French election: Macron defeats Le Pen
bbc.com
bbc.com
Here's to hoping that Europe can continue working together and begin to reform itself, and not tear itself apart like some of our American 'allies' on the (alt-)right would like.
Lots of challenges ahead, but we wouldn't want it to be too easy now would we?
The EU is simply not necessary for free trade; nor is free trade its main goal. The EU as it is right now is becoming the next Sovient Union. A undemocratic, centralised, bureaucratic superstate that strips the people from their sovereignty, independence, cultural and ethnic traditions. What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed.
If you want your business to succeed, you better have a free and open labor pool.
This is why economies grow with open borders, because it's more labor efficient.
Can you imagine not being able to hire a specialized SQL coder, because the only one available is in Austria, and you're business is in France, and there's no labor mobility?
Or did you think labor was a commodity? And that anyone can do anyone else's job?
In France, you can hire a SQL coder straight from Zimbabwe, South Korea, Venezuela or any other place on earth without a problem. The laws are in place and the EU has nothing to do with it.
We'll ignore for a minute that there is no shortage of SQL coder so it's really not warranted to recruiter from that far away. Unless it's a consulting company that tricks them to get minimum wage and resell them for more to make a profit.
We'll also ignore that they don't speak French.
There are only a few cities with a couple of jobs for them. The USA has stuff in SF/NY mostly. France has some stuff in Paris. That's about it.
We aren't part of EU, but the EU is a very appealing place to work.
But -for me personally- I'd say it's a good thing. As I stated before, choosing Macron means keeping up with the status quo and I intend to leave Europe for Asia next year (I have an Asian girlfriend and daughter). I do realise that if Le Pen would be chosen now there would be unrest in the Economic markets, the EU, etc... So for me personally it will be a good time to just make a bit more money before leaving permanently.
In the end the choice for Macron will only delay the inevitable though. The EU is dead, it just doesn't realise it yet. The only problem is: the longer it takes for the EU to collapse, the messier it will become.
I cross every day the border. Twice a week, I cross another border which is meant to be closed from 19h to 6h (many small borders near the FR-CH do that). There is a simply locked barrier. Nothing more. This has been here for 25+ years. Of course, I've crossed "illegally" this border by bike plenty of times (its faster) and it has been very very easy (I won't even talk about all the woods around the border that haven't got a single fence). A terrorist wanting to cross a border would be very stupid to get caught.
So all this talk about how getting out of the EU is complete bullshit to me.
It implies that foreigners need to be able to identify themselves and show their residence permits, border ingress stamps or other proof of them being in the country legally. In this sense it can be compared to the visa waiver which non-Americans from eligible countries needed to sign before crossing the US border. It contained questions in the line of 'Are you entering the US to commit crimes' and 'Were you active in the Nazi-party in Germany from 1932-1945'. While no criminal worth her salt would answer the former question with 'yes', it did give an additional legal handle to expel her should she be caught, as well as legal grounds to deny her access the next time she tried to enter the US.
This is not possible with 'open borders' as the police and 'border guard' have a very limited mandate to check on what they deem to be suspect individuals.
Back when I was a small boy, almost every month there was some bombing going on in Israel. These attacks have been greatly reduced by several measures, including the building of the wall.
As for the second par of your argument, I don't know the context but to me it seems more of a correlation than a causation.
Nothing is dead until it is entirely dead, and the EU idea still runs strong in people. Things need to change, as Brexit and the recent problems faced by the union have shown. Now it's down to the time to reform.
I don't think Macron is choosing the status quo though, hes as much as a political outsider as Trump and I hope he will make some progress in achieving reforms.
The real issues are: how we organize work and social security in the global knowledge economy? How we deal with the climate change? How we deal with info ops, which is already much more destabilizing problem for western democracies than terrorism. You are right that migration is tough challenge, how we will handle increasing migration?
If you are French, all 3 are mostly nationalized.
Macron was and investment banker and a Minister of Economy. I suppose our definitions of outsider are really different.
When I see people complain about the EU it's usually about "the EU taking their sovereignty and imposing stuff on them".
So if "things are going to change" that means the EU would have to become less like the U.S. (a federal entity), and more like an aggregate of wildly different cultures and regulations (so more like the pre-EU Europe).
