Popular protests in the EU

[mitsho]

So, what's your point here? I can bring you similar footage of the Hambacher Forst from a few weeks ago?

 

[Hrothbern]

Today the UN Climate summit started in Katowice, Poland.
Yesterday there were Climate marches in Bruxelles (65,000 people) and Saturday in Cologne, Berlin (35,000 people) and London (xxx people)

The summit is held near an old coal mine of Katowice, the province capital of Silesia, the traditional coal & heavy industrial centre of Poland.
Poland has a very high use of coal and lignite.

 

[Hrothbern]

On the Gilets Jaunes
It has now spread to 100 schools

An opinion poll for Harris Interactive taken after Saturday’s violence in Paris found 72% of French people still supported the protest movement that began last month in response to a rise in environmental taxes on fuel and has morphed into opposition to the government of the centrist president, Emmanuel Macron, amid a sense that the tax system is unfair and favours the rich.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/03/students-blockade-schools-as-french-protests-spread

I guess everybopdy can still see his own bias in what is happening.
I hope I see angry people, angry on Macron reducing the tax for the rich in his "modernising" campaign, and taking from the many.
It could be that if he had not reduced the tax on the rich, and would have been more empathic to a small tax increase for the Climate, no Gilets Jaunes would have been there.

 

[AdrienIer]

It's not really a spread, in the sense that there were going to be troubles in suburbian high schools anyway due to the high school/uni reform. It's just that a movement that was going to start again (and that had already happened last year when the reform first happened) decided to (kinda) join the gilets jaunes.

 

[Akka]

Well, Macron has been consistently dismantling the welfare state since his election, and so far did it in a pretty heavy apathy from the population.
I was wondering in may/june, when the railways company was on strike, why there wasn't yet a coalescing of all people annoyed/revolted by these changes. It seems that this latest change was the last straw that finally caused it, and is making all these past 18 months grievance going up to the surface.

 

[innonimatu]

On the Gilets Jaunes
It has now spread to 100 schools

I guess everybopdy can still see his own bias in what is happening.
I hope I see angry people, angry on Macron reducing the tax for the rich in his "modernising" campaign, and taking from the many.
It could be that if he had not reduced the tax on the rich, and would have been more empathic to a small tax increase for the Climate, no Gilets Jaunes would have been there.

I started the thread when I saw the first of these protests because it seemed to me the start of something big. This is not people gathering one day for a pet cause, it is people venting the fact that they are extremely pissed with the whole system and unwilling to accept more of it.

Macron is too proud to bend. He is doing the propaganda, and will try the violent repression next. His police has already been shooting protesters, and killed one woman according to that news piece. This police is actig undercover and mixing with the porotestes, as is evident from the photo in that piece. They'll provide the violence to justify the repression if necessary. Or so MAcron will believe, though I really thing he's in for a big surprise!
If it had happened in Syria our dear media would be calling for airstrikes against the Élyseé. But the french media barons put Macron in power...

Interestingly, it is the british media, even the right-wing media that would not favorably cover such protests in the UK, that is reporting unfavorably for Macron those in France. This one says:

On the Avenue Kléber, one of the toniest streets in Paris and heart of the district where Macron will have been expecting to resettle his beloved bankers, fleeing London like the sans culottes, every bank has been attacked, every shop window broken, upscale apartments have been attacked and every Porsche and Mercedes within blocks set on fire. Invest in France?

Other media might say "vandals set parked cars on fire", omitting any class details and creating a very different picture in people's minds...

 

[Hrothbern]

If this grassroot can keep the overwhelming support of the French people, perhaps there is the possibility that some halt can be made on raw neo-liberalism in the disguise of modernisation.

IDK that much on France... but this talking that the French GDP is not growing good enough and drastic means are necessary.... where does that come from ?
If I compare the development of GDP (PPP) per Capita for France with other mature economy EU countries or Japan, Canada, it is ok-ish, it does not stick out as a real negative. (using OECD figures from 1970-2017).

