European politics: Into the "right" futur

[Wise Fool]

 

Sure. I'll make sure the burgers are kept ready and waiting.  

Both Norway, Finland and Denmark have been running substantial age-tests for some while now, and there are indeed considerable proportions of the refugee children that turn out to not actually be children. So what you consider to be trickster creatures or not is of no import. 

http://www.svd.se/hur-manga-ensamkommande-barn-ar-vuxna

http://www.dn.se/debatt/unga-man-over-18-ar-ska-inte-behandlas-som-barn/ 

Make extra burgers. I have an enormous appetite.

Unfortunately I cannot seem to read those links because I only read and understand English thanks to my American education so I'll take your word that it happens. But I doubt that this kind of thing happens often enough to be worthy of mention in a litany of reasons to oppose or limit the refugees.

[Lyanna Stark]

None of what you propose will work. We have tried raining money on these migrant groups for many years now, and what has happened is just that all of the problems have only become worse as their numbers increased. There is no reason to believe that this development will stop if the migration rate increases even further, in fact it is far more rational to assume that the situation instead will deteriorate much faster than it did up until now. Similar developments are also taking place in the rest of Europe. You think this is a coincidence? 

As for the ID-stuff. Yeah, but there isn't much choice anymore. Something has to be done to control the borders, so you'll just need to suck it up and leave for work earlier in the morning. 

Sure, there are tonnes of them. Here is a relatively recent one from DN that gives an actual number as well: http://www.dn.se/ledare/signerat/amanda-bjorkman-att-slanga-passet-ska-inte-lona-sig/ . 

So as of last year 82% of the people seeking asylum here lacked passports. 82 %. 

This is not a new phenomenon either, you can find Riksdag propositions dating all the way back to 2005 mentioning that around 80-90% of asylum seekers come here without proper identification, so that we have little idea who they are besides what they claim. 

That's also what the entire debate about age testing the refugee "children" who come alone and make up a significant portion of total asylum seekers as of now, is about. It is widely known that tonnes of them lie about their ages and are actually full grown men, but since they don't have any ID-papers and say they are children it has been hard to do anything about that. http://www.expressen.se/ledare/alderstest-ar-bra-for-barn/

Either way, if you didn't know that a large proportion of asylum seekers here lack passports I kind of wonder how much you follow this entire subject in the first place, or read newspapers or anything? Because while Swedish media does hide a lot of the negative sides of immigration, this question has not really been one of them. It has been frequently mentioned both in major papers as well as on TV, so... yeah? 

As for Malmö it is not a ghetto, but it has large ghettos and they drag the city down. As of now they receive over five billion SEK in government subsidies per year, to prevent the city from going bankrupt. All of Norrland (basically the northern, rural half of Sweden) gets only around ten billion SEK, even though Malmö is a city and thus ought to be generating a surplus rather than running a huge deficit. So much for your idea of it being some sort of super-successful metropolis because it is close to Germany or whatever your argument was. 

 

 

None of what I propose work? You propose that spending resources on bettering society, building more houses, improving education, is a bad thing that doesn't work? I'd really like to see some rationalisation and logic behind this kind of view.

So, let's see then, 82% have no valid identification. Indeed. Which says nothing about whether or not they have valid reasons to say or not. It says one thing: they have no ID. That much is fact. Your extrapolation that this means the means 82% are in fact economic migrants has no basis in fact. It is what is commonly known as "made up", i.e. not based in facts. I might add as well that the article you linked is an opinion piece, not a news article, hence the label "Ledare". I might also add, it comments on the fact that people throw away ID papers because this helps them in the process. It comments that it ought not be so, which I agree with. It does not say "people without identification are not allowed to seek asylum" nor does it say "people who come here without IDs are all just economic migrants after our benefits", which was what you implied. Instead you are moving the goal post from "economic migrants" and "not proper asylum seeker" to "people who arrive without identification". These are completely different things.

 

As for Expressen, I do love their "some doctors criticised the decision" while also calling anyone not pro these age checks "gullible".

Only, oops, if we actually look at the medical expertise and their actual reasons for disagreeing with these medical age checks of teenagers, they do have some very valid reasons to disagree.

