From a western democracy perspective, things have been been going a bit pear shaped since the Brexit vote ended in a victory for the nativist, anti-Islam, right wing position. This of course plunged the UK into economic difficulties, and created uncertainty for the continent and the peace that the E.U. had maintained.
Next, the U.S. experienced a right wing nativist, driven surge in the presidential election, culminating in the election of an unpredictable chap with uncertain international aims and uncomfortable international allies (who has already begun to make good on anti-Islamic campaign promises). This further raised tensions in Europe.
Now, France is preparing to choose a president, and one candidate, Marine LePen, is likewise running on a nativist and anti-Islam platform. Most agree that should she win, she will seek to remove France from the E.U., similar to Brexit, which would leave Europe more ripe for war than it has been in half a century.
Do you think she will win? What do you think this rising tide signifies? Do you think it's a bad thing or course correction?
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
In past decades, this kind of 'nativist' movement has usually been popular and viewed as patriotic by most of the public... even amongst those who didn't agree with them.
The current efforts differ in that they seem to have taken advantage of widespread apathy to seize control despite being slightly minority viewpoints... and overall reviled as bigoted and foolish.
Thus, my hope is that what we are seeing is a last desperate gambit by a dying ideology... they think they can grab power for a few years, make everything better by stomping down those 'other people', and will then be loved and supported by all going forward. Instead, what I think will happen is that their oppression of innocent people will disgust most, these actions will actually make economic and social conditions worse for everyone, and the indolent masses who couldn't bestir themselves to prevent the power grab will briefly rouse themselves to end it.
Whether the citizens of France have learned by watching England and the US, or will have to live through it themselves, remains to be seen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The usual suspects have been trashing Fillon & Macron, and Le Pen made a public statement about eliminating dual-citizenship--but with an exception for Russia carved out. I'm an outsider to French politics, but it seems like the Russian involvement is maybe a little too out in the open at this point. Hopefully Le Pen making the Russia-ties explicit will trigger a backlash but I honestly don't know.
From where I'm sitting, Russia has done a good job of playing a weak hand very, very well. The US & Europe are struggling with deep divisions domestically, and it feels like the Kremlin is playing us off one another pretty well.
If she wins & France also withdraws from the EU, that'll make Germany the dominant force of the EU, and I don't know what the consequences of that would be. At a minimum, it seems like the UK's chances of getting better trade deals increase dramatically, though maybe not enough to make them "good" deals. Maybe the rest of the EU decides they don't want to be led around by the nose & the EU more or less falls apart. It's a big leap from that to another European war, but if the EU collapses & the US doesn't regain its balance we'll probably see more Russian efforts to re-establish their dominance of the old Soviet bloc.
It is my sincere hope that Le Pen loses, and over the next couple of years this right-wing backlash plays itself out as the reactionaries prove that they don't have a clue what they're doing.
The left wing press here in Germany currently hypes Emmanuel Macron, maybe he can stop Madame LePen. And it's not like Europe would constantly move rightwards. In Switzerland people voted for easier citizenship for the grandchildren of immigrants and in Germany the rather new right-wing party currently loses some ground, maybe due to the hype about the new social democratic candidate for chancellor.
It's rather a back and forth, and might remain that way for a while. Established politicians seem to be somewhat paralyzed by this, so they don't really try to improve but to preserve what they have. This includes the EU. Even if France drops out, I am pretty sure the remaining countries won't disband the union. But then it will be an union more clearly dominated by Germany - France will end up encircled by countries led by its ancient nemesis. GB might become an ally, but a struggling one. Opposed to the situation more than 100 years ago, Putin's Russia won't chose a side - beside its own, with changing allies. USA under Trump is unpredictable anyway, and to add to that, it's unpredictable how long he will stay in office.
Perhaps the Western world needs this experience: One, two or three big countries retreating to the past, just to fail horribly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brexit vote ended in a victory for the nativist, anti-Islam, right wing position
Really? I mean, really???
