European Politics General (Canada welcome too, I suppose)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

To go back to France: Hamon is giving me some faith in the Socialistes again... something I didn't think would happen any time soon.

inu-kun:
I wonder what would have happened if the Brexit vote failed and there was a vote in Parliament afterwards to make sure.

Why would there have been a vote in parliament?

You don't need parliamentary approval to not change the law.

Anyway, to keep posted anyone who might not have been paying close attention, the supreme court upheld the high courts ruling against the government. Expect nothing but pure class from the press tomorrow.

Sonmi:
To go back to France: Hamon is giving me some faith in the Socialistes again... something I didn't think would happen any time soon.

Sometimes i wish i understood some more languages.

I have no clue at all what is happening in France while following British minutiae is trivial.

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
I wonder what would have happened if the Brexit vote failed and there was a vote in Parliament afterwards to make sure.

Why would there have been a vote in parliament?

You don't need parliamentary approval to not change the law.

Anyway, to keep posted anyone who might not have been paying close attention, the supreme court upheld the high courts ruling against the government. Expect nothing but pure class from the press tomorrow.

But wasn't Brexit "advisory" vote? Couldn't the Parliament ignore it and decide Brexit themselves?

inu-kun:
But wasn't Brexit "advisory" vote? Couldn't the Parliament ignore it and decide Brexit themselves?

Yes. Parliament has always had the right to pull the UK out of the EU at will.

However, the more Parliament opposes the will of the people and the larger the issue it opposes it on, the more it is likely to damage the reputation and moral authority of Parliament and its members.

Therefore it is deeply unlikely Parliament would have withdrawn the UK from the EU without a clear mandate. A mandate being either a referendum, or a landslide general election victory by a party that explicitly ran on a promise of leaving the EU.

Agema:

inu-kun:
But wasn't Brexit "advisory" vote? Couldn't the Parliament ignore it and decide Brexit themselves?

Yes. Parliament has always had the right to pull the UK out of the EU at will.

However, the more Parliament opposes the will of the people and the larger the issue it opposes it on, the more it is likely to damage the reputation and moral authority of Parliament and its members.

Therefore it is deeply unlikely Parliament would have withdrawn the UK from the EU without a clear mandate. A mandate being either a referendum, or a landslide general election victory by a party that explicitly ran on a promise of leaving the EU.

Yeah, just wondered how people would have reacted in that situation.

Don't know if it was shown yet but there's a scandal in France:
http://www.thelocal.fr/20170125/could-a-welsh-woman-be-frances-next-first-lady

It's really weird how not a few politicians have their wives be the source of corruption.

inu-kun:
But wasn't Brexit "advisory" vote? Couldn't the Parliament ignore it and decide Brexit themselves?

Yes.

However, someome (probably a group of Euroskeptic MPs) would have had to propose such a bill and win parliament over to their side, not an easy task. Politicians are answerable to an extent to the people who elect them, so they'd need pretty clear evidence of majority support (like an advisory referendum), but as political experts they are also responsible to their own interpretation of the national interest. Whoevever proposed the bill would need to secure majority support for their position in parliament, which would almost certainly mean addressing the economic and social concerns associated with such a change in the law.

If you're asking how I would feel about that, then it depends very much on the circumstances and conduct of the debate, but I trust the process of parliamentary democracy a lot more than I trust media-led plebiscites.

inu-kun:

Don't know if it was shown yet but there's a scandal in France:
http://www.thelocal.fr/20170125/could-a-welsh-woman-be-frances-next-first-lady

It's really weird how not a few politicians have their wives be the source of corruption.

I suspect it's not weird at all. The dealings of a politician's family are significantly less likely to gain attention and be scrutinised than the politician.

In this case, Fillon himself is the source of corruption. He's the guy who arranged to employ a family member and secured the funds, after all. In fact in many and probably most occasions, the "source" is very frequently the politician (or at minimum an equal collaboration), because the corruption could not occur without the assent or connivance of the one who has the real power. In many cases, the family member may be the tool of the politician precisely because it makes it harder to notice.

