The European Parliament building in Brussels. Credit: Mark Renders / Getty
What is the most important issue in European politics right now?
Not Brexit, that’s for sure. British remainers may regard the UK’s impending departure as the end of the world, but the world will carry on. Roughly 85% of the EU will carry on (measured by GDP). And, in answer to the above question, all of the Eurozone will carry on too.
This last one is the biggie because as complicated as Brexit undoubtedly is, it is fundamentally simpler than sorting out the Eurozone. Brexit is about finding the best way of loosening relationships, of different countries having less to do with one another’s affairs. The implied direction of Eurozone reform is precisely the opposite – which is what makes it so difficult.
Nations will have to sacrifice even more of their sovereignty and bind themselves even more tightly to the Euro and everything that the single currency implies. It will truly be a point of no return.
However, there can be no crossing this threshold without the consent of the people. In continually fudging the issue of democratic legitimacy, the European elites have already provoked a populist revolt – to which most of central Europe and now Italy has fallen. To go to the next stage – an unambiguous and irreversible commitment to a European superstate – in the same manner, would risk a populist takeover of the EU as a whole. This, by the way, is now the stated aim of the populist politicians already in power.
*
The current euro-establishment has a limited number of options:
1. Carry on stalling
Well, it’s worked so far… and, who knows, the next Eurozone crisis could be a long time coming. Fingers crossed. However, not everyone in the Euro-estabishment is content with this approach – for instance here’s Guy Verhofstadt giving Donald Tusk a proper dressing down.
2. The Greek option
This involves making the necessary adjustments, but loading most of the pain on the weakest and most dependent member states. A populist revolt would be all but guaranteed, but confined to the target nations. And as with Greece, in the first Eurozone crisis, the rebels could be then be crushed – and, even worse, compelled to do their masters’ bidding.
Greece, however, was in a uniquely vulnerable position. It’s by no means certain that the Euro-establishment could strong-arm a larger, less traumatised nation. The outcome of the current stand-off between Brussels and Rome over the Italian budget is as yet undecided; but on the EU’s other big integration issue, i.e. immigration, Brussels has not prevailed against Warsaw and Budapest.
3. Legitimise change through national referendums.
After Brexit? They won’t be making that mistake again!
4. Leave it up to national governments to sort it out between themselves
If the Eurozone status quo is unsustainable, and the dissolution of the single currency unthinkable, then it follows that reform – meaning monetary and fiscal integration – must, at some point, happen. As for the details, those can be thrashed out by the various heads of government (who, after all, each have their own democratic mandates).
The trouble with that logic, however, is that the democratic legitimacy confered upon presidents, prime ministers and chancellors applies within the context of Europe’s various parliamentary systems and all the associated checks and balances. Eurozone reform, however necessary it might be, will require concessions whose importance goes far, far beyond the usual horse-trading.
A behind-closed-doors negotiation between heads of state might facilitate the grandest of grand bargains, but it cannot legitimate it. To press ahead in these circumstances would be political suicide for all the national governments involved – which is why they continue with option 1 (see above).
5. The Delatte option
In view of the problem with all the existing options, Anne-Laure Delatte1 proposes an entirely new one in an article for VoxEU. This is her modest proposal:
“We need coordinated, representative decision-making to make Europe functional again.
But national governments are very reluctant to transfer sovereignty to non-national parliamentarians. In order to go beyond this either-or logic of integration or sovereignty, we need to co-opt the members of elected national parliaments within a new, second, parliamentary chamber at the European level…”
In other words by bringing national parliaments together to settle important European matters, a European Assembly would have the legitimacy and/or relevance currently lacking in the existing decision-making structures of the European Union – i.e. the European Council (national governments sans parliamentary oversight); the European Commission (appointed, unaccountable viceroys); and the European Parliament (will never be trusted with the big decisions):
“A European Assembly would fix the inefficient asymmetry between the EU-wide interaction of heads of government and the domestic parliamentary check when they are back home. It would also create a direct interaction between national MPs who would have the double responsibility of representing their constituents in national arenas and in the Europe-wide body…
“The chamber’s regular meetings and public debate on European and domestic issues would be brought at the same level of attention. It would arguably increase transparency compared to emergency summitry prone to deal making behind closed doors.”
It’s a fascinating idea. The EU throughout its history, has only ever moved forward by means of institutional innovation. Faced with a problem of existential significance – the absence of a EU-wide democratic mandate for Eurozone reform – the solution has to be embodied within a new and democratic decision-making body.
*
At this point it behooves me to say that true democracy requires a demos. Representation, transparency, relevance and all those other things are necessary, but without a demos they are insufficient.