The only thing that worries me is that 10% unemployment. The political worry that areas with the highest unemployment coincide with high Front Nationale votes, the bigger inequality for those 10%.
But the clear upside is that if you can create jobs for 5%, there is low hanging fruit to get at least 5% more GDP per Capita, and a huge benefit for government income freeing up room to invest in needed actions.
(guessing that the financial burden to pay for unemployed people is significant for the French government, leading to much higher operational gearing than in non-social security countries)
Exactly the opposite of tax cuts and austerity is needed.

 

[Hrothbern]

I started the thread when I saw the first of these protests because it seemed to me the start of something big.

Our posts crossed
But this is what I hope for as well.

 

[Yeekim]

And then there is Estonia.
With next to no property taxes and flat income tax of 20%.

 

[innonimatu]

I think that the Front Nationale or whatever it calls itself now is not going to benefit from this. Fortunately that woman made a huge, crass mistake of changing her stance regarding the Euro a short time ago. She turned coat passing herself off as "pro-EU" in an attempt to seem more "centrist" and gain votes. Whatever credibility she might have gained as a voice for the rebels against the systems", she burned by doing that. She will turn again if it lees better politically but the damage to her and her party is done - good!

This is not just a french thing, It is widespread across Europe. Political systems are dissolving, the traditional parties unwilling (because they actually feel unable, they believe TINA!) to answer people's problems. No one mentioned it here but yesterday the PSOE, currently the government in Spain, lost the majority they always had in an election in Spain's largest region. There unfortunately it is both "local Macrons" (cuidadanos) and actual fascists currently gaining votes. But the revolt that fuels these electoral changes is the common threat uniting these things. And in Spain those have no answers for the problems, they won't last. The danger I see is that TINA and its enforcer the structures of the EU are setting the stage for a chaotic breakup where several countries will for some time fall into the hands of fascists. I say for some time because they really cannot cope with the modern world, they don't have answers and won't endure politically. But they can cause damage during a transition period.

One thing sets France apart though: while politicians in other countries may claim "There is no Alternative!" had have their population believe them for a long time, the french can't. Miterrand chose to change the path of the country into this that has brought France to where it is today. the presidents that followed chose to keep to that path. Each could have changed it. France can break the EU, it is the one country, not only because of size but also because of its geographic position more that Germany, that cannot be bullied from abroad. They set the policy and chose those policies. Much like the americans, whom I do not know how long will suffer their "bipartisan" system it it keeps failing to deliver, the french politicians cannot really excuse themselves with "the market" or "the treaties". They may try to do it out of imitation, but it'll be a serious mistake in this climate.

 

[Hrothbern]

And then there is Estonia.
With next to no property taxes and flat income tax of 20%.

I am sure you can explain that much better than I can.
The only thing I know about Estonia is that it has very low national debt (ex communist countries starting with mostly zero and a surplus of state companies than can and have been privatised, generating money for all kinds of infra).

How about national health care and unemployment/pensioneers money, is that all paid from that 20% ?
(no jab... I have no idea how Estonia ticks)

 

[Hrothbern]

It's not really a spread, in the sense that there were going to be troubles in suburbian high schools anyway due to the high school/uni reform. It's just that a movement that was going to start again (and that had already happened last year when the reform first happened) decided to (kinda) join the gilets jaunes.

Thanks for correcting that
We do indeed not talk about a (coordinated) spreading but more a kinda the growing together of several grassroots with I think a similar basic theme: some aspects of the Macron "modernisation".