So again, symbolic actions to placate the Browns and the hysterics, while also being an unfair method with a lot of error. At the same time, it also disguises that again, the politicians are not attacking the core issues, which are not "OMG people are coming here", because that is a reality, not something that can be stopped without draconian measurements. So instead, we solve the problem at hand and stop bloody whining so goddamn much. The sky isn't falling, the end is not nigh, there is no "systemic collapse of Swedish society" which I read somewhere that some Danish people thought. The last prognosis I heard was that a lot of councils will manage until March, at which point the holiday resorts will need their cottages, campings and holiday housing back, and at that point it will be a struggle. So we have a choice: we whine and moan and complain, or we buckle up and get shit done. I know which side I am on, which side are you on?

As for Norrland, don't get me started. Bottnia-banan anyone? What a freaking waste of money thrown into icy nothingness. Let's do some maths. As of 2014, Norrland has 1.1 million inhabitants, roughly. The Malmö area alone (not to mention Skåne as a whole) has around 700k. If we use the numbers 10 billion for Norrland and 5 billion for Malmö, then from my really rough napkin calculations, that means 9090 in governmental support for a person from Norrland, and 7142 in Greater Malmö. Still less for Malmö.

As far as I can tell, that means that per person in Norrland, the support is still about 27% higher than per person in Greater Malmö.

As for Malmö being bankrupt, you obviously have no idea that Malmö has been tethering on the brink of bankruptcy before, bootstrapped itself, and is a freaking architectural and developmental marvel, at the same time as it is still struggling. Considering that in 1995, Malmö was dying, very very seriously, and nobody would be caught dead visiting that city, it's exploded into success, in comparison. While it has struggled and still is, compared to what it was and what it can become, it is amazing. To complain that "Malmö should generate a surplus" while it's totally ok for Norrland to be a huge net drain on the economy is a huge double standard and is also based on complete ignorance of Malmös history. Why should Norrland get nearly a third more governmental support than Greater Malmö? Riddle me that.

[Lyanna Stark]

Make extra burgers. I have an enormous appetite.

Unfortunately I cannot seem to read those links because I only read and understand English thanks to my American education so I'll take your word that it happens. But I doubt that this kind of thing happens often enough to be worthy of mention in a litany of reasons to oppose or limit the refugees.

The main issue is that the association of physicians in Sweden are against the age testing since the results has a to them too large chance of being wrong. They cannot guarantee that it is correct, and it can be wrong with as much as 4 years, which is a lot for a teenager. It also completely misses the point of the issue: the system is not equipped to handle the amount of people arriving, and instead of focusing of what can be done, we flail wildly at trying to stop a river that will not stop flowing.

Even the SVD article Khaleesi linked states that the controls and checks should be correct, and even cites better ways of doing this, which is fine. The main problem is the method being proposed is not a good one, and especially not in isolation. And yes, a lot of asylum seekers who arrive here apply as underage, so far this year I read there were about 45000. However, then it becomes even more important to have better methods of establishing which are the underage ones, or how to make that judgement. Not to bar everyone at the door, which is what Khaleesi did nothing wrong seems to imply is a good idea. Tossing everyone out on their ear because there are some people trying their luck is not a good method. Of course there will be people trying their luck, just like there are people throwing away their ID. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. With the way Syria and Afghanistan are looking, and the way Europe is posed to be negative towards immigration, then this should basically be a given. Instead people act, again, as if the freaking sky is falling. "OMG people are trying to queue jump to get a better life  HOW DID THIS HAPPEN I DON'T EVEN!!!!"

Again however, this is about how (surprise surprise) public sector is working, how it is organised and how well functioning our response systems are. It's an organisational issue. But people insist the sky is falling. Again.

 

EDIT: Oh I do like this sentence tho from the SvD opinion piece (note: not a news article, it is an opinion piece) about asylum seekers, showing clearly how the author has absolutely no grasp of what the Right to apply for asylum actually MEANS.

 Sverige bör heller inte släppa in vuxna personer, vilkas skäl att söka sig till Sverige är oklara och sker på falsk grund. 

"Sweden should not admit [within its borders] adult people, whose reasons to seek out Sweden are unclear or are based on false basis".

Apart from being totally incomprehensible (how do you seek out a place on "false basis" or "false reasoning" (the translation could go either way) it says right here that nobody should be admited "inside" or "within the borders", but with that sort of cuckoo-land reasoning, we need to build a wall around the entire country and interrogate everyone at the border "why are you seeking entrance?" and if they are seeking entrance with "unclear reasons". WTF does that even MEAN?