We might also note that politicians employing family members is far from uncommon, although normally it seems to be much smaller sums than Mme Fillon received, for things like part-time secretarial work. And employing family members is hardly difficult to notice - payments have to be accounted for, after all. One might argue that as long as they genuinely are doing the hours and work that they are paid for and can demonstrate so, it's not that big a deal.

Looks like our god chosen chancelorette and her CDU here in Germany are gonna have a harder fight on their hands than expected.

The other great party(SPD) has announced that their current leader Sigmar Gabriel will step down and that Martin Schulz, former president of the European parliament, will take over.
Which honestly is the right choice as Sigmar Gabriel was not exactly a crowd favourite. It might even slow down the loss of members the SPD is suffering from.

Don't get me wrong our great mother Angie the first is still gonna win and be chancellor for another 4 years, but she might have a smaller support base in parliament.

Sonmi:

MrFalconfly:
Well, it is. Just in different rates.

More people now are guaranteed "an income sufficient to survive in relative comfort" than ever before, largely thanks to globalism.

The only reason it may seem otherwise, is that this improvement isn't an overall constant, nor does it equalise the results for everyone.

Not just "in different rates", it's completely disproportionate, don't sugarcoat it.

I'm not "sugarcoating" it.

I'm merely reading the data.

Less people are in risk of poverty, MEANING more people get more money.

Sonmi:

With capital comes political clout, and when the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated within the top percentile of the population, the political system stops working in the benefit of the majority of the population, and has no interest doing so really. Under globalism, the wage inequality grows, heightened production disproportionally favours the richest, and the people's influence on national affairs dwindles. The working and middle classes struggle to set money aside, while "job creators" freeze massive amounts of wealth, going strictly against the principle of what was supposed to be trickle-down economics.

This isn't the words of politicians. This is raw economic data.

Sonmi:

Add to that the very scary prospect of automation of the workforce being right around the corner, and the people very much have all of the right reasons to be suspicious of politics that favour throwing them aside if a cheaper alternative is found, and which helps the most privileged regardless of merit over anyone else.

Well, I guess what some people see as a good thing (automation), others see as scary.

Agema:

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

"Blustering" and "faddish", eh? I like that. You may have a different opinion but I personally I feel it's dropped off a cliff since it went online

It is undoubtedly weaker than it was. It has maintained standards somewhat better than the Independent or Telegraph. The former is virtually non-existent. The Telegraph is recognisde for being a hollowed-out shadow of its former self with dodgy practices - see for instance:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph

Virtually all the "legacy media" (as I believe the newer web publishers call newspapers) are struggling, because web advertising is overwhelmingly sucked up by Facebook, Google, etc. and the money is not there to support the journalistic standards of yesteryear. And the legacy media have to compete with the Buzzfeeds, Breitbarts and HuffPos that have distinctly weaker standards - and thus can save lots of money on expensive checking, investigative journalism, etc. - by incorporating more lightweight drivel to draw the clicks. In the end, quality journalism is dying because people won't pay for it when shite journalism is more entertaining and free at the point of use.

The reason the Guardian is more noticeable - and has many more detractors - is because of the web and (paradoxically) its success. After all, in the old, paper days when it sold ~400,000 paper copies, it would be read by under 2 million people, nearly all British and most of them at least approximately sharing its political line. It is now alongside the New York Times as the most globally read, English language, centre-left, news organisations on the internet, and it's not paywalled (the NYT is semi-restricted). So it is read a lot more, and easy to cite. And a lot of people reading it are people who oppose its political stances, because so many people love to fire themselves up with righteous indignation.

The Guardian therefore often ends up competing in the political sphere with people getting news from distinctly trashy right-wing publications. The proponents of those newspapers simply want to deny the fact that their news sources print material that is of significantly inferior quality. And so they pretend the Guardian is about the level of the Daily Mail, which it assuredly is not.

but that left wing news sources are as manipulative.

Are they? Do you really think a newspaper that prints a headline calling judges "enemies of the people" for interpreting the national law is equivalent to anything the Guardian does?

