Cold war 2.0

[Virtual ghost]

I posted the labor plan, so here is the counter version to that.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Forget the far right. It’s the left that may squeeze Macron out of power.


It is happening exactly what I claimed it will happen. Macron expected that he will lose rural areas to Le Pen and her party. However he didn't plan that the left wing parties will organize so quickly into stable coalition. What means that he will lose to them in Urban areas. What then means that he will lose almost all of his seats. Since in almost all seats the main choice will either be the united left or the far right.

However what is interesting is that united left is just a few percent behind far right. Therefore it is not impossible that it is them that will actually come on top. In other words if they will have reasonable face at the top (as it is suggested) many voters without strong opinion could favor them over Le Pen in the run offs. What in first past the post landscape can quickly add up into serious lead in the terms of seats. The result that would truly be a surprise when compared with expectations. After all this would surely be system shock.

But either way Macron's centrism is losing this game, the only real question is "By how much?".

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[Virtual ghost]

France is ‘going to the dogs,’ Macron’s inner circle despairs

Putin, Farage and pesky teens: 5 people the Tories blame for a Labour ‘supermajority’



The changes are coming, for better or for worse.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ukraine updates: Oil depots ablaze in Russia's Rostov region

North Korea: Why is Kim Jong Un eager to welcome Putin?

Why is China targeting #MeToo activists?

Espionage and cyberattack threat reaches new dimension in Germany, interior minister warns

Irish government eyes snap election to seize on Sinn Féin weakness

Thai ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra charged with royal defamation

 

[Virtual ghost]

On what we can expect out of the party.

 

[SensEye]

Lots of good stuff in there, although I would share the skepticism about some of those cost cutting measures (I don't believe they would find the savings they are looking for). But he'd get my vote. His immigration policies are spot on. I also see a lot of parallels in the problems the NHS is having with those the Canadian healthcare system is suffering (the NHS is in better shape however). So it would be interesting to observe how his proposals would impact things. Labour seems a shoe in for the next election though, so I'll never know.

I'd love to see just one G7 country implement strict immigration control. I suspect that country would rapidly become the envy of just about everybody else and other countries would attempt to mimic those policies. It seems an impossible mountain to climb though.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'd love to see just one G7 country implement strict immigration control. I suspect that country would rapidly become the envy of just about everybody else and other countries would attempt to mimic those policies. It seems an impossible mountain to climb though.

In that case I suggest that you research Italy more and it's far right government. Which is taking plenty of flak over what they are trying to achieve in this regard. Especially since they have fair amount of success on the subject. This is exactly why PM of Italy became one of the most popular right wing figures on the continent and not just in her own country. Out of all 7 leaders she is the most to the right in social issues (in practice and in the terms of political label).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Israel-Hamas war: IDF approves Lebanon operation plans

Judging by this the main show didn't even start down there. What we saw is more like the end of the beginning than the actual end.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Estonia sentences Russian professor to six years in prison over espionage

 

[Virtual ghost]

Paris Olympics at risk due to extreme heat, report warns

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[SensEye]

In that case I suggest that you research Italy more and it's far right government. Which is taking plenty of flak over what they are trying to achieve in this regard. Especially since they have fair amount of success on the subject. This is exactly why PM of Italy became one of the most popular right wing figures on the continent and not just in her own country. Out of all 7 leaders she is the most to the right in social issues (in practice and in the terms of political label).

Well, good for her. If she truly succeeds. I would estimate the policy will have to remain in place for at least 2-3 years before other countries (who I presume will continue to be swarmed by illegal migrants) can observe the results and perhaps wish to replicate them. My impression is Italy is in dire financial straights these days. So the immigration policies may get lost in the chaos even if they prove beneficial.

