European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 346

On December 08 2015 03:07 Gorsameth wrote:
The effects of the increase in terrorist activities in France should not be underestimated. While the entire European region seems to be further right I would guess France to veer a lot more because of these attacks. Being scared tends to make people turn to the right.

On December 08 2015 01:27 farvacola wrote:

While generally true, remember that the single largest turn towards socialism in the US, that being the New Deal under FDR, took place while the country was gripped with possibly the worst poverty it has ever seen. Whether that applies to Europe remains to be seen of course.

On December 08 2015 05:36 cLutZ wrote:
FN has almost nothing to do with the American Republican party (for American's commenting) its a bit like if Trump had his own party, but just slightly. I think WhiteDog would agree that the FN generally says something along the lines of "France needs to stay French" plus "Keep groups XYZ (not me) from receiving government welfare so I can keep mine".

The man running negotiations with Britain to keep it in the European Union said leaders could seal a deal in February but warned David Cameron that a central demand to curb immigration may be asking too much.

Donald Tusk, who next week chairs the first detailed talks on the issue between the British prime minister and all his 27 peers, sent EU leaders a progress report a month after Cameron laid out four sets of reforms he wants if he is to campaign for continued EU membership in a referendum due within two years.

"We have made good progress," the European Council president said in a letter that contained few surprises. " We ... have to overcome the substantial political differences that we still have on the issue of social benefits and free movement."

After next week's summit, he added: "We should be able to prepare a concrete proposal to be finally adopted in February."

Many governments are willing to make changes to keep Britain in the Union. Tusk said the main stumbling block was Cameron's pledge to cut immigration to Britain by denying benefits to workers from other EU states for four years after they arrive.

Anti-EU campaigners said Tusk's letter showed Cameron would secure little of consequence from Brussels. But the prime minister's office said he would stick with a proposal that many leaders, especially in the EU's poorer east, say would mean illegal discrimination and denying a fundamental freedom to EU citizens.

"There is a strong will on the part of all sides to find solutions," wrote Tusk, while describing as "difficult" the demands Cameron set out in a letter on Nov. 10.

In particular, Tusk said changes to social benefit rules are "the most delicate" of Cameron's four reform "baskets". The former Polish premier noted support for fighting welfare abuses and a possibility of reducing what Britain pays in child benefit to workers whose children live in poorer countries.

But one welfare request was very tricky: "There is presently no consensus on the request that people coming to Britain from the EU must live there and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing," Tusk said.

Cameron's spokeswoman said the demand would stay on the table for the Brussels summit on Dec. 17-18. "This issue that we are trying to address here is how better to control migration from within the EU," she said. "We will continue to have discussions and explore the options."

Just how flexible Cameron may be is unclear. Tusk suggested some welfare reforms were possible. Cameron's spokeswoman said: "We need reform in all four areas that we have outlined."

British finance minister George Osborne, speaking in New York late on Monday, said further negotiations would be "complex and robust", but that the most recent developments showed more progress than many people had expected.

On December 08 2015 22:33 OtherWorld wrote:

Long story short : the FN says to the people what the people wants to hear. Demagogy at its finest.


That's pretty accurate.

On December 09 2015 04:23 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't know usually you claim that the liberal elite is not listening at all and ignoring the average guy, you have to pick one. I actually find it really surprising how few European mainstream parties are jumping on the scare bandwagon. Eastern European governments seem to try to make up for all of them though.

On December 09 2015 02:42 Doublemint wrote:


he said the EU governments - plural.

the EU - indirectly because the ECB is like the FED an *cough* independent body *cough* - has somewhat control.

On December 09 2015 05:07 maartendq wrote:

Actually, while few of the mainstream parties do not jump on the scare bandwagon it is those parties that are losing ground to relatively young parties that pull the scare bandwagon. In Belgium a conservative party that had never gotten much traction before suddenly experienced a meteoric rise the past five or six years, largely at the cost of the more traditional parties. It now towers above all the others, and its president is regarded/suspected by many the man who really pulls the strings and calls the shots, even though he is not Belgium's prime minister. The same phenomenon is happening all over Europe: in the north it is mainly conservatives (Wilders' PVV, True Finns, AfD, Le Pen's Front Nationale ...) that are on the rise while in the south it is socialist and marxist parties (Syriza, Podemos, Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement, Portugal's Partido Socialista).

It is an interesting - if dangerous - evolution, but I think the main reason is that the parties that have traditionally been at the centre of European national politics are basically ground down by vested interests who have much to lose if those traditional parties were to actually start taking the woes of the people on the street seriously. Their own agendas take precedence over what the people actually want them to do. In other words, the people feel that politicians of the traditional parties no longer bargain for the interests of their voters but rather for the interests of several vested parties (be it trade unions, trade organisations, NGOs or corporations).