It is not that left-wing media is not manipulative. But higher-quality media, by having higher standards about information quality and presentation, necessarily prevents a certain amount of manipulation.

Yes, I am sure you'd be saying that if the Remain camp had won too :)

I wouldn't need to.

Let's imagine all the buses in your town are blue. You have a referendum on whether to change the colour of the buses to another colour. If over 50% say keep it blue, why do you need a further debate? However, if over 50% vote to change it, what mandate exists for any other colour: red, green, yellow, etc. to determine the new colour? let's say 60% want a new colour, but they are split roughly equally between the red, green and yellow. In a run-off vote, red wins. But then you have a town where now only 25% people prefer the bus colour, instead of the 40% it used to be.

This is the odd thing about Brexit. People vote to leave the EU, okay. But what's the real issue, about the sort of Britain the people want for the future - because assuredly people voted Brexit with very different ideas about what future UK would be like. Potentially, we are heading for a Brexit UK even less favoured by its people than the old EU version.

I like that Osborne link, that is an eye opening read, thanks. I actually read the Times every weekend and I always find that to be at least fact checked; I couldn't comment on bias - I don't see, it's written for me. It was never really my intention to compare the Guardian with the Express / Mail, I didn't initially, but maybe got drawn into it with my reply to you. As you say the Guardian has been smart with the free internet syndication, definitely raised it profile (although it does still seem to be going bust somehow!).

My suggestion was more this sort of thing from the Mirror:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Mirror+biased+headlines&espv=2&biw=1681&bih=877&tbm=isch&imgil=XaYcOE5SBIgKRM%253A%253BJovExZtGzp22lM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fen.wikipedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FDaily_Mirror&source=iu&pf=m&fir=XaYcOE5SBIgKRM%253A%252CJovExZtGzp22lM%252C_&usg=__G9q1etmcpsKJ024ikJSWotlLijA%3D&ved=0ahUKEwi-lPSdp-DRAhXiJ5oKHUQ7Av8QyjcIOQ&ei=9C2KWL7KMuLP6ATE9oj4Dw#tbm=isch&q=Mirror+Tory&imgrc=-vwQrtzITC97tM%3A

I take your point, and it amused me how useful your very simple allegory was, I am dumb. I think the issue is that with the EU in combat mode we can only paint the bus one other colour? What would you suggest? It does seem very much like some hardcore sour grapes are going on? Do you not feel that?

Edit - and I do still feel the Independent has become very tabloid, or at least much more "ranty" than I remember. I guess it's trying to establish a niche.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Well, yes, up to a point... The Treaty of Rome was an economic agreement, it was ultimately a customs union. Freedom of movement isn't "inextricable" from the single market, it's originally only envisaged in so far as it facilitates the single market. The Treaty allowed for the limitation of free movement on grounds of public policy, security or health (say, oh, 300,000+ new people turning and accessing public services every year). It also didn't apply to public servants.

It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy,
public security or public health
:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the
provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that
State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations
to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Silvanus:

Of course there are qualifications and stipulations attached to freedom of movement; none of those provide a basis for a national government to place their own numerical restrictions on the movement of labour while staying within the single market. That defeats the entire purpose.

To believe that the European powers would accept that was frankly a little bizarre. I expect it from fringe figures such as Farage or Hannan; not so much the foreign secretary.

Sorry the initial suggestion was a basic reading of the Treaty of Rome would show that freedom of movement was not restricted and Boris is / was an idiot. Maybe I am nitpicking but that's not true, the Treaty of Rome heavily restricted freedom movement as shown above. It was the later Act which completely opened it up, especially Maastricht. There are now absolutely no policy restrictions at all, Reading the Treaty of Rome would actually make Boris quite happy, it's quite sensible document that lays the basis for a nationally controllable economic union rather than the aggressively federalising modern EU. It's not a major point, as I said maybe I laboured it.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Seem funny to suggest a man who's openly stated he's for "dark, secret debates" is more honest. He and Merkel certainly have their eggs in one basket and so have very easily defined position,they are perhaps more forthright. I certainly couldn't see them doing anything but criticise Boris and I doubt they'd berate his Treaty of Rome knowledge, which I think was the original suggestion?