Scores on the left voted for Brexit, simliar numbers on the right voted to remain. Most MPs, irrespective of their party, were in the remain camp. Our current PM was pro remain, and the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, did not come out and offer much support for the EU. Brexit cannot be described as a victory for the right or left in British politics.
We have Islamaphobes in the UK, but I do not think this mentality is linked to EU membership. Most of my extended muslim family voted for Brexit. Why? The belief, possibly mistaken, that leaving the EU will make easier for their extended families in Pakistan to get visas to stay in the UK. Many muslim communities do not see the predominantly Christian EU as supporters of their faith.
A island nation made up three countries and millions of immigrants from across the globe does not become any MORE nativist because they decide to leave the EU. We have always been on the outside looking in.
As a remain voting Brit/Italian, married to a muslim, who has been a Labour supporter since the days of Michael Foot, you cannot imagine how unhappy I am with the fustercluck that is about to hit my country. Brexit is not the victory you have described, if it can be described as a victory at all.
I have nothing really useful to add about Marine LePen that can be said on a friendly board such as this.
I don't think that in the event she does win she will drag France out of the EU. Faced with a "Frexit", the EU will then renegotiate terms of membership with France to make sure they stay in. Which will piss me off even more than I am already, seeing as that is what David Cameron tried to do in the first place.
Brexit vote ended in a victory for the nativist, anti-Islam, right wing positionReally? I mean, really???
Scores on the left voted for Brexit, simliar numbers on the right voted to remain. Most MPs, irrespective of their party, were in the remain camp. Our current PM was pro remain, and the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, did not come out and offer much support for the EU. Brexit cannot be described as a victory for the right or left in British politics.
The "Lexit" position didn't get much airtime on this side of the pond.
It was more of a "EU? Meh? We'd rather go over arguments we had in the late 70s" sort of position.
Yup. I voted Remain and believe that Brexit is a huge short-term mistake. Any possible benefits will take over a decade to come to fruition, and the economic situatino is not good enough for us to ride out that length of time of economic pain. However, that economic uncertainty is to come after Brexit itself happens (in 2019). Right now, Britain is still doing pretty well compared to most of the world.
But there were many reasons for voting for Brexit and it was the traditionally left-wing working class who helped win the vote for Leave. It was also not really an anti-Islam position, since most Muslim immigration to the UK comes from the Indian subcontinent. That will not be impacted at all by Brexit.
Brexit vote ended in a victory for the nativist, anti-Islam, right wing positionReally? I mean, really???
Scores on the left voted for Brexit, simliar numbers on the right voted to remain. Most MPs, irrespective of their party, were in the remain camp. Our current PM was pro remain, and the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, did not come out and offer much support for the EU. Brexit cannot be described as a victory for the right or left in British politics.
We have Islamaphobes in the UK, but I do not think this mentality is linked to EU membership. Most of my extended muslim family voted for Brexit. Why? The belief, possibly mistaken, that leaving the EU will make easier for their extended families in Pakistan to get visas to stay in the UK. Many muslim communities do not see the predominantly Christian EU as supporters of their faith.
A island nation made up three countries and millions of immigrants from across the globe does not become any MORE nativist because they decide to leave the EU. We have always been on the outside looking in.
As a remain voting Brit/Italian, married to a muslim, who has been a Labour supporter since the days of Michael Foot, you cannot imagine how unhappy I am with the fustercluck that is about to hit my country. Brexit is not the victory you have described, if it can be described as a victory at all.
I have nothing really useful to add about Marine LePen that can be said on a friendly board such as this.
I don't think that in the event she does win she will drag France out of the EU. Faced with a "Frexit", the EU will then renegotiate terms of membership with France to make sure they stay in. Which will piss me off even more than I am already, seeing as that is what David Cameron tried to do in the first place.
so... You got suckered?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Freehold
Are you referring to my reading of Brexit, or the deal the French will get if LePen wins?
If it is the latter, I'm not sure suckered is the right phrase.
At the time the EU rebuffed David Cameron, the powers that be could not see the UK voting for Brexit. Now that it has, and their contributions to the EU budget look like they will dry up, the EU cannot afford to lose another net contributor to their budget. They will have to be far more flexible when dealing with the possibility of 'Frexit', something I am sure Ms LePen is banking on.
