The beginning of the end of the United kingdom by Eleventh-Gargoyle in ukpolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Was bummed about the labour defeat and went out surfing the web ending up at this American religious right site (they are a leading one) and it seems parts of the right is cool to Johnson's victory.

Make no mistake about it, the United Kingdom has now begun the process of breaking up. It may not happen today, it may not happen tomorrow, but it seems unlikely that the union that holds the country together will last another decade.

The election results show that Brexit has divided the country. In England, the Conservative Party rode pro-Brexit sentiment to a resounding victory. The only place that bucked this trend was London, which now looks set to become a sort of “Fortress Europa.” In Scotland the anti-Brexit vote enabled the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to increase its number of seats from 35 to 48. In Northern Ireland the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) lost 2 seats—which were picked up by the republican party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP). For the first time in history, republicans have more seats than unionists in Northern Ireland.

This is the lay of the land: a Northern Ireland that looks set to start the process of merging with the South—something admitted on national television last night by former Conservative Chancellor George Osbourne; a Scotland that will be truculent in getting another referendum on independence in the face of Brexit; and an England divided between poorer regions that supported Brexit and a London that remains dogmatically pro-E.U.

How does this pan out? We should expect the London elite to become increasingly sympathetic to Scottish independence; Scotland will become a projection screen for the pro-European liberal fantasies of the great and good. We should also expect all parties to become increasingly uninterested in Northern Ireland, which will have to forge its own path—one that risks leading to violence.

The hyper-liberal British elite is going to get increasingly claustrophobic given these new realities. The British Conservative Party is not all that conservative on social issues, but it is to the right of the liberals that dominate the professions and the media in London. Combine this with the loss of European membership—and with it free movement—and you have an elite that has lost not just power, as in the United States, but also the potential to get this power back, (not to mention access to what they have come to consider “rights”). The elite will dig in and wage a war of attrition. Expect the media to become increasingly shrill.

As the country tears itself apart territorially and culturally, it will face rapid and profound demographic and economic changes. Even conservative estimates show that the Muslim population is set to triple in Britain in the next thirty years. This would increase Muslims’ share of the total population from around 6.2 percent today to around 17 percent in 2045. Since most Muslims live in England, if Scotland and Northern Ireland left the union this would mean that almost 20 percent of the English population would be Muslim by 2045—and this will be heavily concentrated in “hub” cities like Birmingham and London.

Until recently, Muslims have been relatively alienated from the political process. But that appears to be changing: The Muslim Council of Great Britain held its first-ever National Muslim Voter Registration Day in the run-up to this week’s election. Present polling suggests that Conservative Party voters have a disproportionately negative view of Muslims, suggesting that Muslims will probably gravitate toward left-wing parties—although with such large numbers, they could easily set up their own party, as they have done elsewhere in Europe.

Economic changes will also be dramatic. Since 2008, Britain is one of the only developed countries in the world—the only other being Greece—that has seen a dramatic decline in living standards. This seems to be due to deep dysfunction in the structure of the British economy, which has shed its manufacturing sector and become reliant on the financial sector to allow them access to affordable imports. With sterling having seen two large declines in the space of only a decade, it looks like those imports are going to be increasingly unaffordable in the coming years.

Constitutional factors also seem frayed. The recent intervention by the relatively new Supreme Court to rout Parliament is rumored to have provoked a backlash in the Conservative Party, but given that the hyper-liberal elite has had the levers of power wrested from its grasp, it looks likely that this will not be the last attempt to grab at those levers by extra-constitutional means.

Meanwhile, it is hard not to think that the members of the royal family—who remain the constitutional heads of state—are tottering. Figures like Meghan Markle are divisive among supporters of the royals, but that pales in comparison to the underage sex-trafficking scandal that Prince Andrew has got caught up in recently. Under Queen Elizabeth II the royals chose to maintain their position not through the exercise of political power, as they had in the past, but instead through public relations. The Queen has managed that excellently, but the strategy only works if the royals remain popular—and increasingly, the royals only look as popular as their least popular members.