Is that really a good thing? And do things "need to change" that way? Or is more education necessary about why the EU needs to become more homogeneous and less heterogeneous?
I can say one thing - if EU states remain wildly different from each other in culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less appealing market than the US. And it's not so much that the laws are "stricter" (like say the privacy ones), as it is about the laws being different in each country, and making it hard for a company to be compliant with all of them. And I think that means fewer options and fewer quality products for Europeans in the end (you'll be stuck with your locally-made products).
Further, you seem to assume that without the EU, trade between countries would somehow radically decrease, i don't see that happening. The European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen treaty exist independently from the EU. Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU, yet they trade perfectly fine with others. The EU is not necessary for free trade.
PS: Feel free to downvote, but at least make an argument.
Benefits is that there are a lot to negotiate internally besides free trade agreements and it gives negotiation power in the global arena, now that there are at least 3 superpowers (USA, China, Russia to the lesser extent).
(P.S. Didn't downvote)
First, If we would never try what in the past has failed then we would be really in a very stagnant state. Second, the EU has not failed, the EU is still the main reason for the prosperity most of its members have gained and still continue to gain after WWII. That it has had some backlashes recently does not mean at all that it has failed.
> The EU is not necessary for free trade.
It is not. It is however necessary for a internal economic market that guarantees the free flow of capital and labor, which is much wider/different in scope than free trade. Free trade can be arranged with a few trade treaties in neo liberal style.
That is, by definition, the purpose of the European Economic Area. Not the EU.
I keep hearing this argument, but I've never heard any supporting arguments. What evidence is there that "sovereignty" is optimal at the administrative scale of modern-day nation-states and not EU-sized scales, or going the other direction, at provincial, city or district levels?
And then there are those 13 ex-colonies, now 50, which dared to want an ever closer union. They had a civil war, yes, but since then secession seems to out of the picture.
What it can't be is something in the middle, like it's now.
The EU feels out of touch, unresponsive, "undemocratic". Whether it is or not isn't the issue; it feels that way to too many people. Many people therefore feel very little emotional affinity with the EU. If the EU is going to survive, that needs to change, because it opens the door to anti-EU populists in several countries. If enough win, the EU could become a skeleton of what it is now.
Sounds like you're advocating erasing the cultural and linguistic variety of the member states in favour of a common language and culture so that American companies can sell things more easily?
If you think wars for oil in the mid-east etc. are what the establishment wants, then the scientists at the EPA are a threat to that.
If you think the establishment are Al Gore and his fellow communist hoaxers, then wrecking the EPA is an anti-elitists move.
I'm relieved, because there was one person running who was less suited to the office than Macron, and she didn't get elected, but that's a bit different than celebrating.
And yes, technically countries are not buying bonds, but selling bonds to the ECB. But the ECB is acting on behalf of the countries.
Finally, I expect most immigrants that have a proper education & perhaps money would prefer to e.g. the USA. Increasing immigration as a solution to an aging population is also something that, in the long run, is not sustainable (for many reasons, including ecological). It's time with think of other solutions and perhaps Japan will be able to lead the way in this area, in the future.
I agree with your feeling that the system is a mess and if there are not important changes it will explode.
Even Trump publicly changed his opinion ;)
esp. if you are betring against the ECB
If you're certain something declines in value, all you got to do is buy Put Options
Source: Am Canadian who moved to Europe 2 years ago and am constantly shocked by how racists Europeans are.
I think part of the problem is that in Canada an immigrant is considered "Canadian" as soon as they get their citizenship. People are proud of their heritage, but nobody gets to claim superiority of citizenship. Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Some signs that a comment is probably bad by HN's standard: (1) general claims on provocative matters; (2) pejorative 'you'; (3) using the word 'actually' about something difficult; (4) promotion of one identity over another. The more such markers in a comment, the more troll effects it has, even if trolling isn't the intent. (Most of the time, it isn't.)
Some things that counteract these effects: nuance; empathy; personal experience.
As an European, I find it quite tasteless to be criticised by Canadians for our views on immigration, when you get the cream of the crop and we get the rabble mostly because of geographical reasons. To take an example from Turkey: you get the educated slice of society, liberal and progressive. We get the peasants that deem it normal to bury their daughters alive because they talk with boys. (This is an exaggeration, but you don't seem to mind heavy-handedness).