Not to mention that this is not how the right to asylum works at all. Everyone has the right to apply, regardless. Then the country can accept or reject that application. That process is meant to establish whether or not the grounds are reasonable. You cannot stop people from applying because they might not get accepted.

(Also, how is this woman a journalist? Her Swedish is appalling.)

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

 

None of what I propose work? You propose that spending resources on bettering society, building more houses, improving education, is a bad thing that doesn't work? I'd really like to see some rationalisation and logic behind this kind of view.

So, let's see then, 82% have no valid identification. Indeed. Which says nothing about whether or not they have valid reasons to say or not. It says one thing: they have no ID. That much is fact. Your extrapolation that this means the means 82% are in fact economic migrants has no basis in fact. It is what is commonly known as "made up", i.e. not based in facts. I might add as well that the article you linked is an opinion piece, not a news article, hence the label "Ledare". I might also add, it comments on the fact that people throw away ID papers because this helps them in the process. It comments that it ought not be so, which I agree with. It does not say "people without identification are not allowed to seek asylum" nor does it say "people who come here without IDs are all just economic migrants after our benefits", which was what you implied. Instead you are moving the goal post from "economic migrants" and "not proper asylum seeker" to "people who arrive without identification". These are completely different things.

 

As for Expressen, I do love their "some doctors criticised the decision" while also calling anyone not pro these age checks "gullible".

Only, oops, if we actually look at the medical expertise and their actual reasons for disagreeing with these medical age checks of teenagers, they do have some very valid reasons to disagree.

So again, symbolic actions to placate the Browns and the hysterics, while also being an unfair method with a lot of error. At the same time, it also disguises that again, the politicians are not attacking the core issues, which are not "OMG people are coming here", because that is a reality, not something that can be stopped without draconian measurements. So instead, we solve the problem at hand and stop bloody whining so goddamn much. The sky isn't falling, the end is not nigh, there is no "systemic collapse of Swedish society" which I read somewhere that some Danish people thought. The last prognosis I heard was that a lot of councils will manage until March, at which point the holiday resorts will need their cottages, campings and holiday housing back, and at that point it will be a struggle. So we have a choice: we whine and moan and complain, or we buckle up and get shit done. I know which side I am on, which side are you on?

As for Norrland, don't get me started. Bottnia-banan anyone? What a freaking waste of money thrown into icy nothingness. Let's do some maths. As of 2014, Norrland has 1.1 million inhabitants, roughly. The Malmö area alone (not to mention Skåne as a whole) has around 700k. If we use the numbers 10 billion for Norrland and 5 billion for Malmö, then from my really rough napkin calculations, that means 9090 in governmental support for a person from Norrland, and 7142 in Greater Malmö. Still less for Malmö.

As far as I can tell, that means that per person in Norrland, the support is still about 27% higher than per person in Greater Malmö.

As for Malmö being bankrupt, you obviously have no idea that Malmö has been tethering on the brink of bankruptcy before, bootstrapped itself, and is a freaking architectural and developmental marvel, at the same time as it is still struggling. Considering that in 1995, Malmö was dying, very very seriously, and nobody would be caught dead visiting that city, it's exploded into success, in comparison. While it has struggled and still is, compared to what it was and what it can become, it is amazing. To complain that "Malmö should generate a surplus" while it's totally ok for Norrland to be a huge net drain on the economy is a huge double standard and is also based on complete ignorance of Malmös history. Why should Norrland get nearly a third more governmental support than Greater Malmö? Riddle me that.

The rationalization is that those types of investments have not worked wrt integrating migrants from these areas in the past, so there is no reason to assume they'll do so now either. What, you don't think steps have been taken to "better education, bettering society, building more houses" in the past? Yet the segregated areas have only grown, and become more run-down and dangerous as part of that process. 

The one shifting the goalposts on the ID-question is you. You asked for a source about my claim that many of the asylum seekers here lack passports, I gave it, and now you are talking about me saying that 82% of them are economic migrants which I never did. Their proportion may well be a good deal smaller than that, but who knows the exact number? What is for sure is that we don't, since there's little way of knowing who these people are since they lack papers. What is clear, however, is that the border controls which will be instated in a few days are aimed at this large majority (82%) of asylum seekers who lack proper ID's, which is what I and Thelordofthevale were discussing when you asked for a source. 