Actually, now I have written that, suckered is exactly the phrase I would use!
Merde!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a melting pot work when the ingredients are a little more heat resistant, AND they're being poured in faster because life is so much better there than where people are coming from, and modern travel has made what was once an arduous trip of weeks a mere matter of hours?
I don't think it's unreasonable for people with a functioning society that works for them to want to try to keep it that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a melting pot work when the ingredients are a little more heat resistant, AND they're being poured in faster because life is so much better there than where people are coming from, and modern travel has made what was once an arduous trip of weeks a mere matter of hours?
I don't think it's unreasonable for people with a functioning society that works for them to want to try to keep it that way.
If that were what they were doing it wouldn't be unreasonable. However, closing borders does NOT a functioning society make.
Consider the United States. Can you imagine how crippled the country would have been if each state enacted restrictions on travel and/or residency? The freedom to travel within the country has allowed people to relocate (either permanently or commuting) from areas of economic slowdown to areas of economic growth... making the whole country stronger as those areas tend to shift over time.
Sure, it might be tempting for the 'functioning society' states to 'cut those other losers loose', but in the long run that's just weakening the country as a whole. Likewise, US isolationism is damaging to the global economy... and the US is PART of the global economy.
Anything can happen in France.
The left can be elected, so can the right, and so can Mme Le Pen.
The uncertainty is overwhelming.
If Le Pen is elected, there will be blood in the street the weeks following her election. That is, I expect some policemen will kill some black men or Muslims - because there are some seriously unbalanced people in our police force, who would think they would have been given free reign should Mme Le Pen win.
In the event of such crimes in the police force, I expect our fascist leader... sorry, our beloved president... would rein in her dogs - I mean, those unscrupulous policemen. But in the meantime, our ethnically segregated suburbs (with many ill-integrated immigrants) could have erupted in riots.
Truthfully, a possible victory of Mme Le Pen scares the hell out of me, and Europe is not the most prominent thing in my mind in such an event.
My hope is that the French, having already had a taste of fascism during WW2, will never quite get to elect the Hateful Blondie.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brexit vote ended in a victory for the nativist, anti-Islam, right wing positionReally? I mean, really???
Given that Farage gleefully made himself a public face of the Leave effort, with no irony or pushback, and that anti-immigrant talking points were a focus of the Leave campaign, and one of the major (ultimately false) planks was how much money the UK could spend on the NHS if it wasn't being paid to foreigners... Yes, really. After the vote, anti-Islamic incidents and hate speech rose as fast as the pound fell.
Regarding Brexit, I can't do better than to point to this Greenwald's article, in the Intercept which eloquently puts in words my very own sentiment.
Very interesting stuff! Despite being a provincial rube, I love threads like this!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can a melting pot work when the ingredients are a little more heat resistant, AND they're being poured in faster because life is so much better there than where people are coming from, and modern travel has made what was once an arduous trip of weeks a mere matter of hours?
I don't think it's unreasonable for people with a functioning society that works for them to want to try to keep it that way.
This is certainly part of the problem. Many countries, including the US and EU member states, rely on immigration. In fact, their reliance on immigration is only set to grow. Many Western countries underwent a birthrate explosion after World War II. Those people - the baby boomers - are now retiring in greater and greater numbers. The birthrate declined significantly after that point, so the people growing up now are incapable of providing the income needed to maintain the needed levels of income for pensions and social spending (since our economic system is a pyramidal structure which requires more people at the bottom than at the top, which is not sustainable but what we're stuck with).
So you either have immigration - with the bonus that many EU immigrants stay for 5-15 years and then return home, providing massive tax income without being a future tax burden - or you start increasing the native population by encouraging everyone to have more kids, which is not really a goer for income, infrastructure or population levels.
Or you do what it looks like we will, which is have a massive elderly population, not enough young people to support them, jobs vanishing to automation, no immigration and just have a full-scale societal collapse. That'll be fun.