We don't oppose mass immigration because of the color of their skin or their religion, but because their views regarding women's rights, LGBT rights are so alien to ours, as well as because we don't actually manage to assimilate migrants fast enough to ensure our society thrives.
Other countries have much more sensible immigration policies, like the USA and Australia. Or most Asian countries, for that matter.
I don't think this is fair at all. I'm of Middle Eastern stock (now living in the US) and even I was kind of shocked when I stayed near Gare du Nord in Paris (especially) and in some other parts of the city. I did not feel as if I was in Europe. It felt like a souk in Qatar. I date a French North African woman and so am acutely aware of the integration problems many (not all of course) immigrants have in France. Many old time French North Africans, who fought for normality in the French society over decades, are now finding themselves on the side of "the other" again because of unnecessary mass immigration of people who are certainly not french and secular enough like the North Africans who migrated in the 60s and 70s. New Islamic immigration is preying on 2nd and 3rd generation somewhat normalized immigrants and destroying a population that was integrated and also creating a divide among the different ethnic groups within the country.
You may consider this perspective to be racist. But I don't see how allowing racist Middle Easterners (like most people I grew up with) with homophobic tendencies (almost a given) to mass immigrate to a country is not racist itself.
> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Why is this an issue? It is an exception to have countries like America and Canada (both of which I adore) which are based on ideals [1]. Most nations are created after bloody ethnic wars (especially in Europe). It would be wrong to force them to give up their ancestral lands. A crude proxy for seeing this is to have a look at the birthright citizenship map [2]. Only a handful of nations have jus soil (US and Canada being among them). Majority are jus sanguinis. And the trend is for ethnic countries like Germany and Ireland to go more towards jus sanguinis. Ethnic countries like Ireland and India in fact used to be jus soil and have recently moved away from that to preserve the ethnicity. So for countries built on ethnicity, why would you expect it not to be the case that one is defined by their ancestry?
[1] And yes, there are significant problems with the history of America especially with respect to the Native Americans.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_...
> Whereas in Europe it seems that you are constantly defined by your ancestry, even after multiple generations.
Yeah, too many different languages, too many cultures and ages of history where Europeans ruled over each other precisely because of the ancestry and the power that went along with it. That is highly engraved in collective mind of most European countries.
It also goes to another level. Traditionally (since the 50s), engineering in France has largely been lead by large, ambitious and state funded projects and organizations. Think for instance Concorde, TGV, EDF, INRIA, etc. I have always liked this gaullist mentality: it has benefited the majority of the population and I tend to believe it has been helpful in making France a major post WW2 superpower.
But lately it may not have worked so well: for instance, many regional airports have been built at high cost, and yet many of them are almost empty. Perhaps then, resource allocation is the problem. In this regard, Macron is influenced by the american model where eg. Bell Labs, Elon Musk, Silicon Valley behemoths, etc. decide by themselves what shall be built and the state has little to no regard in the orientations of these organizations.
We'll see. I'm glad Macron has won and hope his plan works out.
In France, you get to deal with organizations like the RSI and URSSAF which are incredibly incompetent, frequently make mistake, do not have phone numbers that can be called from abroad (which is extremely inconvenient when traveling for business) and have Bizantine rules.
I would never create a company again in France because the system is completely broken. I really hope that Macron follows through on solving this. I believe that it's a priority.
EDF => National electricity grid.
INRIA => National research center.
They are big national companies, at the intersection of massive public funding and fields that cannot be outsourced.
That's the only sort of companies that strive in the French environment.
On twitter, you could hardly distinguish tweets from the Front National and tweets from the far-left (Melenchon), because of the same vocabulary and many identical ideas (on "oligarchy", "unfair media coverage", and so on).
The matter is not the parties. It's ideologies. FN is prospering because of the remanent xenophobic culture of France. There is always a reason for hatred, it does not fade so easily
As bad as EU is, eventually they will get along just fine...or a least just as United States of America do.
The difference is that in USA they speak the same language and even this way they are not as homogenous as they seem from outside.
In Europe you have huge economical and cultural differences between certain states, bad blood for historical reasons between some nations and so on.
The bad blood I can understand...they did this to us in WWI WWII and as soon as they get the chance it will happen again. It's legitimate.
