However, this government had a short life span because end of 2016 made the social democrats and its allies to get a comfortable parliamentary majority. The campaign was dominated by nationalism and demonizing the technocrats (the term "technocrat" which was little used in the public space became a pejorative term).
Fast forward to 2019 when the EU Parliament elections had the social democrats win less than 30%, a major difference from 2016 results1. Another blow for social democrats is their leader being sent to jail immediately after the elections.
After the EU Parliamentary elections there are multiple voices asking for snap elections because the voters clearly favor the opposition parties even if local parliamentary elections are scheduled at the end of next year.
I am wondering why mixing EU elections results with parliamentary context especially after the social democrats proved their working majority when the government survived a motion of no confidence.
Judging from events that happened before 2016 it is highly risky to force a new majority because the social democrats proved to be very efficiently when in the opposition, so the win is only on the short term.
Question: What is the rationale of holding national parliament snap elections after the EU elections results?
1 This comparison was often mentioned in the media, but it is not technically correct because of the different elections rules / context. A major difference is that diaspora can send only 6 MPs in the national parliament as opposed to proportional voting system used for EU Parliament elections which favored the opposition parties (they got more that 90% votes in the diaspora who struggled at long queues to vote). Also there are some barriers related to voting in a city that is different from the ID location.