revelman wrote: » Apologies if this has been discussed before but there are extraordinary exit polls coming out of Italy tonight. They suggest that 1 in 2 Italian voters have voted for an anti-establishment (anti-EU party). Much of the shift seems attributable (at least at first blush) to concerns about immigration though underlying the surface is clearly the issue of the stagnant economy and unemployment, for which politicians have blamed immigrants and the Euro.
sameoldname wrote: » Bit weird they'd blame the EU for immigration when it's more down to geography and a destabilised middle-east. Also, blaming the Euro for their crap economy is a bit strange because back when the Lira was in circulation the economy was crap then too. Only difference is they can't just inflate away their problems and might actually now have to deal with the real systematic issues they have.
LeinsterDub wrote: » https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-02/italy-is-rolling-out-a-new-electoral-system-here-s-how-it-works Attempting too understand their electoral system at this time of a Sunday evening gave me a headache
FCIM wrote: » Italy blames the EU for not taking its share of immigrants, it doesn't blame the EU for where they come from. Whilst I think a lot more should be done for refugees in generally, it's undeniable that Italy is struggling with the volume which is reaching its shores. It's the easiest place in the EU for a huge amount of migrants. Even the most moderate of political voices in Italy will tell you that there is a significant problem and that a lot of EU states are just treating it like Italy's problem. Weighing up the evidence it's hard to argue they're wrong.
sameoldname wrote: » FCIM wrote: » Italy blames the EU for not taking its share of immigrants, it doesn't blame the EU for where they come from. Whilst I think a lot more should be done for refugees in generally, it's undeniable that Italy is struggling with the volume which is reaching its shores. It's the easiest place in the EU for a huge amount of migrants. Even the most moderate of political voices in Italy will tell you that there is a significant problem and that a lot of EU states are just treating it like Italy's problem. Weighing up the evidence it's hard to argue they're wrong. Oh, no doubt. But seeing that a lot of EU nations see taking in immigrants as the coming of the apocalypse coupled with the fact there's no legal mechanism in any of the EU treaties about redistribution of migrants I don't see what can be done in the short-term at least. I do understand both their and Greece's concerns though.
sameoldname wrote: » the fact there's no legal mechanism in any of the EU treaties about redistribution of migrants
sameoldname wrote: » Bit weird they'd blame the EU for immigration when it's more down to geography and a destabilised middle-east.
Also, blaming the Euro for their crap economy is a bit strange because back when the Lira was in circulation the economy was crap then too. Only difference is they can't just inflate away their problems and might actually now have to deal with the real systematic issues they have.
sameoldname wrote: » I don't see what can be done in the short-term at least. I do understand both their and Greece's concerns though.
Those fleeing war and persecution, many from the Middle East, are entitled to asylum under European and international law.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Many on the far right would be happy to say "no, you are not entitled to asylum and we will torpedo your vessels if you attempt to come here illegally". They just won't say so publicly because such views lie outside Europe's Overton Window at the moment.
recedite wrote: » Leaving aside this ridiculous strawman, its worth pointing out that the 5 star movement does not consider itself either right or left wing, but is more about direct democracy, sustainablility, environmentalism and a steady state economy. These aspirations have no need for the politics of constant economic growth and immigration. I suppose you could call them 21st Century Greens, ie Green but not left wing.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I don't understand this argument to be honest. Never really have. Membership of the EU and the single market in particular means that a country isn't in control of its own immigration policy - geography and a destabilised middle-east would have no effect whatsoever if anti-immigration politicians were able to bluntly say "right, closed border, no more foreigners are allowed to enter the country, period". That's ultimately what the far right actually want. In that context, being anti-EU makes a pile of sense. I didn't really understand how this wasn't obvious with Brexit either - the anti-immigration people weren't just opposed to migration from outside the EU, they were opposed to people from other EU countries being able to come and go as they pleased. In that context, being anti-EU when you're anti-immigration is entirely logical. Indeed, it would be illogical to be pro-EU if your goal is to see fewer foreigners being allowed into your country. I reckon you're making the mistake of assuming "foreigners" to be non-EU citizens - a lot of anti-immigration people in the EU also have an issue with free movement of people from neighbouring EU nations as well.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » If inflating away the problems worked in the past, it follows that people would be pissed that they're not allowed to do this anymore, no?
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Many on the far right would simply argue for not allowing people into the country, and repelling migrants by force if necessary, coupled with deporting those who are found to have slipped through the net. In the case of Trump they talk about building a wall, but I've no doubt that at least some of these folks would have no issue with the military being used to defend their border if that's what it would take. I honestly reckon that many people seriously underestimate just how bluntly anti-immigration some on the right are, or what lengths they'd be willing to see their governments go to in order to prevent it. EDIT: From the BBC link above: Many on the far right would be happy to say "no, you are not entitled to asylum and we will torpedo your vessels if you attempt to come here illegally". They just won't say so publicly because such views lie outside Europe's Overton Window at the moment.