Yeah, yeah. The political and medial elites of this country have overnight become hysterical nazis that need to be placated and only you are sane. Got it. As for your question I am on the side that knows the basics of economics and finances, not the one that offers empty proposals and platitudes that haven't worked for the last 30 years and certainly won't work now, with a far more challenging situation than ever before. That you think hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants streaming into a country as small as Sweden every year is reasonable just shows that you are completely clueless, sorry. The stream of people coming here can also definitely be stopped with the correct measurements. Denmark is a neighboring country of a similar level of wealth/capita and development as Sweden, yet they've only had the barest fraction of asylum seekers this year compared to us. Why? Because they don't give nearly as good economic benefits to them, so they don't come there. 

You maths are wrong. Malmö kommun has 320 000 inhabitants, not 700 000. So Malmö receives almost twice as much government subsidies per person as Norrland does.

The reason for why Malmö should be expected to produce a surplus instead of this huge deficit is that it is a city, while Norrland is largely rural and small towns. It is a well known fact that such communities have a hard time surviving in our modern economy, where most jobs and young people flow into the cities and transportation distances make public services like schools and hospitals much more expensive to provide than they are in metropolitan areas. While one could definitely debate whether we should actually give Norrland these subsidies instead of just letting the process take its natural course and depopulate the countryside, that is a different subject. Which does not change the fact that Malmö is a financial disaster of a city that relies on the rest of the country pumping welfare money into it to prevent it from going bankrupt. That is the "riddle" for you. 

[Lyanna Stark]

The rationalization is that those types of investments have not worked wrt integrating migrants from these areas in the past, so there is no reason to assume they'll do so now either. What, you don't think steps have been taken to "better education, bettering society, building more houses" in the past? Yet the segregated areas have only grown, and become more run-down and dangerous as part of that process. 

The one shifting the goalposts on the ID-question is you. You asked for a source about my claim that many of the asylum seekers here lack passports, I gave it, and now you are talking about me saying that 82% of them are economic migrants which I never did. Their proportion may well be a good deal smaller than that, but who knows the exact number? What is for sure is that we don't, since there's little way of knowing who these people are since they lack papers. What is clear, however, is that the border controls which will be instated in a few days are aimed at this large majority (82%) of asylum seekers who lack proper ID's, which is what I and Thelordofthevale were discussing when you asked for a source. 

Yeah, yeah. The political and medial elites of this country have overnight become hysterical nazis that need to be placated and only you are sane. Got it. As for your question I am on the side that knows the basics of economics and finances, not the one that offers empty proposals and platitudes that haven't worked for the last 30 years and certainly won't work now, with a far more challenging situation than ever before. That you think hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants streaming into a country as small as Sweden every year is reasonable just shows that you are completely clueless, sorry. The stream of people coming here can also definitely be stopped with the correct measurements. Denmark is a neighboring country of a similar level of wealth/capita and development as Sweden, yet they've only had the barest fraction of asylum seekers this year compared to us. Why? Because they don't give nearly as good economic benefits to them, so they don't come there. 

You maths are wrong. Malmö kommun has 320 000 inhabitants, not 700 000. So Malmö receives almost twice as much government subsidies per person as Norrland does.

The reason for why Malmö should be expected to produce a surplus instead of this huge deficit is that it is a city, while Norrland is largely rural and small towns. It is a well known fact that such communities have a hard time surviving in our modern economy, where most jobs and young people flow into the cities and transportation distances make public services like schools and hospitals much more expensive to provide than they are in metropolitan areas. While one could definitely debate whether we should actually give Norrland these subsidies instead of just letting the process take its natural course and depopulate the countryside, that is a different subject. Which does not change the fact that Malmö is a financial disaster of a city that relies on the rest of the country pumping welfare money into it to prevent it from going bankrupt. That is the "riddle" for you. 

My point still stands: the problem with 82% of asylum seekers not having passports is not, as you claim that "we cannot know where they come from", but that this process then gets far more work intensive. A lack of proper ID is one thing, whether or not people are allowed to seek asylum is a completely different one. The fact that people do not have ID does not automatically equal that they do not have valid reasons to be here. They may have, or they may not. Which is what the process is for. So that means how large percentage of asylum seekers having ID is an issue or work load for the Public sector, which is exactly what I pointed out. 

As for whether there is no possible way to know where people are from, of course there are ways to figure that out. Obviously these methods need to be refined, the workload on the authorities is way too high (and btw the politicians are moving way too slow on this) but these are again, problems for the public sector to deal with. Methods, processes, resources, personnel. Nothing that isn't possible to solve, with some application of a solid decision making process and proper allocation of resources. Sweden is after all a pretty well off country with a pretty decent bureaucracy.