Given that Farage gleefully made himself a public face of the Leave effort, with no irony or pushback, and that anti-immigrant talking points were a focus of the Leave campaign, and one of the major (ultimately false) planks was how much money the UK could spend on the NHS if it wasn't being paid to foreigners... Yes, really. After the vote, anti-Islamic incidents and hate speech rose as fast as the pound fell.
Farage had enormous pushback. He was not permitted to join the official Leave campaign and had to run a side-Brexit campaign. He was argued with and attacked wherever he went, including a naval assault by Bob Geldof on the Thames.
More damaging, I think, was Boris Johnson joining the Brexit campaign (rather cynically). As - somewhat inexplicably - one of the most popular politicians in Britain, his opinion carried weight and of course he was behind the Crimson Bus of Lies. Farage - to be fair and I don't really want to be but still - never actually joined that campaign and in fact was quite happy to go on TV to say that he thought Britain being impoverished by Brexit was a worthwhile sacrifice so Spitfires can fly over the white cliffs of Dover again (or something), especially because he was rich so it would never hurt him (and can always run off to Germany if things get too rough).
I agree that there was a nasty undercurrent of xenophobia and racism in certain quarters driving the Brexit vote, but there also enormous numbers of immigrants and children and grandchildren of immigrants who voted for Brexit, and huge numbers of people who believed it was a question of strained resources (rather than the real cause, the Tory policies of faux-austerity) from migration, but were not being motivated by racism themselves. Which isn't to excuse the racist incidents that have taken place since, often in completely bizarre ways that were not connected to Brexit (the American guy attacked on a bus in Manchester, when Brexit has nothing to do with migration to or from the United States). There's certainly been an enabling of racist behaviour as a result of Brexit, one area which is directly comparable to Trump.
...
Fair enough. Much like the U.S. election, I don't think everyone who voted leave supported the nastier side of Leave. It was certainly visible to all who looked though.
A good current example of a nation suffering from a top heavy elderly population, and restrictive immigration policy is Japan. The traditional pressures to succeed, coupled with the increasing burden from an aging society, is leading to fascinating but terrible sociological phenomenon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you do what it looks like we will, which is have a massive elderly population, not enough young people to support them, jobs vanishing to automation, no immigration and just have a full-scale societal collapse. That'll be fun.
You have so many young people unemployed or underemployed that can't support them, how is devaluing their labor by bringing more people in going to help that?
The difficulty is social and political - too much of the wealth from that productivity finds its way to the very top of that pyramid.
Yup. Because triple-down economics doesn't work, never has and never will. Rich people hoard their money or put it in immobile assets or use it to make more money (by buying and letting property) and artificially depressing the markets more.
You have so many young people unemployed or underemployed that can't support them, how is devaluing their labor by bringing more people in going to help that?
Those are two distinct issues. People being "underemployed" is a huge systemic problem in both the US and UK. In the UK official unemployment figures are 1.5 millon, which is close to full employment (at under 1 million you're entering the "standard churn" of people between jobs voluntarily). However, if you took all of the underemployed hours (people working part-time who want or need full-time work) and the benefits they're on and evened them out, we'd be looking more at 4 or 5 million full unemployment, which would be much more serious. The Conservatives are hiding the true scale of the British employment issue by completely ignoring the underemployment problem and pretending that everyone in work is working full-time in their preferred profession.
However, ending immigration would not help this problem. With the best will in the world, most young British people are not going to be cleaners in hotels, housekeepers in hospitals or pickers on fruit farms. I've done all of those jobs and had no problem with it, but most young people will not do those jobs. In addition, many of these low-skill jobs are located a long distance from hotbeds of unemployment: it's actually more practical to ship people in from Eastern Europe to live in communal flats in London than it is for people to move from the North of the UK to London (the disparity in rent prices and assistance makes that almost impossible). Foreign workers also come and do these - often pretty awful - jobs because they are only going to do them for a few years and then return home, whilst British workers would feel they were stuck doing them for life.