And as you mention, she's taking lots of flak. I'm sure the left will pull out all stops to combat her. No doubt that ECHR that the TLDR video mentions will be deployed. I wonder how Italy is dealing with them? Ignoring them perhaps? It never ceases to amaze me just how many layers of bureaucracy the EU has. Most of them with apparently little to no actual power (e.g. UN although that is obviously more than just the EU). Lots of high paying jobs for political patronage appointments which no doubt accounts for their popularity.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, good for her. If she truly succeeds. I would estimate the policy will have to remain in place for at least 2-3 years before other countries (who I presume will continue to be swarmed by illegal migrants) can observe the results and perhaps wish to replicate them. My impression is Italy is in dire financial straights these days. So the immigration policies may get lost in the chaos even if they prove beneficial.

And as you mention, she's taking lots of flak. I'm sure the left will pull out all stops to combat her. No doubt that ECHR that the TLDR video mentions will be deployed. I wonder how Italy is dealing with them? Ignoring them perhaps? It never ceases to amaze me just how many layers of bureaucracy the EU has. Most of them with apparently little to no actual power (e.g. UN although that is obviously more than just the EU). Lots of high paying jobs for political patronage appointments which no doubt accounts for their popularity.

First of all in Europe most people don't really see the difference between illegal and legal immigration. Since the both are seen as a threat to the centuries of national history and thus a problem. Especially since migrants in the end are causing large shifts in labor market, because this is introducing people that are some sort of economic cannon fodder. What can completely disrupt the benefits of local workers. I mean this is probably the primary reason why all of this is becoming serious controversy. Since all of this indeed has very practical implications and can't be taken simply as a mental experiment. After all imported workers can be used by foreign companies to set of shop in places where they couldn't do it without that. What is also controversial since it creates this impression of colonization.

In the countries where local workers don't have much in labor rights introducing very cheap labor doesn't change things too much. However if there was a complex equilibrium in place the drama will be high once that starts to fall apart. This is exactly why the mass of people is shifting from left leaning parties to hard right anti-immigration parties (and that can be observed around most of the continent). If in two weeks Le Pen makes historic gains in France we can say beyond any doubt that we are in domino effect and that there will be historic shifts. After all the hard right parties have realized how much of the working class they are attracting. Therefore in general they are expanding their programs in the terms of labor friendly laws. What goes kinda nicely into the whole story of national survival. What altogether means serious paradigm shift.




Regarding bureaucracy: in Europe people like that things are defined and under control. However for that you need some form of bureaucracy since the small system wouldn't be enough to do the job. However now on top of all that the EU was build and that added one huge extra layer to the whole thing. So now there is indeed too much of confusing and contradictory rules. What means that the system has to decide who is in charge of what. The size of the system isn't the fundamental problem as long as everything is clearly defined. However at this point that evidently isn't the case. This probably goes for the mentioned ECHR, since there probably isn't too strict channel through which you can enforce that. Especially in the landscape where you have more and more players that think just like Italy.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Make Europe Great Again: Hungary channels Trump in EU presidency slogan

These are going to awkward 6 months. Especially if we add the vote in November.




Europe gives China a taste of its own trade medicine

Final blow to Chinese ‘neutrality’ on Ukraine war

The €40 billion budget gap that could kill Germany’s coalition

A punch-up in parliament reveals Italy’s deepest scars

 

[Virtual ghost]

 

[SensEye]

First of all in Europe most people don't really see the difference between illegal and legal immigration. Since the both are seen as a threat to the centuries of national history and thus a problem.

That's just plain stupid. The thing is, legal migration by definition is under government control. And governments in properly functioning democracies (i.e. non corrupt ones) are at least accountable to the people.

So if you set a quota for legal immigration (and that can be any number the public supports) and then enforce it, then there should be no reason for the public to get upset. So if there is a labor shortage in some industry (i.e. agriculture) then this can be addressed through legal immigration (and this can include temporary work visas as well, not necessarily landed immigrant status).

You just have to set up the regulations correctly. You can not allow corporations to issue work visas themselves, they must work in concert with the government to stay within overall quotas.

I think the problem is, once you open the borders to any fake asylum claimant that sets foot on your territory, all the wheels of control fall off and chaos ensues. I think it is the multiple years of chaos that probably that has 'most' people painting all immigration in a negative light.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

That's just plain stupid. The thing is, legal migration by definition is under government control. And governments in properly functioning democracies (i.e. non corrupt ones) are at least accountable to the people.