Regarding Malmö. I don't think you have ever been there. Malmö stad is only the inner city. It's a bit like not counting Askim, Mölndal and Ale to Greater Göteborg, or thinking that only the City of London or Westminster make up "London". Yes, Burlov, Arlöv etc. are also counted as the area of Greater Malmö and economically they are pretty well glued together, even if Malmö City council is currently bearing the administrative burden for all refugees arriving in the area (because local council borders and administrative policies). Again, this is a mixture of local politics, national politics and a lot of public sector organising, especially between the national level (Migrationsverket) and the local level (kommuner), which is being tested to its limit currently. Having some experience with this from a completely different perspective, it can be extremely frustrating from the local point of view since the national authorites are often about as quick as a very slow slug and about as flexible as a brick wall. I can understand that Malmö is struggling, since they are the point of entry. However, the responsibility for this needs to be laid at our parliament, on being too slow to push through new streamlined legislation and to fund authorities like Migrationsverket, and on the national authorites which are moving too slowly.

So really, if you want to complain about this, you need to look at how the various parties actually voted in parliament, and what suggestions they brought forward, and whether or not it helped or hindered the process. Boring reading, but useful.

It also doesn't change the fact that in Greater Malmö you have 700k people in a relatively small area.

 

Now, as for this, particularly:

 

What, you don't think steps have been taken to "better education, bettering society, building more houses" in the past? Yet the segregated areas have only grown, and become more run-down and dangerous as part of that process. 

Honestly? No, steps have not been taken in this regard, not for a very, very long time. 

Our education system has been privatised with quality in free fall, schools going bankrupt and grade inflation going mental, and the housing crisis is endemic. That's not to even mention the state of our railways, the state of many roads or even worse: the state of our sewers, drainage and water pipes. Sure, our sewage systems are perhaps not in such dire straits as London's, for example, but drainage in general is a huge problem, and it's only going to get much, much more problematic as cities get denser, and especially as more private contractor are building new estates, since they have little interest in solving drainage issues.

KTH had a report on how much money our industry is losing because of poor railroads, and it is insane amounts.

That segregated areas have grown is also not a surprise, but should be self-evident with anyone with any insight into how building, planning permits etc. work. Since 1990 public housing has decreased, lots of privatisation has occurred and not enough new houses were built to match population increase. This has now been going on for 25 years. What we need is a new "million programme", but social housing is ugly terminology for many, since they link it together with Corbusier style suburbs. Also, how are the repairs and maintenance of public housing financed? If you look into that, it could explain why some areas are very run down, too. Segregation doesn't happen in a vacuum. Quite often, councils couldn't be bothered or couldn't afford to maintain a lot of the million programme areas, making them slide into ghetto-isation. How public housing has changed in Sweden during the last 30 odd years is extremely interesting, and depressing, reading. The worst housing crisis happens in the larger cities, but even in the smaller towns it's now totally crazy. Where I live you need to queue 10 years for a flat in town, and this place is still counted as a  "countryside town".

 

 

EDIT: And oops, more issues with privatising what should be public sector work. I really, really wish someone would actually add up the figures on how much money the state sinks into private care companies, private education companies and private asylum seeker "entrepreneur" companies. Thanks to the hysterical privatisation of public sector, this is the results we reap. Our tax money moved conveniently to tax havens.

[ElizabethB.]

 

EDIT: And oops, more issues with privatising what should be public sector work. I really, really wish someone would actually add up the figures on how much money the state sinks into private care companies, private education companies and private asylum seeker "entrepreneur" companies. Thanks to the hysterical privatisation of public sector, this is the results we reap. Our tax money moved conveniently to tax havens.

This is a huge issue.

In some cases, the non profit organisation doesn't even exist anymore due to competition. 

 

[Tijgy]

You sound very frightened. And that bit about children who aren't children, adults posing as children or whatever, that's straight-up nonsense - sorry!

It does happen in Belgium. Or there are at least medical procedures which can be used when there is doubt about the age of the child. And why is that? Because they have as child more rights than other refugees so some people claim to be a child. 

And in the law there are legal grounds for this procedure. And I do not have an idea how they think about it in Sweden. 