sameoldname wrote: » I don't disagree and a lot of this is down to the fact that the centre-ground in a lot of countries have been completely abandoned and the lunatics on the far-left and far-right are dominating popular discourse. There will always be a lunatic fringe but normally the central majority keeps both sides at bay. Seems we've lost the ability to do this now though.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » The problem is the left and right establishment groupings constantly belittling the populist types and insisting that everything is grand, even though in the actual experiences of these peoples lives, it really isn't. Eventually, that boils over into all-out revolt. The response of those in power all over the West to ongoing inequality and issues with quality of life has been the 21st century equivalent of "let them eat cake", and has always been absolutely inevitable that this would only fly for a limited amount of time. The populist backlash currently underway is a direct consequence of "sure everything's grand - and anyone who says otherwise is an uneducated moron". Think back to when Bertie suggested openly that anyone who didn't believe in the Celtic Tiger should go off and kill themselves. That's the kind of contempt which people on the margins have perceived from the establishment for a long, long time. Glenn Greenwald summed this up pretty well:Just take a step back for a second. One of the things that is bothering me and bothered me about the Brexit debate, and is bothering me a huge amount about the Trump debate, is that there is zero elite reckoning with their own responsibility in creating the situation that led to both Brexit and Trump and then the broader collapse of elite authority. The reason why Brexit resonated and Trump resonated isn’t that people are too stupid to understand the arguments. The reason they resonated is that people have been so f*cked by the prevailing order in such deep and fundamental and enduring ways that they can’t imagine that anything is worse than preservation of the status quo. You have this huge portion of the populace in both the U.K. and the US that is so angry and so helpless that they view exploding things without any idea of what the resulting debris is going to be to be preferable to having things continue, and the people they view as having done this to them to continue in power. That is a really serious and dangerous and not completely invalid perception that a lot of people who spend their days scorning Trump and his supporters or Brexit played a great deal in creating.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I don't understand this argument to be honest. Never really have. Membership of the EU and the single market in particular means that a country isn't in control of its own immigration policy - geography and a destabilised middle-east would have no effect whatsoever if anti-immigration politicians were able to bluntly say "right, closed border, no more foreigners are allowed to enter the country, period".
Peregrinus wrote: » Membership of the EU and the single market does not mean that a country "isn't in control of its own immigration policy". EU freedom of movement rules only apply to EU nationals.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » That's what I'm saying though. There are plenty on the right who aren't even ok with immigration by EU nationals. They feel that their country should literally allow no foreigners in to live and work on a long term basis at all, including those from other EU countries. Take Brexit for example - it wasn't migrants from Syria etc which were the issue for a lot of Brexiteers (that I saw interviewed and posting online anyway), it was people from other EU countries - Poland, Spain, hell even Ireland - taking up space in "their" job market. This is, IMO, a much bigger issue for a lot of people than is generally believed, again because it's socially unacceptable to publicly state this so a lot of people keep quiet about it. There are plenty of Irish people who are anti-immigration not just in terms of African migrants but also in terms of Eastern Europeans (Polish folk seem to be a particularly sore sticking point, not sure why Polish specifically but there you go) living and working here. Again I just feel that the current Overton Window has swept a lot of this sentiment totally under the carpet where people don't realise how extensive it might be. Put simply, there are people out there who bluntly believe that when their country has an economic crisis, giving one single job to someone not born and raised there ahead of native applicants is an outrage, and the same for housing, social welfare, etc. It's a mentality which goes far beyond just opposing particular types of immigration. Immigration from other EU countries is seen as just as big a problem by these folks - they don't believe in a common EU citizenship and they regard people from other EU countries as being just as "foreign" as people from Syria or anywhere else. I could be wrong about all this but that was certainly the case around Brexit. The argument that Britain could impose its own immigration policies without leaving the EU made absolutely no sense in the context of free movement of people within the EU being a fundamental requirement for membership. These arguments ignored the reality that for a lot of Brexiteers, having people from Ireland living and working in London and therefore taking up resources (living space, jobs, etc) which should have "rightly" been the birthright of a native Brit instead, was just as offensive to them as having migrants from Syria come and settle there. Basically, the extent of opposition to the single market specifically as far as people are concerned, is in my view massively underestimated across the EU. And in my view, we ignore it at our peril.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » There are plenty on the right who aren't even ok with immigration by EU nationals. They feel that their country should literally allow no foreigners in to live and work on a long term basis at all, including those from other EU countries.
oscarBravo wrote: » Large numbers of people subscribing to an irrational idea doesn't suddenly make it sensible.
oscarBravo wrote: » Why should we pander to xenophobia (which is quite literally what you've just described)? Sure, there are people who believe that foreigners should be barricaded out of the country. There are also people who believe that inter-racial marriage is unthinkable, or that homosexuality should still be illegal. The role of government isn't - or certainly shouldn't be - to pander to people's basest instincts. The British government forgot that, and the country - including the xenophobes - will pay the price for generations to come. Just because some people believe that slamming the borders shut will solve all their problems don't make it so. Large numbers of people subscribing to an irrational idea doesn't suddenly make it sensible.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » As the continuing shambles of Brexit and Trump show, and will continue to show for some time to come.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » Agreed, but would you not accept that in general human psychology, attacking, belittling and above all talking down to people regarding their beliefs just causes them to double down and, if anything, actually become more radical in those beliefs?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No. Buttering up nationalists, xenophobes and racists by engaging them in "dialogue" is partly why Brexit happened. Farage has been a fixture on BBC's Question Time for years despite being on the far fringe of UK politics and unable to win a seat at Westminster, all in the interests of "airing diverse views" and stimulating debate. Instead, they made him respectable and Brexit sensible. Way to go, BBC.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » So you honestly think that continuing to belittle, thus enraging and further radicalising, the far right - while at the same time pushing them so far under the carpet that when they eventually band together and start voting for horrible options, it comes as a complete surprise - is actually a good thing? I would argue that it's been a complete and total disaster.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » So you honestly think that continuing to belittle, thus enraging and further radicalising, the far right - while at the same time pushing them so far under the carpet that when they eventually band together and start voting for horrible options, it comes as a complete surprise - is actually a good thing? I would argue that it's been a complete and total disaster. It's been widely suggested that the reason pre-vote polls didn't predict either Trump or Brexit was too many people being embarrassed or ashamed to answer the polls honestly. Pushing political views under the carpet like this also massively limits our ability to counter them - you can't fight an opponent without acknowledging its size and strength. I would have thought this was obvious?