Silvanus:
Well, he said that with regards to deciding economic policy, so as to prevent drastic reaction to announcement. That's arguably pretty shifty, but an entirely different matter to intentionally misleading people during a referendum, when public opinion is supposed to be gauged.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Ha ha, looks like old InFacts got a bit carried away with battering Full Facts there. So many facts! Interesting site.

I certainly have some sympathy for the idea that a limited number of people may have suggested to remain in the single market would be easier that it actually would have been. It wouldn't have been impossible but we would have had to pay for it. I still not sure Boris ever said that though, I think he said he'd like to do so but back away when the cost was mention. And it's can't see it was worse than the daily "economic apocalypse is nigh" pronouncements that the remain side indulged in. It was a cheap campaign all round for me.

Silvanus:
It's certainly worse. Economic predictions are by their very nature speculative, and rely on the myriad reactions of people and companies. It's well known that they're not an exact science, and given the risk-heavy nature of the move (and the impact on the pound as well as other indicators), it was certainly not intentionally misleading to state that Britain could well face dire economic consequences.

That's a matter quite apart from misleading people over a fairly cut-and-dry matter, laid out in law.

I see your argument and it's cogent but must admit I am still not sold on this myself, I think the prediction were deliberately ampped and if not they are so appalling off beam then economics as a science needs review because it's simply muddied the issue and made a lot of people angry. I understand predictions within limits but, well this is from today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38755242. Equally, I am not sure it clear cut enough to say people "deliberately" mislead anyone, some people may have been overly optimistic or have overplayed the UK's importance as a trade partner, or simply thought (as David Davis did) that we could pay to remain. Either way good chat and I do like the Infacts site, I keep consulting it.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Sorry the initial suggestion was a basic reading of the Treaty of Rome would show that freedom of movement was not restricted and Boris is / was an idiot. Maybe I am nitpicking but that's not true, the Treaty of Rome heavily restricted freedom movement as shown above. It was the later Act which completely opened it up, especially Maastricht. There are now absolutely no policy restrictions at all, Reading the Treaty of Rome would actually make Boris quite happy, it's quite sensible document that lays the basis for a nationally controllable economic union rather than the aggressively federalising modern EU. It's not a major point, as I said maybe I laboured it.

No, that's something of an oversimplification of my initial suggestion. The initial suggestion was that freedom of movement is inextricable from the single market, which is explicit and simply stated in the treaty. Not that the four freedoms are entirely unlimited.

Hannan, Farage and Johnson were not appealing to those qualifications which exist within the treaty; the idea was simply to remove the commitment to freedom of movement entirely, but keep the market. You can't do that.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

I see your argument and it's cogent but must admit I am still not sold on this myself, I think the prediction were deliberately ampped and if not they are so appalling off beam then economics as a science needs review because it's simply muddied the issue and made a lot of people angry. I understand predictions within limits but, well this is from today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38755242. Equally, I am not sure it clear cut enough to say people "deliberately" mislead anyone, some people may have been overly optimistic or have overplayed the UK's importance as a trade partner, or simply thought (as David Davis did) that we could pay to remain. Either way good chat and I do like the Infacts site, I keep consulting it.

I doubt Johnson or Farage were intentionally misleading; I believe they simply believed these treaties to be far more flexible than they are, owing to a severe lack of diplomatic experience. Hannan, however, has a long history of manipulating the truth, and I can fully believe he was intentionally misleading the public.

There's also the "3.5 million for the NHS" claim, of course. There's no way to spin that as mere mistakenness: these people were well aware that was even close to the cost of membership, but stuck it on billboards and buses nonetheless. That was outright lying.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

I like that Osborne link, that is an eye opening read, thanks. I actually read the Times every weekend and I always find that to be at least fact checked; I couldn't comment on bias - I don't see, it's written for me. It was never really my intention to compare the Guardian with the Express / Mail, I didn't initially, but maybe got drawn into it with my reply to you. As you say the Guardian has been smart with the free internet syndication, definitely raised it profile (although it does still seem to be going bust somehow!).