And if we are talking more about the OP, I am actually not really sure if you can say Europe is going the "extreme-right" direction. (Technically, however MLP is against that label for Front National) 

Yes, those "extreme-right" parties are winning in several countries more vote (France, Netherlands, Austria, ...). Another tendency is that in some autonomous regions/... the nationalist/regionalist parties are winning more votes like in Flanders, Catalonia, Italy, Corsica, ... (Edit: and of course Scotland - How the hell did I forgot them?)

However you can not see this, I believe, in whole Europe. I think however almost in whole Europe one shared tendency: the traditionalist parties are losing their votes. (I might be wrong because I do not now the whole political situation in whole Europe). Today there are elections in Spain where there were traditionally only two parties now two new one (not-traditional but also not right) are coming up. Yes, Front National (Fr) and Party For Freedom (Nl) are "extreme-right" parties but they also represent a change from the current politics of the traditional parties. In Flanders the traditional parties are left with only 40%. While you have indeed in Flanders the tendency to look at the right non-traditional parties, the French speaking population are also changing their votes. While the PS (socialists) used to have more than 40%, their popularity is declined to 27%. And it is not a right party who got their votes, but the Party of Labor who got now more 10% is an extreme-left but not-traditional party in Belgium (I actually think they are communists but I do not think they call themselves that). A lot of nationalist/regionalist parties are winning a lot of votes. Some of them are right, some are left, some are moderate but I think all of them are not traditional.

I actually just think what we are seeing in Europe is not primarily the sign Europeans are anti-immigrants, ... but more a sign they are disappointed with the traditional parties who have been governing us for a century/two centuries. They failed them(/us) in topics concerning immigration and more important integration, topics concerning economics, the result of the European Union and for some regions granting the wanted autonomy. Because they lost completely faith in them, they are now voting for the alternative which can be extreme-right, nationalist/regionalist or even extreme-left depending on which alternatives are available and which parties are promoting chance from the current policies. 

 

[Wise Fool]

Well that's true, it's a matter of point of view. People are not merely particularly satisfied with the "far right" parties, but particularly dissatisfied with the traditional ones. This sort of general dissatisfaction is always a factor in the radicalization of a people into authoritarianism, hawkishness or extremism of any sort.

[Tijgy]

Well that's true, it's a matter of point of view. People are not merely particularly satisfied with the "far right" parties, but particularly dissatisfied with the traditional ones. This sort of general dissatisfaction is always a factor in the radicalization of a people into authoritarianism, hawkishness or extremism of any sort.

I think you are sort of simplifying the issue. I also you must not forget the "far right" parties have a much larger program than anti-immigration.

I must agree Vlaams Belang (flemish far-right party) has not really been invested in a lot of other points than anti-immigration. However their other major point on their program is flemish nationalism. Traditionally, Flemish nationalism has probably a bad name else in the world than Flanders. During both WWs Flemish nationalists have sided with the Germans. Because of that, flemish nationalists still get the label of fascist, nazi, ... I think a lot of people think nationalism is bad because of the nazis.  

The purpose of Flemish nationalism (just like the purpose of Scottish nationalism, ...) is the protection of the interests of the Flemish; a reaction thanks to the centuries of the social discrimination of the (poorer) Dutch speaking population. They were given the same treatment as they gave to the Irish population in Ireland. This social discrimination is actually the reason why in the last decades Brussels became a French speaking city and Dutch, the original language, almost completely died out as the mother language of the inhabitants of the city. And this social discrimination lead to a lot of grievances which in the end led to the Belgium as a federal state. 

And now those "fascists" are the ones who are the most prevalent in discussions about issues about Flemish autonomy and other issues concerning the rights of the Flemish. To protect the rights of the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking population in Brussels, there are two official languages in Brussels: Dutch and French.  Today however it appeared on the (online - it is sunday) news people in some Flemish cities near Brussels were picked up by ambulances from Brussels. And the doctors in those ambulances could not speak Dutch so the people in danger could not be helped by people in their own language which was a official language of the place where they were at that moment. Here the government actually fails in their obligation to help them in Dutch. Who is going to defend them? The Flemish Nationalists. They are criticizing the unconditional transfers from Flanders to Wallonia and Brussels, the fact the majority of the administration is French-speaking while the majority of Belgium is Flemish, the higher functions of the army speak French, ... And you had also the difficult political question of Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde which was one of the main reasons why Belgium won the world record for the longest time necessary to form government (which we of course celebrated with party and some free french frites)

In the 90s/early 00s the flemish nationalist party/extreme-right party got indeed many votes. But the same you can say about the christian party who was actually also promoting the Flemish issues. And now all those votes went to the other flemish nationalist party. 