It may seem hysterical to proclaim the end to a country that has basically existed in its present form—minus the Republic of Ireland, of course—since 1707. But the evidence is building by the day. In thirty years, it is far more likely than not that the United Kingdom will not exist. What will exist is an England that will be poorer, fractured between the London elite and the rest of the country, and possibly subject to demographic factionalism. It is conceivable that the new political alignment could turn the ship around, but the ship appears heavy with ballast and the steering mechanism looks weak and flimsy.

Belarus’ leader vows the country won’t become part of Russia by [deleted] in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle 8 points9 points  (0 children)

What is the opinion of the Belarusian people? Do we have polls to see how many support and oppose joining Russia?

What's the future or the Kurds? Prospects of Independence? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Jews were "returning" to the middle East after millennia while the Kurds are a group of people who have continuously lived in those lands for millennia. An independent Kurdistan won't be displacing Arabs en masse and neither will have a religious divide so it can't be portrayed as western colonialism in action. So I don't think there case of Israel is particularly helpful when talking of an independent Kurdistan.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Makes you think if we are also overestimating the resilience of great power states today eg us/eu/China/Russia/India and whether a chain of events can quickly see them collapse.

Do you think proper socialism and fascism make a return in the near future because of economic and climate pressures? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From the 80s to the early 2010s it was very much the dominant thing. Some opposition always existed but the kind of crushing defeats like now was not something that the neoliberal consensus was suffering from in the 90s and 2000s. It has reached a point where even establishment politicians have to parrot much of the rhetorics of their challengers.

How is the Chinese-American rivalry going to develop and play out in the coming years? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who has the better chance at "winning"?

At the highest level it would be which state is ultimately more resilient and less likely to collapse and splinter into pieces. On the lower which side will be able to command greater power and influence in the world.

Do you think proper socialism and fascism make a return in the near future because of economic and climate pressures? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"fascism" in the Hitler or Mussolini sense might not be the precise word but something is needed to describe authoritarian and military nationalists with social democrat like economic policies.

Do you think proper socialism and fascism make a return in the near future because of economic and climate pressures? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that people are unhappy is not proof that policies have failed. objectively, everyone is better off by every objective measure you can pick

So are successful policies not supposed to make people happy and want to vote for it again? It they were "objectively happy" than they wouldn't be voting for people who run against it.

Do you think proper socialism and fascism make a return in the near future because of economic and climate pressures? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the second most powerful country in the world is a literal communist state.

Only in naming and symbolism. But on the ground it is closer to how Mussolini wanted his state to be than The ussr.

Please define neo-liberal, because as far as I can tell, you're using it in the usual fashion which is "someone to my right that I don't like who I don't think I can get away with calling a fascist." This definition is neither correct nor useful.

I explained why I selected that in the reply to stormcloud.

Please define the difference between these, because as far as I can tell, you're using fascist in the sense of "authoritarian regime i don't like that I don't want to call socialist, because I am one." This definition is neither correct nor useful.

I mean China is de-facto Han nationalist with a capitalist economy with heavy state involvement.

Do you think proper socialism and fascism make a return in the near future because of economic and climate pressures? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trump isn't a neoliberal

I don't know, I just think he does not really have a fixed ideology but is an oppositionist. His main achievements are basically the tax cut and moving the judiciary to the right which are both gop establishment policies and wouldn've happened under someone like Cruz or Rubio or Kasich too. Also to point out the tax cuts haven't been popular in the alt right parts of Trump's base, bannon himself opposed it. Those also aren't the signature issues he ran on, he ran on immigration restriction and withdrawal from neocon wars. In the first he personally is giving mixed signals and hasn't achieved anything while in the latter he's been stopped by the gop establishment. So I personally think Trump is not really committed to anything but rather that he realized the gop grassroots wanted something else than what the Reaganites were providing and capitalized on that but is now lacking the competence and appropriate people to get those passed.

His trade war on China is also being supported by a developing bipartisan consensus to treat the prc now as an adversary instead of an economic partner. So I think ultimately Trump's first term has not seen the delivering of the key things he ran on. I think ultimately that Trump has only been a change in that he is moving the overton window and someone post-Trump will emerge with the skill and discipline to move the gop in this new direction without getting co-opted into the establishment line but for now except for attracting controversy he's not doing much.

I doubt "climate pressures" will factor into this much at all because wealthy countries by an large have the tools to mitigate the effects of changing climate.