I think nearly all the newspapers are going bust, or struggling. A major thing that keeps some going is that they are arms of much larger companies willing and able to prop them up at a loss for the influence and political gain. The Guardian is owned by an independent trust with limited ability to do the same, although enough financial assets to cover it for a limited period.

I take your point, and it amused me how useful your very simple allegory was, I am dumb. I think the issue is that with the EU in combat mode we can only paint the bus one other colour? What would you suggest? It does seem very much like some hardcore sour grapes are going on? Do you not feel that?

I was always in favour of significant EU reform. After all, it's not just the UK unhappy with the way things were going. But the Tories, despite having allies available (Germany has often been interested, for instance), seemed intent on squandering that by alienating Europe at every turn. Now we're already de facto out of the EU, the EU doesn't have to care what we think.

Where we are now, I think there needs to be a mandate and some deep soul-seeking about what the UK is going to do and where it wants to go out of Europe. I felt he government was trying to railroad us on whatever course it wanted with no clear mandate for a vision of post-Brexit UK. I am glad the government has been forced to refer to Parliament, because it helps us, as a whole nation, think very carefully about what we want from our society in the broadest terms. I am interested in May's ideas of expanded state intervention. Totally against the Thatcherite style the Tories have been championing for ~40 years, though.

Edit - and I do still feel the Independent has become very tabloid, or at least much more "ranty" than I remember. I guess it's trying to establish a niche.

It got worse over time; I think it was an editorial decision to become more issues-based in the face of weak sales. Around 2005 it decided to run an Opinions rather than Facts front page. I gave up paying it much attention about then.

This whole Penelope-Gate seems to drastically increase the odds of France falling to the populists. And if France falls its likely that the EU will crumble not to long after that.

Hades:
This whole Penelope-Gate seems to drastically increase the odds of France falling to the populists. And if France falls its likely that the EU will crumble not to long after that.

Populist really is the mot du jour isn't it?

It amused me that May called Corbyn a populist the other day, always nice to reclaim a passive aggressive slur from the left :)

I fear "problematic" will just have to be burnt and forgotten though, it's too sullied. :(

Hades:
This whole Penelope-Gate seems to drastically increase the odds of France falling to the populists. And if France falls its likely that the EU will crumble not to long after that.

Heh, Penelope-Gate is more likely to lead to Macron sneaking in second over Fillon and winning the second round against Le Pen. If I'm not mistaken, he'll actually have a better shot at her than Fillon would have.

I wouldn't exactly call him a populist either.

Well crap, a Socialiste/France Insoumise coalition wasn't really ever likely, but I really don't think it's going to happen now.

Hades:
This whole Penelope-Gate seems to drastically increase the odds of France falling to the populists. And if France falls its likely that the EU will crumble not to long after that.

Well she's still losing to every other candidate in the second round... but that could flip fast. I guess worse case scenario is Filon is still number 2 but more crap come out after and it tank him and she end up winning, although she's also in trouble now. Taking Europe money, where did all the "less Europe" go?

It's weird that this is coming out so soon after Filon got chosen, isn't the entire point of primary to make sure this stuff comes out before they pick a candidate?

I still doubt Macron will make it, hardcore Europhile/globalist aren't exactly in high demand at the moment. Although I bet Valls wish he though of making his own club now XD

I haven't watched the race this closely lately, how's the mood around Hamon? Could he actually revive the socialist? I mean, if he can do that he can do anything, right? XD

Meiam:
Well she's still losing to every other candidate in the second round... but that could flip fast. I guess worse case scenario is Filon is still number 2 but more crap come out after and it tank him and she end up winning, although she's also in trouble now. Taking Europe money, where did all the "less Europe" go?

Le Pen has the loyalty of her voters, like most demagogues. If they've heard people call her a Nazi or a fascist several times over and didn't budge, I don't think they'd abandon her over thousands "stolen" from the EU.