There are also massive job supply problems in other sectors. Britain is not producing anywhere near enough native care workers, doctors or nurses to meet rapidly growing internal demand, so we need to recruit from abroad.
The usual suspects have been trashing Fillon & Macron, and Le Pen made a public statement about eliminating dual-citizenship--but with an exception for Russia carved out. I'm an outsider to French politics, but it seems like the Russian involvement is maybe a little too out in the open at this point. Hopefully Le Pen making the Russia-ties explicit will trigger a backlash but I honestly don't know.
From where I'm sitting, Russia has done a good job of playing a weak hand very, very well. The US & Europe are struggling with deep divisions domestically, and it feels like the Kremlin is playing us off one another pretty well.
If she wins & France also withdraws from the EU, that'll make Germany the dominant force of the EU, and I don't know what the consequences of that would be. At a minimum, it seems like the UK's chances of getting better trade deals increase dramatically, though maybe not enough to make them "good" deals. Maybe the rest of the EU decides they don't want to be led around by the nose & the EU more or less falls apart. It's a big leap from that to another European war, but if the EU collapses & the US doesn't regain its balance we'll probably see more Russian efforts to re-establish their dominance of the old Soviet bloc.
It is my sincere hope that Le Pen loses, and over the next couple of years this right-wing backlash plays itself out as the reactionaries prove that they don't have a clue what they're doing.
A few facts:
-Despite having the strongest partyLe Pen is unlikely to win. The French electoral system has 2 phases. Le Pen will reach the second one and then lose to whoever faces her because EVERYONE else will vote against her. In order to win Le Pen needs the other parties to make themselves even more hated than they already are (and that's a possibility, however unlikely).
-Germany already is the dominant force in the EU by a wide margin.
-If France withdraws from the EU the EU simply ceases to exist as it is. The third "leg" of Europe is Italy, which is too weak and too indebted to be able to keep the european institution on its feet. Currently large parts of the italian economy are being "colonized" by French and German corporations btw.
-The "old sovietic block" is by far and large composed of nations who hate Russia and hold the same "nativist, anti-Islam, right wing positions" this thread blames so much.
-Russia is perhaps the country with the richest reserves of yet untapped natural resources on the globe. Russia could very well decide (and in part has already decided) to give access to those resources to China, who desperately needs them to fuel its own growth. If that happens the Asian scenario, which is rather uncertain at the moment, changes dramatically as China loses one of its primary weaknesses.
Edit:
-It's funny to note how the leader of the chinese communist party is the number one fan of globalization right now...
Oh yes. Which will mean people stop working as engineers, nurses, doctors etc to pick berries. Less hassle, less responsibility and no student debts. Sounds good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yes. Which will mean people stop working as engineers, nurses, doctors etc to pick berries. Less hassle, less responsibility and no student debts. Sounds good.
Well, the market has a solution to that, too. If there aren't enough people working as nurses, then wages for nurses will rise, too. Alternatively, working conditions for nurses will improve.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, ending immigration would not help this problem. With the best will in the world, most young British people are not going to be cleaners in hotels, housekeepers in hospitals or pickers on fruit farms.
For minimum wage. They're not doing it for minimum wage.
Or, if the situation is anything like it is in the US, they can't do the job legally at all because even if they are being paid minimum wage, there's no payroll taxes being paid by the employer and they can't report the income.If people won't do a job at the pay you're offering (at illegally low rates), because it would require them to cram (illegally) 17 people to a room in order to make a living, then the solution is to pay more, not whine about "kids these days" as an excuse to break the law.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, ending immigration would not help this problem. With the best will in the world, most young British people are not going to be cleaners in hotels, housekeepers in hospitals or pickers on fruit farms. I've done all of those jobs and had no problem with it, but most young people will not do those jobs. In addition, many of these low-skill jobs are located a long distance from hotbeds of unemployment: it's actually more practical to ship people in from Eastern Europe to live in communal flats in London than it is for people to move from the North of the UK to London (the disparity in rent prices and assistance makes that almost impossible). Foreign workers also come and do these - often...The standard market solution for "people will not do these jobs" is to raise the compensation until they will.