If from, say, a British perspective, you don’t believe that the voters of Normandy, Silesia or Jutland to be as integral to your conception of the common good as those from Devon, Yorkshire or Shetland, then you shouldn’t be sharing a democracy with them. The fatal weakness of the Eurozone isn’t ultimately a matter of monetary or fiscal policy, but the cold, hard fact that a Bavarian voter doesn’t feel the same way about a Sicilian voter as he or she does about a fellow German.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that a pan-European demos can exist in parallel to each national demos. How, then, might a European Assembly actually work?
It could be composed of appointed delegates from each national parliament – this is how the European Parliament worked before the first direct elections in 1973. It is also how the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) currently works. But I don’t think it would work for Delatte’s European Assembly.
The whole point of her idea is to confer the legitimacy of national representative democracy upon EU-level decision making. This wouldn’t happen if only a small sub-set of a nation’s MPs, with nothing more pressing to do back home, were delegated abroad. Most of the electorate in each country would not have a a directly elected representative in the new assembly. And, in any case, national governments that aren’t prepared to entrust more powers to the existing European Parliament, aren’t going to grant them to a glorified committee. Constituting a European Assembly on this basis would fail the test of legitimacy and relevance.
The only way that Delatte’s big idea could work is if entire national parliaments (or at least the lower chambers thereof) joined together to form the European Assembly. Of course, this would mean that the Assembly would have thousands of members – about 4,500 members if we use the German Bundestag as a yardstick for the number of citizens per elected member.2
Without Britain, this would fall to a bit less than 4,000 – but still bigger than world’s biggest legislative body, China’s National People’s Congress, which has 2,980 members. The European Assembly, containing all the parliaments of Europe, would be a legislature like no other. But, then, a functionally integrated European Union would be a state like no other.
*
What sort of building would be required to accommodate so many representatives? Well, it wouldn’t have to be a mega-structure like the Nazi Volkshalle or the Palace of the Soviets (neither of which were ever built). A chamber for 4,000 or so parliamentarians could be accommodated in a space similar to that of the Albert Hall – grand, certainly, but not totalitarian.
Obviously there’d have to be a lot of associated office space, but the construction of such a complex would give the EU’s key institutions a chance to make a fresh start in a new home. Brussels could be left behind for a new European capital.
It would need to be somewhere more reflective the EU’s current geography, not that of the 1970s. The Franco-German compromise of the Low Countries will not do. So, somewhere in the middle of Europe, but still within one of the smaller member states (i.e. not any of the ‘big 5’).3
That leaves just one candidate – a great imperial city that’s been missing an empire for the last one hundred years: Oh, Vienna!
It really does fit the bill: German-speaking, as befits the EU’s teutonic engine-room, but not in Germany. It’s west of the old Iron curtain, but also close to the east and the south.
The utter nonsense of scattering the EU’s key institutions in different cities and countries (including the migratory European Parliament) could come to an end. With one eye on the glories of the old Europe, they could build a 21st-century Europolis on the banks of the Danube.
There’d be something to please almost everyone about the new location – even the Belgians, who could pull down the hideous Berlaymont and the rest of Brussels’ ‘European Quarter‘. The grey, glassy void at the heart of their capital city could be reclaimed; an extention to the Parc du Cinquantenaire would be nice.
*
Of course, the French wouldn’t be happy – and they’d never let it happen. It is they who insist that the European Parliament continues to meet in Strasbourg as well as in Brussels (with the Parliament’s secretariat in a third location, Luxembourg). This shuffling back and forth, like some demented animal in a rundown zoo, symbolises everything that’s stuck about the European Union.
To avert disaster it needs to become unstuck. The words “ever closer union” imply forward momentum; the single currency has made it absolutely necessary.
That means understanding that what the European Union is struggling to become has no precedent. It is not an empire like the Hapsburg Empire. Nor a crypto-empire like the Soviet Union. And despite the language of federalism, it is not a European counterpart to the USA – which was built by those who’d left their old countries behind. In a United States of Europe, the old countries come as part of the package. In short, the super-state required by the single currency is something never seen before in human history; and if it is to remain a democracy it requires democratic institutions of a kind never seen before either.
Any half-hearted effort at reform will produce a half-democracy. The members of this project must be fully committed to it… or get out altogether and remain themselves.
FOOTNOTES
- Among other things, Delatte is the deputy director of CEPII – “a research centre in the network of the French prime minister.”
- The ratio would have to be harmonised across member states to ensure equal representation of national electorates
- Germany, France, Italy, Spain and UK (with Poland set to replace the UK, post-Brexit)
Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.
peterfranklin_ 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI arrived in South Africa for 3 days on election day. “Are you voting today?” I ask my taxi driver.