I agree with your "worst case scenario".

Meiam:
It's weird that this is coming out so soon after Filon got chosen, isn't the entire point of primary to make sure this stuff comes out before they pick a candidate?

It is, but then again Fillon wasn't the favourite during the primaries, he was the third pick.

Meiam:
I still doubt Macron will make it, hardcore Europhile/globalist aren't exactly in high demand at the moment. Although I bet Valls wish he though of making his own club now XD

I haven't watched the race this closely lately, how's the mood around Hamon? Could he actually revive the socialist? I mean, if he can do that he can do anything, right? XD

The only way I can see Hamon going up now is if Macron really fucks up. Were I a French citizen, I'd likely cast my vote for him, so you could say he partially revitalized the Socialistes. Polls indicate he took a good third of Melenchon's support too, pushing him to 15 points or so. I was banking on Melenchon potentially supporting him and forming a coalition to block Fillon/Macron's path to the second round, but as I posted a bit above, Melenchon wants him to drop out and join France Insoumise.

So yeah, only way the Socialistes are back is if Macron commits a spectacular gaffe, or if Melenchon has a change of hearts, I don't really see either happening.

Meanwhile, it's not like anybody gives a darn about Italy.... but Italy is currently without leader of government.

Nature Guardian:
Meanwhile, it's not like anybody gives a darn about Italy.... but Italy is currently without leader of government.

I fairly care about Italy.

I'd have thought they would have called for snap elections after Renzi stepped down following his failed referendum, and I check up on Venetto from time to time to see if it's still there.

But yeah, Italy gets criminally low coverage in European/worldwide news.

Nature Guardian:
Meanwhile, it's not like anybody gives a darn about Italy.... but Italy is currently without leader of government.

Italy technically has one (Gentiloni, had to google that one). The five star movement might actually get in, of course no one know wtf that means for the country, least of all the five star movement themselves so I think they'd implode during election and get nowhere. Apparently Renzi might actually try to get back in, his referendum had some good stuff in it, but it was bloated with bad decision.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
It amused me that May called Corbyn a populist the other day, always nice to reclaim a passive aggressive slur from the left :)

The problem with calling Corbyn a populist is that he isn't remotely popular. He's tried to please everyone and wound up annoying everyone.

It would be possible to have a proper left wing populist leader, they would just have to approach it a lot differently to Corbyn. The press would still go apeshit, though.

Meiam:

Nature Guardian:
Meanwhile, it's not like anybody gives a darn about Italy.... but Italy is currently without leader of government.

Italy technically has one (Gentiloni, had to google that one). The five star movement might actually get in, of course no one know wtf that means for the country, least of all the five star movement themselves so I think they'd implode during election and get nowhere. Apparently Renzi might actually try to get back in, his referendum had some good stuff in it, but it was bloated with bad decision.

Concerning the M5S, something that always intrigued me; do they support the various Italian separation movements?

Because if so, we might see an end to Garibaldi's legacy fairly soon.

Sonmi:

Meiam:

Nature Guardian:
Meanwhile, it's not like anybody gives a darn about Italy.... but Italy is currently without leader of government.

Italy technically has one (Gentiloni, had to google that one). The five star movement might actually get in, of course no one know wtf that means for the country, least of all the five star movement themselves so I think they'd implode during election and get nowhere. Apparently Renzi might actually try to get back in, his referendum had some good stuff in it, but it was bloated with bad decision.

Concerning the M5S, something that always intrigued me; do they support the various Italian separation movements?

Because if so, we might see an end to Garibaldi's legacy fairly soon.

That's not going to happen I believe and hope.

Italy is weak and unconsidered enough as it is. If Italy splits itself becoming even SMALLER, they become a literal nothing in the global scale of politics.