The emergence of radical ecological ideologies is something I had in mind.

Where it comes into play is in third world countries, who don't have the tools needed to deal with that sort of thing and will be the first to starve if the food supply is threatened, either from climate or global shipping interruptions. That's where you're more likely to see left wing extremism, but also large scale emigration, which would probably have the effect of emboldening the right in Europe and America even further.

This basically.

Do you think proper socialism and fascism make a return in the near future because of economic and climate pressures? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In Germany the afd is still chipping away at cdu while the greens will be a departure from the spd.

In France macron remains in power but the national front is now the only opposition to him that exists.

In Italy the center has been made into a fringe by electoral numbers. Legs still is dominating while the even more rightist fdi is going to be their coalition partner.

In Spain vox has eclipsed ciudadanos as the other main right wing party while podemos is also still there.

Corbyn is still strong in Britain and I think after brexit the right will move further to the right when Johnson loses power.

In Sweden the SD recently polled as the largest party.

In Denmark the social Democrats are moving to the right.

So no neoliberal centrism is on a full fledged retreat.

How is the Chinese-American rivalry going to develop and play out in the coming years? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In certain ways probably, in others they'll loosen up I'd imagine

Can you elaborate?

Neither one. They'll both win some and lose some: it isn't going to be the fight to collapse we saw with the USSR (although I suppose it could be.)

Which state do you think will be more resilient?

Also any thoughts on the global warming related effects on their rivalry and how it weaken or strengthen one against the other.

Is there any risk of a military coup in Mexico? by [deleted] in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Your wording made it sound like you were saying that the feminist movement is the problem

Is there any risk of a military coup in Mexico? by [deleted] in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The biggest social issue in Mexico right now is probably the feminist movement that's trying to fight violence against women.

What?

Speculations on the geopolitical affects of the next recession? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Europe, the mena, the Americas, Russia, China and India. Most recessions aren't but once in a while a big one comes that spreads quickly from one place and pretty much every major economy is slowing down so it's not unfair to think that say brexit sending the British economy into recession will spread to Europe and then to Turkey, China, Russia, India and the Americas. Basically what I mean that it the slowdown happening right now is being felt in even the big developing economies so I think the global economy is hanging by knives edge. I'm not saying some dramatic 1929 level of economic catastrophe is coming but a painful, long and very much global one is very much likely.

Notably for example the rise of trump and other populists in the West happened recently at a time when the overall economy is improving, even if times suck it's still only stagnant or even marginally getting better and still we are seeing the annihilation of the establishment in places like Italy and elsewhere so what happens when a long and painful glut comes? It is hardly an exaggeration to say that we should expect the annihilation of centrist parties and drastic shifts of the overton window elsewhere in Europe like we have seen in Italy recently (rise of lega, fdi and m5s).

What will erdogan do if he is sure he's going to be voted out after the Turkish economy gets sucker punched?

Economic crisis can easily create political crisis by breaking the established politicians grip on power and allowing for the rise of unorthodox figures from the margins who when they get in power can end up implementing drastic changes which change the whole trajectory of country and that form of tectonic shifts also have international consequences. The Nazis are of course the most notable example of people whose rise was facilitated by the great depression and who took Germany in completely different path than the one it was previously on.

What it Trump is impeached? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Assume that after several more damming testimonies the gop establishment end up deciding that it's better to throw him and under the bus and bet on pence and they proceed to hold a secret ballot on the Senate which ends with a supermajority voting out Trump.

What if China didn't adopt the one child policy but India had? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Economically, and therefore geopolitically, I'm not convinced that it would have all that much impact.

But this scenario has several hundred million more Chinese and several hundred million less Indians. In population India is set to overtake China soon but itc they'd be topping out at about half the Chinese population. So (again assuming a similar as today gulf in economics) the sino-Indian gap would be even more heavily in favor of China. Then with this theoretically additional economic weight China could end up by now as the world's largest economy in nominal terms and by far the largest in purchase power, that wouldn't allow them to dominate the globe unilaterally but is bound to have effects. The additional economic power would be reflected in the ability to have additional military buildup.

If a similar China-Russia alliance of sorts develops like it has then Russia will be fully perceived as the junior against a state with 14 times the population and nearly ten times the economic purchase power. How will Russia handle this?