“Yes”, he says. “But not for the ANC.”
“Why not?” I ask
“Corruption”, he says. “Ramaphosa too weak to stop those thieves.”
I asked him about crime. “In my area, no crime, because we have a whistle now, if someone comes to rob you, we just use it, people will come with weapons and kill the thief. Then we just call the undertaker, we don’t even call the police, because the undertaker will be there 30 minutes, the police, 5 hours.”
[queue incredulous silence from myself]
The country now reminds me of Zimbabwe (except with far more violence): The street lines are faded, there’s litter everywhere. The house I stayed at was on solar power, because state electricity is too unreliable to run a household or a business (just like Zimbabwe). The water we drank was filtered through a reverse osmosis kit because municipal water isn’t safe to drink anymore.
And don’t get me started on the railways or the national airline carrier.
They replaced a racist regime that was functional with another one that’s not.
Of all your snarky sark this was probably my favorite
Not at all. The old government is painted as being racist. They were not all racist. Its because of a lot of black peoples way of doing things, that they wanted to be separate in their affairs. Our cultures were just severely different. Black people would get drunk and stab each other with knives, white people except for some exceptions, would normally not kill someone because they looked at his wife. Black people were very primitive tribalistic. Those 2 didn’t mix. Having said this. I like black people a lot. Its just that they will do stuff in a way, without thinking they’ll react and later sit with very destructive consequences which apparently sometimes doesn’t even bother them. They’ll burn schools and classrooms. Guess what, tomorrow there’s no more classrooms. Its like they make stupid decision’s. You will not find White people doing the same. Having saud all of this, I know a lot Black people who are not like this at all. But there is a huge component that will follow and be influenced, even when they know it wrong.
The left in action. Take a good look, people, because that’s what’s coming for all of us.
Indeed. “Left-wing UK universities” – the gift that keeps giving. And yet still they command support. It really does make you wonder.
This article should have been censored, because it proves the wrong people to have been right all along.
Nobody values foresight by the wrong people, nobody appreciates hindsight by the wrong people. Lessons are rarely learned while the same loose collection of the Elite are in charge.
AC Harper comes off as a legendary historian and awesome quote guy
Give it time. It’s only recently been published.
And are we surprised. Many commentators expected this to happen. Its Africa after all.
Such a disappointment although entirely predictable.
At least, South Africa still has some semblance of democracy with the existence of several parties that still command a reasonable proportion of the vote.
I, for one, thought that Ramaphosa would have the ability to bring South Africa back from the corruption that accompanied the Zuma regime.
However, it should not be forgotten that Ramaphosa is one of the richest people in South Africa and this wealth has been accumulated since the ANC took over government.
Let us hope the country does not descend into the total abyss that is Zimbabwe.
I suppose the UK colonialists and Apartheid era will be blamed for the failure of an economy and country that, in the 90’s, was booming.
I have been reading about the demise of Rhodesia and creation of Zimbabwe under Mugabe. A long time ago now but the lesson learned is one of politics, not color. Mugabe was a communist, supported by the Russians and Chinese but most importantly by the Western Left, eager to give Africa back to Africans. The road map has been given and I’m afraid that South Africa might just descend to that level
A hats off to The Guardian, BBC, New York Times and the rest who have had such a helping hand in this tragedy. And now, they come for us.
Southern Africa was largely uninhabited until white settlers arrived. If they had been given back what was taken and no more, they’d have received an empty land. They were gifted much more: a functioning modern economy. And they’ve destroyed it.
The fallacy that Southern Africa was largely uninhabited before the white settlers arrived is a product of misinformation and suppressed facts driven, I would imagine, by the regime at the time to perpetuate a myth. There is ample evidence that trade and agricultural activity across Southern Africa hundreds of years before the Dutch arrived.
Who are ‘the Africans’ exactly?
And by the same argument, the US should be given back to the Indians, Australia to the aboriginals and so on. Where will the UK go to? How far back do you want to go? Looks like according to your solution there will be a widespread displacement of people at a scale never before seen in history.
Simple, everyone heads back to Africa. Specifically the part that is generally believed to be where humanity originated. It’s going to be tight.
And the biggest threat to the power of the ANC is the party called the ‘Economic Freedom Fighters’ who preach socialism to pull in the voters. They wear red overalls in parliament, incite violence and preach racism. Their leader Julius Malema is a young turk who presents himself as a saviour of the poor – of course he is nothing but a fraud and old style opportunist. One who wears bespoke clothing and Christian Louboutin shoes. #africandictatorstyle
USA Cities, the Squad, Oh, Well, nothing to see here….