I disagree. This is not what we see in practice at the bottom end of the pay scale, albeit the principle does operate in other parts of the economy (nursing is a skilled profession for example).
What we see (at the bottom of the pay scale) is the importing of labour from countries where workers are willing to accept the low compensation offered, because it is relatively more than they would be able to earn in their home nations. This, and the maintenance of a sufficiently large number of unemployed so that the working poor can be told: accept what we offer otherwise you'll have no work at all. The latter trick is compounded by attacks on welfare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
supervillian: I don't think you're disagreeing with thejeff. It's just that the right holds "the free market!" as a moral imperative... until it costs them something.
The standard market solution for "people will not do these jobs" is to raise the compensation until they will.I disagree. This is not what we see in practice at the bottom end of the pay scale,
Please don't confuse "what we see in practice" with "the standard market solution." There has never been a pure free market and never will be. For instance, the very existence of corporations is a distortion that, by act of law, gives employers monopsony power, which the free market would prohibit.
eh, I don't see the dynamic as domino stones. If it were a domino dynamic, as in a chain reaction that goes on an on, the presidential elections in Austria would have already stopped it. (actually, I hope that's the case since I've worked my a$$ off to get our new president to get elect and it was almost a year of active campaigning)
I also don't think there's a 50%+ majority for LePen in France. She might get close, sure. But in the end, everyone who's not explicitly on her side will vote against her in the runoff. The popular vote decides in most countries. Van der Bellen won that popular vote TWICE, Clinton won it (but the US system is somehow stuck in the 18th century) and LePen, like Hofer and Trump before her will lose that popular vote for the same reasons.
Oddly, Channel 4 News is covering this right now. By 2030 the number of retired people in Britain will be 3.4 million higher than it is now. The workforce is expected to be 300,000 less than now with current levels of immigration and emigration. Employers and pension companies across the board are rather concerned about this because it seems to be unworkable.
What we see (at the bottom of the pay scale) is the importing of labour from countries where workers are willing to accept the low compensation offered, because it is relatively more than they would be able to earn in their home nations. This, and the maintenance of a sufficiently large number of unemployed so that the working poor can be told: accept what we offer otherwise you'll have no work at all. The latter trick is compounded by attacks on welfare.
Yes. Although the massive explosion in UK rental prices, especially in London, has made this difficult to sustain: people working low-pay jobs in London are going to struggle to meet their rent, let alone send money back home to Poland or Romania or wherever.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at the productivity gains over the last decades. It's easy for even the lower number of workers to make and do enough to support themselves and the larger number of retirees.
The problem remains the unbalanced distribution of the results of those productivity gains.
It has gotten so bad that, the eight wealthiest people in the world have as much wealth as the 3.6 billion (half the global population) poorest.
I thought only Russia did stuff like that?
I'm shocked, shocked, gambling, etc.
So if France goes nationalist/Russian too... That means the UN security council's permanent members are all either Russia-aligned, China or Brexited. What would that mean?
And so on. It will also mean the UN chamber can also draft whatever senseless policies they like, and NOT have them blocked.
France going for Le Pen is unlikely. The Netherlands voting in Wilder and his Freedom Party is actually much more likely, and a headache given how much EU infrastructure and how many institutions are based in the Netherlands.
Britain leaving the EU is unlikely to be a good thing for the EU. It has already fanned anti-EU sentiment in countries that are traditionally very pro-EU, it has set a dangerous (for the EU) precedent and it leaves the EU pretty much under the dominance of Germany alone (where previously Britain and key eastern European allies could check German influence). If France gets on its feet again and restores its influence that could be a positive development.
Short-term, the move will hurt Britain significantly. Long-term, it could work out pretty well, the question is how we bridge those two periods and deal with the aforementioned demographic problem without immigration.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seem to recall plenty of sentiment about how it was unlikely Brexit would go to Leave, and how unlikely it was that Trump would get through that primary let alone the general. Consider me over cautious if you like, but I don't take comfort in unlikely these days.