On Monday evening, Macron held an emergency meeting at the Élysée Palace to deal with the political and social crisis, the most serious since he was elected on a centrist, reforming programme last May.
Stanislas Guerini, the leader of the LREM parliamentary group, told French radio: “While there’s a debate, we stop writing, have a pause … there has to be a pause so the debate can happen.”
Philippe was due to meet representatives from the gilets jaunes on Tuesday afternoon, but the meeting was cancelled after the unofficial representatives were allegedly threatened and disowned by other protesters.
The protest movement, which has no organisation or leaders, has broadened its demands to include Macron’s resignation and the dissolution of the French parliament.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ment-to-suspend-fuel-tax-increase-say-reports

A pause, a truce, to allow for debate....
But with who, among who and how ?
IDK how this goes in France with grassroot developments getting broad support while still in its autonome phase
(meaning no clear organisation and leaders... no representatives that have broad support)

My take on that and my experience as well in NL, is that it is fundamental to avoid "representatives" by such a movement going in on the offer of the authorities to talk with the authorities.
The card played by Macron to want to talk with representatives sounds innocent (being the normal method for all kinds of civil institutions) but the less innocent character is that when statements or commitments are made by "representatives" that are disowned by many of the movement, the movement erupts in division.
You need to stay headless as autonome movement and supress all the "human nature" ego's of some individuals that feel important.

If 72% of the French population is supporting this movement, Macron can talk directly to almost any French citizen what they think is going wrong.
And if Macron has courage he can go to several blockades and talk directly with the people in the gilets jaunes.
And go relatively low profile in the newsmedia during that "societal debate" allowing the French people, the active ones, and the supporting ones, to talk among each other also based on what he said in the talkings he had.

But yeah... IDK French culture...
Perhaps the centralist culture, the state culture does not allow for such a societal debate in this way.
Perhaps Macron judges the risks of such a debate higher than of other approaches.
Perhaps he is not acting at all in good faith when talking about a debate.

What I do know however is that inviting the horizontal grassroot movement to transform in a pyramid with spokesmen/representatives is a hell of a good method of authorities to blow up the cohesion and strenght of an autonome grassroot movement. Internal discussions in such a movement on what representatives did, in how far they let themselves be used as alibi, usually end up in division and exhaustion.

 

[Lexicus]

An interesting point in an article about Brexit:
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/rich...ha6rm7WldpVNHrP2l5ZCdj-M3jZi0N_somVngfp0kfPwI

Particularly interested in @innonimatu's thoughts on this argument:


The critique of the European Union is often couched in terms of the European Union overriding national sovereignty. But in a recent blog post, you argued that this is a misconception; that European states and business elites have supported the project precisely because it enhances the sovereignty of the upper echelons of government. That claim will seem pretty counterintuitive to a lot of people on both sides of the debate.

RS
The reality is that the member states continue to have a strong say in the formation of the policies that they’re ruled by. But it’s not the elected governments of the member states that are decisive. Rather, it’s the executive — in Britain’s case the crown and parliament and the higher reaches of the civil service — who are decisive.

If a member state wants to — and of course this is what we’re debating so feverishly now — it can leave, it can break from those treaties, so it’s not as if it’s under occupation. It’s not as if the state has given up the sovereign legal form as it were. And they continue to exercise their sovereignty in continuously affirming their membership of this organization.

We just have to recognize that there is a difference between a democratic polis — the electorate — and the higher reaches of the state apparatus. In other words, we have to apply a bit of class analysis. What is the difference between that polis and the sorts of civil servants that are negotiating Brexit?

Take Olly Robbins, who is a classic Westminster mandarin, who came up through the treasury and then the security establishment. He’s over there negotiating the Brexit deal. And of course, what does he come back with? Does he come back with a series of recommendations that would benefit the middle-class right that is very popular within the Conservative Party? Absolutely not. He comes back with a Brexit deal that resembles that which would be demanded by the largest factions of capital in the United Kingdom. He was thinking in terms of what would benefit the largest blocs of capital. I don’t think it’s a matter of conspiracy. It’s a matter of that’s what he would regard as being in the national interest.

Say a nation’s civil service wanted to keep its elected governments under control, stop them from overspending, stop them from nationalizing industries. In the past you would have had Antony Part, who was the personal and private secretary to Tony Benn, approach him when has just been elected as part of a Labour government, with a mandate to restructure industry, bring about forms of workers’ control, nationalize some industries.