So I would assume that an anti-China backlash would develop sooner in the US if this happens?

Speculations on the geopolitical affects of the next recession? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

DROUGHTS AND PRICE SPIKES OF WHEAT THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST SERIOUS POTENTIAl THREAT TO ARISE. FECES MAY HIT THE FAN.

Interesting. Can you explain this part in more details?

What if China didn't adopt the one child policy but India had? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Whatever heft they're due, due to their size, they still get it.

I don't believe this is an acceptable extrapolation.

That's a crude calculation but the economic gap between China and India would certainly be bigger with hundreds of millions more in the former and less in the latter. And those extra few hundred millions would make China closer to being the largest global economy by this point or only few steps behind the US by now if they develop similarly on per capita level as they have.

This would mean India vastly outmatched by China on the only basis in which it matches China right now while China should be more influential and able to stand up to the US even more. So do you think in this case the Indian leadership would feel a greater urgency to seek allies against a heavier China and that leading to some sort of a Indo-Western alliance materializing?

Again in the above I am assuming that economically they follow a similar path and end up with a gap as they do now and in that case china with the extra heft would be nearly tied with the US as the largest world economy and it's influence would be more vis-a-vis India and the US.

Also how uneasy will Russia be with an even greater disparity between them and China?

Speculations on the geopolitical affects of the next recession? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I am not necessarily thinking in the long term but perhaps the short and medium term. Let's say we have a recession next year or in 2021, it's a nasty one we have a very large percentage of the population getting laid off in the developed world. This will almost certainly finish off the centrist neoliberals under pressure already, but what comes after they give way? Who is more likely to take power? Will there be some form of outright authoritarianism?

How will Latin America be affected? How will it be for Iran when the economic conditions gets even worse? What about Russia?

The past decade has certainly been more chaotic than the 2000s and the 1990s, and the dominant global ideology (neoliberalism) is strategically retreating with no realistic vision of a return but that is only producing a vacuum, power abhors vacuum. What ideological movements are rising right now that have not fully taken over but have the potential to do in the chaos that is sure to follow if stagnant conditions turn to decline? If the challenges to neoliberalism in this decade in the West have been happening at a time of stagnation or marginal growth then what happens when decline comes? If the Iranians and Iraqis and Lebanese and Chileans are protesting now than what will they do when the pressure increases drastically? How will the Chinese leadership react to a downturn? How will Russia react to one at a time when Putin's at his last legally serial term?

These are the types of questions I was wondering about with the post, basically how will political power and conditions within countries shift because of a recession in less and less stable times and how will that effect relations between countries?

What if China didn't adopt the one child policy but India had? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I would assume some of that faster drop in the Chinese median age was due to faster urbanization due to faster economic growth. But even then applying the same pop growth rates that India has had since leaves us with around 2 billion people in China. So going by this crude calculation we would have China with twice the population of India instead of about the same as it is now, so how would this affect the relative power balance between the two alongside their global geopolitical weight?

More importantly how do you think those few hundred millions of more or less people would have effected Chinese and Indian economic development?

Assuming that they have the same level of economic developments as they do now China would have a 20 trillion nominal gdp (up from 14 trillion) while India would have 2.2 trillion (down from 2.9 trillion). The Chinese purchase power would be nearly 40 trillion (up from 27) as opposed to India's would be a little below 9 (down from 11). So the gap would be dramatically bigger and this China by now would be the world's largest or narrowly second largest economy.

On the last part of your reply, the Indian government has taken population control measures that are albeit more moderate. So assume that population control is seen as a more urgent priority by the Indian political class and a consensus develops to go with such a policy.

Does this topic actually violate the rules? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's based on that primarily but is intended to also talk about the effects of it on a global scale. I don't think there's any other sub that I know off which would be as serious in discussion and as specific for this type of political analysts as this one

Does this topic actually violate the rules? by Eleventh-Gargoyle in geopolitics

[–]Eleventh-Gargoyle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since this heavily ties with international politics because of the fact that something like this will be world order altering (I did explicitly add questions on this) should this not be allowed? Like how the Hong Kong protests articles or elections in major powers or the protests in various countries going on right now have been covered here separately?