Speaking on a social view of things, while Italy's North regions still hold a dislike for the South regions, with the influx of foreign immigrants in the country, both Southern Italians and Northern Italians have found something more foreign to unite against.
It used to be that a Northern Italian meeting a Southern Italian would see him as a foreign enemy. But that was a good twenty years ago, when Italy had almost zero immigrants.
Now a Northern Italian meeting a Southern Italian sighs of relief and thinks "thankfully he's Italian and not African or Chinese".

Nature Guardian:

Sonmi:

Meiam:

Italy technically has one (Gentiloni, had to google that one). The five star movement might actually get in, of course no one know wtf that means for the country, least of all the five star movement themselves so I think they'd implode during election and get nowhere. Apparently Renzi might actually try to get back in, his referendum had some good stuff in it, but it was bloated with bad decision.

Concerning the M5S, something that always intrigued me; do they support the various Italian separation movements?

Because if so, we might see an end to Garibaldi's legacy fairly soon.

That's not going to happen I believe and hope.

Italy is weak and unconsidered enough as it is. If Italy splits itself becoming even SMALLER, they become a literal nothing in the global scale of politics.

Speaking on a social view of things, while Italy's North regions still hold a dislike for the South regions, with the influx of foreign immigrants in the country, both Southern Italians and Northern Italians have found something more foreign to unite against.
It used to be that a Northern Italian meeting a Southern Italian would see him as a foreign enemy. But that was a good twenty years ago, when Italy had almost zero immigrants.
Now a Northern Italian meeting a Southern Italian sighs of relief and thinks "thankfully he's Italian and not African or Chinese".

Isn't support for independence in region of Venetto more popular than ever? Last I heard from family friends, the fascists have got a pretty strong grip on the region and want to get the hell outta dodge asap.

I heard that Sardinia and Sicily also had rather popular independence movements.

Sonmi:

Isn't support for independence in region of Venetto more popular than ever? Last I heard from family friends, the fascists have got a pretty strong grip on the region and want to get the hell outta dodge asap.

I heard that Sardinia and Sicily also had rather popular independence movements.

You mistake the attitude of hot-blooded Americans with the snail-like Italians.

I mean, Veneto loves "independence from Italy" but they way Italians go about it is very.... calm and slow. No risk of big movements or commotions.

Sonmi:
To go back to France: Hamon is giving me some faith in the Socialistes again... something I didn't think would happen any time soon.

Was it the robot tax that swung it for you :) He does seem to be a little vague as to how he'll provide his free money for everyone given France is short on cash and he wants to reduce working hours and actually make their hugely inflexible job market even more inflexible.

Catnip1024:

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
It amused me that May called Corbyn a populist the other day, always nice to reclaim a passive aggressive slur from the left :)

The problem with calling Corbyn a populist is that he isn't remotely popular. He's tried to please everyone and wound up annoying everyone.

It would be possible to have a proper left wing populist leader, they would just have to approach it a lot differently to Corbyn. The press would still go apeshit, though.

Interesting, I think to a certain extent everyone has seen far left wing politics fail again and again, from 70s England to Venezuela recently, so there's a very understandable distrust in the UK. I guess they'd have to focus on renationalising services to start with, there seems to have been a trend recently for mythologising British Rail as if it were some sort of super efficient Japanese style hyper rail rather then the strike ridden Union plaything it was in reality so that might work.

Catnip1024:

It would be possible to have a proper left wing populist leader, they would just have to approach it a lot differently to Corbyn. The press would still go apeshit, though.

Corbyn is the worst of all worlds.

The problem is that Corbyn is absolutely not a populist. Corbyn is left by way of a hippy, not a working class hero. And, as a crude generalisation, no-one likes hippies.

What you'd want is a sort of firebrand Alan Johnson. Of course, many were hoping Alan Johnson would have run for Labour leader, but he had always said he'd never wanted to go to the top (and meant it, seemingly unlike most who say that).

QuiteEnjoyed2016:

Sonmi:
To go back to France: Hamon is giving me some faith in the Socialistes again... something I didn't think would happen any time soon.

Was it the robot tax that swung it for you :) He does seem to be a little vague as to how he'll provide his free money for everyone given France is short on cash and he wants to reduce working hours and actually make their hugely inflexible job market even more inflexible.