And Antony Part comes to him and says, “I trust that you have no intention, minister, of implementing your manifesto commitment.” Of course, Tony Benn said, “I absolutely do. Why would you ask that question?” There resulted a degree of conflict between them, with Antony Part — as part of a wider civil service faction linked to the right wing of the Labour Party — trying to restrain Benn and prevent him from implementing his agenda, and by and large succeeding.

Now, instead of that, civil servants are able to say, “Look, if you do this, the European Union, the European Commission, and the European Council will look awry at what you’ve done, and they will talk about extraordinary measures, they will talk about fines, it will hurt the city, it will hurt finance, there will be a speculative attack on the currency, there will be a dumping of stocks, you will face a political crisis. You don’t want to have that kind of fight at this time. What you want to do is work as best as you can within the rules and then work to change those rules over time by negotiation and dialogue with your European partners.”

That’s a far more effective way of routing decision-making power so you no longer need to have this lobbying and trench warfare. You just reroute decision-making power through these closed centers of authority so that the decision proceeds from the state, goes through the European Union’s higher bodies, its executive bodies, and comes back as if from afar. As if it’s a command from God. And politicians say, “Well, we tried our best, but we didn’t really have a choice. The European Union, these are the rules.”

There’s part of the answer to your question. The other part of the answer has to do with what I said earlier about defiance. Because, of course, there are treaties, there are rules, but the government is still sovereign. The government still decides what its budget is.

So, a government passes the budget that it wants to pass, and decides whether it wants to take the consequences in terms of fines, the potential for financial backlash, a speculative attack, etc. But it would face a version of that, any government would, in trying to implement a non-orthodox, non-fiscally austerian agenda, whether inside the European Union or not.

The European Union formalizes and entrenches forms of discipline that are already potentially there, within the national state and within its relationships to business. The European Union just gives them that much more strength, that much more cohesion, that much more power. And it strengthens, as I said, the higher reaches of each national state.

This comes down to: how do you theorize the European Union? Do you think it is an autonomous political entity, or do you think it still derives its power and authority from national states? I think the latter. As such, I tend to think that sovereignty is not being given up, but rather that it’s being pooled in a different kind of institutional format, one that strengthens the higher reaches of the state.

 

[AdrienIer]

If this grassroot can keep the overwhelming support of the French people, perhaps there is the possibility that some halt can be made on raw neo-liberalism in the disguise of modernisation.

IDK that much on France... but this talking that the French GDP is not growing good enough and drastic means are necessary.... where does that come from ?
If I compare the development of GDP (PPP) per Capita for France with other mature economy EU countries or Japan, Canada, it is ok-ish, it does not stick out as a real negative. (using OECD figures from 1970-2017).

The main problem in France is that it's very rural. Which means you either pay a lot of money to keep the public services open everywhere or you abandon a third of the land because, while some people live there, there aren't enough people to make a courtroom/hospital/tax center/post office "worthwhile" or "cost efficient" whatever that means.

 

[innonimatu]

An interesting point in an article about Brexit:
https://jacobinmag.com/2018/12/rich...ha6rm7WldpVNHrP2l5ZCdj-M3jZi0N_somVngfp0kfPwI

Particularly interested in @innonimatu's thoughts on this argument:


The critique of the European Union is often couched in terms of the European Union overriding national sovereignty. But in a recent blog post, you argued that this is a misconception; that European states and business elites have supported the project precisely because it enhances the sovereignty of the upper echelons of government. That claim will seem pretty counterintuitive to a lot of people on both sides of the debate.

RS
The reality is that the member states continue to have a strong say in the formation of the policies that they’re ruled by. But it’s not the elected governments of the member states that are decisive. Rather, it’s the executive — in Britain’s case the crown and parliament and the higher reaches of the civil service — who are decisive.
[...]
Now, instead of that, civil servants are able to say, “Look, if you do this, the European Union, the European Commission, and the European Council will look awry at what you’ve done, and they will talk about extraordinary measures, they will talk about fines, it will hurt the city, it will hurt finance, there will be a speculative attack on the currency, there will be a dumping of stocks, you will face a political crisis. You don’t want to have that kind of fight at this time. What you want to do is work as best as you can within the rules and then work to change those rules over time by negotiation and dialogue with your European partners.”

