €77,000 for a road you never requested and can’t even use. That’s the reality for retired couple Elisabeth and Manfred Rieger, who received a bill for none other than €76,865.75 for the new Kunigundenweg road, which runs alongside their home in Großberg, Bavaria. They argue that this new road provides no real benefit to them, and it would significantly dent the savings they’ve earmarked for their retirement years.

Retirement Savings Under Threat

The Riegers have called their house home for the last 50 years. Back when they first moved in, their property was surrounded by fields. However, things changed when the municipality of Pentling took over nearby land and developed it for new housing, adding the new road right next to their property.

This hefty bill is especially troubling for them, as it directly impacts their retirement funds. Manfred has expressed that paying it would mean they’d have to dip into the savings they set aside for potential future expenses related to ageing, such as health care or other costs.

A Road With No Access

Even though the new road is literally next door, the Riegers can’t access it directly. A tall fence and a noticeable difference in the ground level stand between their home and the new road. To create a driveway, they’d have to invest in extensive excavation work, which the couple isn’t planning to undertake.

Their objection isn’t just about not using the road; it’s grounded in the fact that they have no real way to get to it and didn’t even ask for it to be constructed in the first place.

Why the Municipality Insists on Payment

The bill has been issued under Germany’s development contribution rules. These regulations allow municipalities to charge property owners for contributing to infrastructure costs when new developments occur, as long as a property is deemed to be served by them or to benefit from them in some way.

Interestingly, it’s not necessarily how much you use the road that matters in determining whether you owe anything. In the Riegers’ situation, just because they feel the road doesn’t offer them any daily advantage doesn’t negate their obligation to pay. The municipality of Pentling has acknowledged that they understand why the couple sees no daily benefit from the road, but they argue that the charge is a legal requirement based on development contribution laws and existing court rulings.

Proposal to Pay Partially Rejected

In an effort to handle this financial burden without immediately having to come up with the whole sum, the Riegers suggested splitting the payment, half upfront and the rest secured through a land charge in favor of the municipality.

Unfortunately, the municipal council shot down that proposal nearly unanimously. Afterward, the couple claims they were informed in a phone call that there might be a possibility of an extension for payment.

Council’s Further Discussion of the Bill

The situation is set to go back to the municipal council for another review, leaving the retired couple in limbo as they wait to see if they will be granted extra time to settle this hefty bill.

For the Riegers, the final decision could significantly affect how much of their hard-earned retirement savings will still be available for their future needs.