What can I say? I like taxes, and any politician that acknowledges the coming crisis of mass automation of the work force and tries to take steps to prepare for it is a plus in my books.

The necessity for UBI in a world with a soon-to-be shrinking job market and income inequality that keeps growing, and growing, simply needs to be addressed.

Nature Guardian:

Sonmi:

Isn't support for independence in region of Venetto more popular than ever? Last I heard from family friends, the fascists have got a pretty strong grip on the region and want to get the hell outta dodge asap.

I heard that Sardinia and Sicily also had rather popular independence movements.

You mistake the attitude of hot-blooded Americans with the snail-like Italians.

I mean, Veneto loves "independence from Italy" but they way Italians go about it is very.... calm and slow. No risk of big movements or commotions.

I don't know... the British aren't known for their tempestuous behaviour either, and yet, here's Brexit.

I'll trust your judgement on nothing happening anytime soon, though.

QuiteEnjoyed2016:
Interesting, I think to a certain extent everyone has seen far left wing politics fail again and again, from 70s England to Venezuela recently, so there's a very understandable distrust in the UK. I guess they'd have to focus on renationalising services to start with, there seems to have been a trend recently for mythologising British Rail as if it were some sort of super efficient Japanese style hyper rail rather then the strike ridden Union plaything it was in reality so that might work.

That's funny, given that a lot of issues can be arguably traced back to Thatcher and the 80s lurch to the right.

The main issue with British Rail was piss poor management. The strikes were an issue, but at least, unlike today, there was direct government union negotiation, not the current situation where the negotiations go via a private company who are the only people who do not lose out while the strikes rumble on. People are not pretending British Rail was perfect, they are saying it is better than the current half-arsed privatised subsidised system (noting the track is still maintained by National Rail, because the individual operators couldn't be trusted to do it).

Having some actual social housing was a nice thing, too.

More to the point, the current void in left wing politics could be filled by a champion of general workers rights. We have zero hours contracts, Uber / Deliveroo style screwing people over. We have the most restrictive rules on striking in Europe, and increasing income inequality. Education is getting more and more costly, and effectively segregating out the poor. All it takes is for someone vaguely competent to step into the void and not go on about Hamas, Israel, and the countless other things that regular people really don't give a shit about.

Catnip1024:
More to the point, the current void in left wing politics could be filled by a champion of general workers rights. We have zero hours contracts, Uber / Deliveroo style screwing people over. We have the most restrictive rules on striking in Europe, and increasing income inequality. Education is getting more and more costly, and effectively segregating out the poor. All it takes is for someone vaguely competent to step into the void and not go on about Hamas, Israel, and the countless other things that regular people really don't give a shit about.

The world in general could use more of that kind of politician.

A few years ago, we had one in Canada, Jack Layton, took the NDP from being an afterthought to being the official opposition party. The party genuinely stood a chance to take power.

And then, he died of cancer.

Sonmi:

Nature Guardian:

Sonmi:

Isn't support for independence in region of Venetto more popular than ever? Last I heard from family friends, the fascists have got a pretty strong grip on the region and want to get the hell outta dodge asap.

I heard that Sardinia and Sicily also had rather popular independence movements.

You mistake the attitude of hot-blooded Americans with the snail-like Italians.

I mean, Veneto loves "independence from Italy" but they way Italians go about it is very.... calm and slow. No risk of big movements or commotions.

I don't know... the British aren't known for their tempestuous behaviour either, and yet, here's Brexit.

I'll trust your judgement on nothing happening anytime soon, though.

Italians are going to follow what others do.

The problem is that they may decide to follow America yet again.

But the reason it won't happen it that the entire Italian economy is now based on the immigrants. Italian schools indoctrinate children into accepting immigrants.

Turning this 180 degrees to follow the likes of Trump is a big mess for Italy now. Here's a country that followed and worshipped America, but has also been pushing immigration and indoctrinating people into accepting it. And now Trump is the USA president and Italy doesn't know what to do.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here