That’s a far more effective way of routing decision-making power so you no longer need to have this lobbying and trench warfare. You just reroute decision-making power through these closed centers of authority so that the decision proceeds from the state, goes through the European Union’s higher bodies, its executive bodies, and comes back as if from afar. As if it’s a command from God. And politicians say, “Well, we tried our best, but we didn’t really have a choice. The European Union, these are the rules.”

Yes, this is what I have been arguing about for a long, long time. What I? call the EU bureaucracy is of course made up of people from the member states, who go from Brussels and Frankfurt to their national capitals, to their governments and to the big business both inside and outside (Goldman Sachs' many tentacles...) the EU. But I must say that many no longer feel part of national governments, no longer mainly invested in the situation of their own countries, they have left that behind for the greater heights of the EU, truly they are the only "european citizens".

So, a government passes the budget that it wants to pass, and decides whether it wants to take the consequences in terms of fines, the potential for financial backlash, a speculative attack, etc. But it would face a version of that, any government would, in trying to implement a non-orthodox, non-fiscally austerian agenda, whether inside the European Union or not.

The European Union formalizes and entrenches forms of discipline that are already potentially there, within the national state and within its relationships to business. The European Union just gives them that much more strength, that much more cohesion, that much more power. And it strengthens, as I said, the higher reaches of each national state.

This comes down to: how do you theorize the European Union? Do you think it is an autonomous political entity, or do you think it still derives its power and authority from national states? I think the latter. As such, I tend to think that sovereignty is not being given up, but rather that it’s being pooled in a different kind of institutional format, one that strengthens the higher reaches of the state.

This too is true, Britain's fall from Great Power status, its abandonment of the Empire, was caused by financial crisis and cuts in government spending. It did not took an EU to do that. However, and this is one big however, the reality was that the UK's governments at the time could choose where to cut, could choose to give up empire, cut the military spending, and spend at home, build housing, create a National Health Service. The UK fell from Great Power status, but britons finally had a governments attending to the needs of labour, finally had a social security, unemployment benefits, health care and so on.

The EU is led by people who aspire to create a Great Power. Theirs is an idea of Empire. And to be an empire the people must be exploited! Big power status requires growing international european corporations, requires protecting Bayer's profits when it produces carcinogenic pesticides. Requires concentrating banking withing the EU and creating oligopolies to "better enable them to compete in the world". Requires racing to the bottom in taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Or so these leaders believe, and what they believe is what they will do. Empires do not only exploit their vassals and colonies, they start building their expendable power base by exploiting their own people. The empires' people are resources, cards to be played in the big games of international politics, not our community to be defended in that state. The EU is an empire, will inescapably due to its sheer size be ruled according to imperial politics, and that will always be bad for its own people. The only way to avoid that is to dissolve it.

My take on that and my experience as well in NL, is that it is fundamental to avoid "representatives" by such a movement going in on the offer of the authorities to talk with the authorities.
The card played by Macron to want to talk with representatives sounds innocent (being the normal method for all kinds of civil institutions) but the less innocent character is that when statements or commitments are made by "representatives" that are disowned by many of the movement, the movement erupts in division.
You need to stay headless as autonome movement and supress all the "human nature" ego's of some individuals that feel important.

There is one thing that unites these people: they want Macron and his government out. And if he were a democrat he'd do exactly that: resign. He claims to be available to talk, fine: call an early election and campaign again.

But that he won't do because he knows he'd lose. Nor will he go talk to people, what does he know of the common french's lives anyway? Elite schools, Rothschild banker, exclusive clubs, that has been his world. That the french chose to vote for such a person is on their heads, of course. And something many of those protesting probably bitterly resent.

