A state of emergency was declared in English airports for the first days of January. As there could be incidents, the television stations sent special teams. The alarm - which later turned out to be false - came from the possible massive arrival of Bulgarians and Romanians, once the European Union opened the borders of its labor market to them on January 1. The feared invasion of the 'barbarians' has not occurred, at least for the time being.

Polls show a marked rejection of immigrants by the British population. More than three-quarters of Britons want "fewer foreigners", and just over half even say "a lot fewer".

The coalition government led by David Cameron is attempting a seemingly impossible balancing act. On the one hand, it wants to maintain the image - and the reality - of Britain as an open, cosmopolitan, kingdom of freedom. The City is the main European financial market, and both money and trade need an atmosphere of freedom. On the other hand, the government is trying to please the population, whose xenophobic feelings have grown in recent years.

Sensitive to public opinion, Cameron has lately been stressing this second speech. It remains to be seen with what results, since the electorate does not trust his sincerity and trusts more in the populist Ukip ('United Kingdom Independence Party'). According to forecasts, this party could be the winner of the European elections in May. Nigel Farage, its chairman, wants to put obstacles to immigration. As this is not legal in the framework of the European Union, he proposes to leave it. He does not care about the possible economic damage of such an exit: "There are more important things than money, such as the state of our society and the possibilities of work for our young people".

In France, a parallel phenomenon is taking place with the National Front, which is also expected to win the May elections. Marine Le Pen is energetically agitating the so-called "anti-cocktail": "No to the political and cultural 'establishment'; no to the European Union; no to the euro". Popular support for her proposal, as simple as it is gimmicky, is growing steadily. So does the bewilderment of the intellectual and political class .

The rise of populism in Europe is seen as a sign of the failure of traditional politics. The classical parties are unable to regain the confidence of the electorate. Lacking resources and ideas, they try to copy part of the populist speech , without success: people usually prefer the original to a lukewarm imitation (as the Catalan independentists follow Esquerra and not CIU, or the Basques detach themselves from PNV and approach Sortu). Or else they target the numerous weak points of these groups, in order to discredit them. This may backfire, since appearing as victims of power increases support for populism. The citizenry is moving from disappointment and discontent to indignation. There is tension in the atmosphere, and any reason can generate a violent and disproportionate popular response, as seen in the neighborhood of Gamonal in Burgos. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

The European welfare state was built up in the decades following the Second World War thanks to work of immigrant labor: Italians, Spaniards and Portuguese in Central Europe (eventually, Greeks and Turks took over from Latinos); Indians and Pakistanis in Great Britain. Against the authorities' forecasts, many of them chose to stay in those countries. In view of the falling birth rate in Europe and the consequent aging of the population, without the help of immigrants there is no future, neither for our Economics nor for pensions. Integration policies based on multiculturalism - Sweden, Holland - have failed. A small and highly organized country like Switzerland can control the flow of immigrants without fissures, but this is not possible in the territory of the European Union.

It is inconsistent to stop having children and look askance at the proliferation of mosques in our cities. Populism provides a simplistic solution to the problem, but governments lack an adequate response. Just as a private individual does in his home, a nation can set limits on immigration: everyone decides to whom he opens his door. But once the guests are inside, they deserve a humane attention , respectful of their dignity.