Can you really say a large part of the votes for the extreme-right party were because they wanted to vote for their anti-immigration? Or did they vote for the party which people believed they would able to solve Flemish issues. Because the other parties just ignore the extreme-right in Belgium, their votes went to the other flemish nationalist party (who now actually put aside any issue concerning flemish autonomy so they could focus on the economy). 

When people vote for an party of the "extreme-right" does not necessary mean they are actually totally against anti-immigration. They might just think the other issues which that party fight for is more important than the fact those party are/are considered to some people as the greatest enemy of the democracy. I really think it is too simple to say a large party of Europe is racist because they are voting for an extreme-right party which is implied by some people. 

(Edit: And sorry for my rambling about the flemish movement)

[Sophelia]

Spanish election results look fascinating (about 70% of votes counted of now) - and definitely looks like the right is losing out to the left, contradicting the thread title.  Nobody knows what will happen next with no party set to get a majority...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/dec/20/spain-election-results-live-updates-podemos-ciudadanos

 

[Biglose]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-merkel-idUSKBN0U120220151218

So Merkel has two moves left threatening to leave the EU or close the german borders. Since the threat would not be believed and she would not have the political support of her own country to actually walk out, she is left with the second move. I guess it is now only a question of time now.

[Buckwheat]

"The right" here. It is quite disappointing (and I did not expect that).

That should not even belong to the "politics" thread.

[Biglose]

"The right" here. It is quite disappointing (and I did not expect that).

That should not even belong to the "politics" thread.

Yeah, nearly two thirds against it is not that encouraging. But there could be hoping it is just the situation at the moment...

[SeanF]

Spanish election results look fascinating (about 70% of votes counted of now) - and definitely looks like the right is losing out to the left, contradicting the thread title.  Nobody knows what will happen next with no party set to get a majority...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/dec/20/spain-election-results-live-updates-podemos-ciudadanos

 

Overall, it does look as though centre-right parties will have a small majority in the Spanish Parliament, but may be unwilling to co-operate with each other.

Spain doesn't have a significant radical right party.

[Tijgy]

If I understand it correctly, you used to have two parties in Spain, one of them the centre-right who had the majority. Now there are more parties (non-traditional) to which the traditional parties lost their votes to. 

Which proves my theory people are just voting for change and for the non-traditional parties which are in lot of countries extreme right. However if there is another alternative, people actually might vote for that alternative and not for the extreme-right. 

Conclusion: the blame lies entirely by the politicians of those parties who are just elitists, do not listen to the people, put a lot of money in their pocket and only think how they can get some votes, which seats in large public companies goes to the people with their membership card, ... 

[Buckwheat]

Yeah, nearly two thirds against it is not that encouraging. But there could be hoping it is just the situation at the moment...

I do not know. I am most annoyed with the two thirds that did not bother come vote really.

[Biglose]

I do not know. I am most annoyed with the two thirds that did not bother come vote really.

Yeah, but that seems to be the new normal. It is hard to get above 60% to show up for regular elections these days. Maybe to close to christmas and the holidays. Or to cold. It takes little for people not to care today.

[Tijgy]

In Belgium we have the obligation to vote so I think we have more than 90 %  And if you do not come, you need to pay a penalty. 

[Buckwheat]

I cannot decide if the obligation to vote is a good or bad thing. I mean, we are talking about voting rights, which IMO should include the right to abstain from voting. But I cannot see how people could be convinced to vote more.

(Not that I am somebody who always votes, not by far, so it is my fault as much as anybody else's. I do not believe I have seen such an aggressive campain as before this referendum that I can remember, though.)

[Tijgy]

I think it is double? An obligation to vote ensures everyone will say his opinion. You will have the opinion of your whole population and not only a small part of it. And there is still a possibility to vote blank, to vote for no party. 

But it also goes against the constitution to organize referenda. It started to exist when we had a referendum about our king in 1950s. The referendum showed for the first time that the South and the North were two different cultures because the North voted for one thing and the South for the other. And the North won and the South started to strike, riot, ... stuff like that. There became more division between the North (Flanders) and the South (Wallonia). So it was the last time they hold a referendum for the whole country. 

(And I think actually the government followed the wish of the South because they wanted to prevent more riots)