 

[Yeekim]

I am sure you can explain that much better than I can.
The only thing I know about Estonia is that it has very low national debt (ex communist countries starting with mostly zero and a surplus of state companies than can and have been privatised, generating money for all kinds of infra).

How about national health care and unemployment/pensioneers money, is that all paid from that 20% ?
(no jab... I have no idea how Estonia ticks)

Well, privatization has by and large been over for over 20 years... and the money it generated was negligible anyway. Obsolete, bankrupt junk only sells for that much.
Low national debt mostly happened because when we needed credit shortly after regaining independence, no-one was willing to loan... and so we took a position "fine, we'll do without".

But no, national healthcare and pensions are not paid from that 20%. There is a payroll tax of 33% that goes entirely towards that purpose...but only wages are taxable, not capital gains.
If you have a monthly wage of e.g. 2000, the total calculation looks like this.

Spoiler :

Total cost to employer: 2676
Social tax: 660 (33% on top of salary, nominally payable by employer)
Unemployment insurance (payable by employer): 16
Salary: 2000
Pension fund: 40
Unemployment insurance (payable by employee):32
Income tax: 386
Take-home pay: 1542

EDIT: Also, corporate income tax is paid only if the corporation actually distributes profit to shareholders and only at that point.
Anyway, I was just reflecting on how large the differences between tax systems are even within EU, and what people are used to regard as "fair".

 

[Hrothbern]

Well, privatization has by and large been over for over 20 years... and the money it generated was negligible anyway. Obsolete, bankrupt junk only sells for that much.
Low national debt mostly happened because when we needed credit shortly after regaining independence, no-one was willing to loan... and so we took a position "fine, we'll do without".

But no, national healthcare and pensions are not paid from that 20%. There is a payroll tax of 33% that goes entirely towards that purpose...but only wages are taxable, not capital gains.
If you have a monthly wage of e.g. 2000, the total calculation looks like this.

Spoiler :

Total cost to employer: 2676
Social tax: 660 (33% on top of salary, nominally payable by employer)
Unemployment insurance (payable by employer): 16
Salary: 2000
Pension fund: 40
Unemployment insurance (payable by employee):32
Income tax: 386
Take-home pay: 1542

EDIT: Also, corporate income tax is paid only if the corporation actually distributes profit to shareholders and only at that point.
Anyway, I was just reflecting on how large the differences between tax systems are even within EU, and what people are used to regard as "fair".

Anyway, I was just reflecting on how large the differences between tax systems are even within EU, and what people are used to regard as "fair".

yes
If I use BTW the average salary in the Netherlands, there is, if I include that 33% social tax of your example for Estonia, hardly any difference in total tax % between us
(with an 8% lower salary the total tax % is almost identical, because of our progressive tax system)

 

[Hrothbern]

A retweet of Trump on the gilets jaunes and Macron.
Charlie Kirk is a pro-Trump fake news agent.
the "We want Trump" chanting he states is happening in the streets of Paris, is according to the French press agency AFP based on a vid from Dec 2 on the June protests in London.
London.... not Paris.

The vid
https://twitter.com/FrozenF712/status/1069422460720697344

 

[Zkribbler]

Atomic energy is cheap and clean and safe.

Clean? What do you do with the nuclear waste?
Cheap? Why do they need massive government subsidies?
Safe? Leaks are deadly & the dirtiest most deadly things on Earth,

 

[Silurian]

A retweet of Trump on the gilets jaunes and Macron.
Charlie Kirk is a pro-Trump fake news agent.
the "We want Trump" chanting he states is happening in the streets of Paris, is according to the French press agency AFP based on a vid from Dec 2 on the June protests in London.

View attachment 511162

The vid
https://twitter.com/FrozenF712/status/1069422460720697344

That video is at the top of Whitehall looking north. If the person holding the phone had panned slightly left we would have seen Nelson's column



https://www.google.com/maps/@51.507...4!1s1yTvjIqGhjyyAT2C01zVVw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192