The language IMO is less of an issue as who travels or works outside their country manages just fine. The new generation is doing to show their English skills in FB and Instagram.
Economical and cultural differences do exist in USA, sometimes you think you are in a different country, and quite a bit of laws are local.
I bet that people in Switzerland have more in common (economically and culturally) than people from Bulgaria and France have for example.
To come back to the example of Switzerland, the economically and culturally differences between a mountain farmer and a Banker in Geneva shouldn't be underrated also.
The following paragraph is an excerpt from the linked article.
Yet starting in the early 1980s, the long trend toward regional equality abruptly switched. ... In 1980, the per capita income of Washington, D.C., was 29 percent above the average for Americans as a whole; by 2013 it had risen to 68 percent above. In the San Francisco Bay area, the rise was from 50 percent above to 88 percent. Meanwhile, per capita income in New York City soared from 80 percent above the national average in 1980 to 172 percent above in 2013.
[0] http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-...
Hopefully the new generations will care more about their iPhone 68 than ancient history.
Most people are concerned with keeping their jobs and making enough money to live from month to month. Also, when they lose their job the politicians will tell them that this is because of EU policies, Soros, big banks and similar ...
Plenty of educated people in Eastern Europe speak/read French and Russian. Until the '90s French was the main foreign language taught in countries like Romania, Bulgaria and most countries under Soviet influence. English was introduced later, usually after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Actually it wouldn't have been. What most people will discover (though I think most French nationals are well aware), is that the president has very little power in France unless he also controls the parliament. Which Le Pen was guaranteed not to achieve. And which will still be a long shot for Macron. Had Le Pen been elected, she would have been reduced pretty much to the role of a queen of England. With nuclear firepower but very little means to create trouble in the EU.
If the current policies at the French and European level don't change, we are just winning a few years.
Macron is probably the candidate less inclined to change those policies.
Things were quite scary a few months ago. There are still things to be concerned about going forward, but politics ebbs and flows, and for now perhaps the flood waters are receding.
Naysayers of the EU need to learn history. It is worth every penny, every inch of inconvenience.
TWO fucking world wars were started by Europe, by nations that formed the Coal/Steel Union after 45 and now enjoy the longest, uninterrupted period of peace since, like, EVER.
The EU's economy is the largest in the world. You don't fuck with that. Except if you're British and can't stomach the end of your empire.
Not quite, but it's big. The EU is $17T. The US is $18.5T. But I agree that you shouldn't fuck with that especially for the reasons that Le Pen and the Brexiters had.
There is no major conflict directly involving two major powers for many decades (1945/WW2, or 1952/korean war if considering that China was a major power at that time, which is generous IMHO).
That's not limited to Europe, this statement is valid for the whole world.
Several factors can explain it:
* Better living conditions (far less frequent famines, less large scale epidemics, etc), mostly due to industrialization of many countries and consequently less tensions inside and between countries over resources.
* For a part, economic dependencies between countries.
* MAD, but also the realization after WW2 that a major conflict, using modern weapons, even only conventional ones, can only lead to both sides actually losing.
* Better worldwide coordination through the UN (imperfect, yet it helps).
* Better education for large parts of the world population.
* More pacifist views and reject of war.
This is still oversimplifying why there is this unprecedented peaceful period, but it shows the CECA/CEE/EU is far from being the only factor at play.
You think this happened by accident in Europe? It was a forced development, by very smart people.
Coal/Steel union, EG/EWG, EU.
The US and USSR were duking it out all the time, from Cuba to Vietnam to Afghanistan.
Funny how people assume peace in Europe is the natural order. Holy shit, one of the key members put millions in gas chambers just years before its formation.
Europe went from a genocidal maniac (colonialism, holocaust, etc) to peace in no time.
former largest economy: after brexit the EU27 economy will be smaller than the US
Since the polling booths are now closed (it is 8:30pm in France), these exit polls have been published. That is what the Beeb article is based on.
More importantly, at which time all booths are closed.
Clearly if it was supposed to help Le Pen it didn't work.
If they had anything even vaguely plausible, they'd have released it earlier.
- We would gain valuable research data
and
- Get rid of a bunch of undesirables
was on the news a couple years ago. seems like it was her daddy. my bad.