So if you set a quota for legal immigration (and that can be any number the public supports) and then enforce it, then there should be no reason for the public to get upset. So if there is a labor shortage in some industry (i.e. agriculture) then this can be addressed through legal immigration (and this can include temporary work visas as well, not necessarily landed immigrant status).

You just have to set up the regulations correctly. You can not allow corporations to issue work visas themselves, they must work in concert with the government to stay within overall quotas.

I think the problem is, once you open the borders to any fake asylum claimant that sets foot on your territory, all the wheels of control fall off and chaos ensues. I think it is the multiple years of chaos that probably that has 'most' people painting all immigration in a negative light.

I am afraid that "stupid" is kinda subjective term.
Since the point was that most don't want to see the country full of immigrants, are they legal or illegal is basically irrelevant if the number of people is big enough. In other words you can't really implement this in fully democratic way, since majority evidently isn't for this. Not to mention that in my local case we still didn't 100% solve the debate of should we even be Capitalist country. Therefore until this is solved there should evidently be a fair amount of those that are against mass immigration. Since that basically means that you have market economy (and many they don't want that). In other words if you don't have market economy then mass immigration is basically completely pointless. In other words as immigration was getting stronger there are more and more of those that say that tearing down the Berlin wall was a mistake. Especially since even some of the top politicians are saying stuff like that, indirectly or even directly sometimes.

In other words you have never experienced anything but Capitalism but not everyone in this world has such cards in their life (or it values this economic system all that much). Therefore in some places all of this isn't the debate that is fundamentally solved (Eastern parts of Europe are evidently one of such places). In other words the left wants to go back in time, while the right at the end of the day wants nation-state. Therefore you only have the center that is fully for what you are suggesting. In other words my strongest center party is at around 2% at the moment. What is because no one is really that interested in what you are suggesting. Therefore now when the centrists aren't needed to form a majority even what little was made as experiment will probably start to dry up. Especially since the far right took the place that belonged to the centrists in coalition government. However these people are the first that don't really see the difference between legal and illegal immigration. The sentiment that is kinda similar all across EU for such people.

In other words if such people indeed win in France in two weeks that basically means the implosions of immigration all across Europe. Since similar parties are expected to win in plenty of places in near future. Although I must say that partial returning of the large diaspora that is scattered across the world doesn't count as immigration in my local debates on the issue. Therefore that and stimulating birth rates is what is seen as solution to the demographic problems (plus digitalization that is already eating jobs like popcorn). What altogether if pushed correctly can indeed do the job. On my local level it can plug the hole for sure, while even on continental level this can probably more or less work as mix. So yeah, here we will evendently be solving the problem in various ways you wouldn't approve. However I am afraid that all of this is much more culturally complcated than you realize (or it is explained in this post).

 

[SensEye]

I am afraid that "stupid" is kinda subjective term.
Since the point was that most don't want to see the country full of immigrants, are they legal or illegal is basically irrelevant if the number of people is big enough. In other words you can't really implement this in fully democratic way, since majority evidently isn't for this. Not to mention that in my local case we still didn't 100% solve the debate of should we even be Capitalist country. Therefore until this is solved there should evidently be a fair amount of those that are against mass immigration. Since that basically means that you have market economy (and many they don't want that). In other words if you don't have market economy then mass immigration is basically completely pointless. In other words as immigration was getting stronger there are more and more of those that say that tearing down the Berlin wall was a mistake. Especially since even some of the top politicians are saying stuff like that, indirectly or even directly sometimes.

Fair enough. You should assume when I comment on politics, I am generally referring to western socialist democracies with capitalist economic markets.

I would think non-market economies are relatively immigration proof as the whole reason most people are migrating is that they come from authoritarian or socialist countries with dirt poor economies. It makes little sense to undergo the upheaval and culture shift required for migration just to get to another authoritarian or socialist countries with a dirt poor economy.

I know, I know, "dirt poor" is a subjective term.

But the crux of my argument remains the same. Legal migration only, if a country wants to set that legal quota to zero for a period of time, that's fine. They key is to get the structure defined before it's too late.