“The major public utilities crashed, public services withered, the security and intelligence services were infiltrated, the criminal justice system was eviscerated, the tax authorities captured, local authority areas became cesspools, in some cases literally, and public health and education systems imploded.”
Sounds like a future article in the NYT in the year 2035, still blaming Trump 14 years later, of course.
Too many people imagine Mandala as a saint and not the hard-core Marxist he was.
and Gandhi was a very mixed bag too…
The Federation of Conservative Students was right: Mandela should have hanged.
Wow! And hanged for what, exactly?
The crimes for which he was instead jailed.
South Africa was better off under apartheid than it is as a black Marxist kleptocracy.
Rubbish. The man was near a saint.
The man never came within a thousand miles of a saint and he certainly could not meet any requirement for saint-hood.
The only thing that Mandela achieved was to prove that even a disgusting system like apartheid was better than Marxism.
Did you spend 27 years in jail, mostly in isolation, on a small bleak island, hacking away without sunglasses at a glaring limestone pit which permanently affected your eyesight?
And on release and made president of the country, consistently only preach reconciliation to your enemies? No, I can guarantee that Virginia did none of these things because she preaches hatred.
How has that reconciliation worked out? Is South Africa now a happy and prosperous democracy, thanks to the grinning suggestible old booby? Or is it a violent, kleptocratic failed state?
The take away from this is tl:dr “apartheid was better”, and duly noted that according to you Mandela doesn’t qualify to be beatified in any way, in whatever sainthood you’re referring to… particularly because he was “Marxist”. I mean he did JUST pass away as well, you’re really making a sweeping observation a bit early. You’d know some of the well known saints did horrible shit and it took a while before it came to pass. I think it would be a foolish mistake to imply it’s Mandela’s ways or his fault what he came out of and fit to mention is the missing dialogue of what South Africans could offer as the alternative path to democracy. When the strings to the purse of the continent are held elsewhere, a nation has little reason to unify only to uplift the elite oppressors and those stupid enough to think they were on the winning team.
This is perhaps one of the best pieces on the unfortunate state of South Africa.
It was the late Hugh Masekela, in an interview with the BBC, more than a decade ago, said of South Africa that the main problem was that they fought for freedom and got democracy and that there were glaring differences between freedom and democracy. In a democracy, a few things are taken for granted–basic education and everyday needs.
I was in South Africa more than two decades ago; was at one of its elite Universities–University of Witswatersrand. One of the staff asked my opinion on the state of the nation. I told her that if she thought that things were bad, she should think again. I told her that it was going to get real worse, not too dissimilar from Zimbabwe. She was most horrified. I was very surprised that she could not see the handwriting that was glaringly obvious on the wall. The germ of declension and destruction were baked into the system, a case in point was the so called Affirmative Action.
Yes, equity has never worked.
Agreed. You can’t polish a t**d. You can at best roll it in glitter.
South Africa has run out of glitter.
Hanging onto the threads with cynical sarcasm suits you well Redman Schnauzer
There are a few countries in the ex-colonial Caribbean, my own home Trinidad and Tobago included, to which sadly this commentary applies with uncanny precision.
I know T & T quite well, my partner’s parents live there. It is true that there are highish levels of crime largely as a result of being in the drug route from Columbia outwards. But the country has a stable, if unimaginative two party system where power regularly changes from one to the other without violence. The country has coped with Covid as well as the uk has. Have you ever wondered why there are not the nurses from the Caribbean like there were 40 years ago? The reason being that there is a good and growing health service employing personnel trained there. Two friends of mine, well qualified have chosen to work there (in good jobs) and raise their children there. I think the country has more than justified its independence.
Recenty watched a podcast by a guy called Simon Mwewa Lane….after the latest bout of rioting in KwaZulu Natal…..”The Sicily of the South”..his opinion was that if this was the best the Government could do, then they should give the country back to the Boer….
I wonder if this latest outbreak will prompt thoughts of a secession of say the Cape region…….
This is almost the same article as the one about the demise of democracy – also featuring today. Same stories, different geography.
As usual Brian: A beautiful essay, albeit about a great tragedy.
One might rank this tragedy with the failure of Haiti to make its own transition in the early 19th century after having ejected a Napoleonic army that was called to suppress its own uprising.
During his term, employment has reached the highest levels ever
Should that read ‘unemployment’?
Or maybe the author counts rioting as a respectable, bona fide occupation
My hope is that South Africa does fracture, and that something resembling a homeland for the Afrikaners emerges.
“…trapped somewhere between 19th-century Sicily and late 20th-century Columbia.” Apologies for the pedantry but I think you mean Colombia.
We need to hear how apartheid was actually a demand of trade unions.
If there’s any truth in the title of the article I’d say it’s time to do away with the concept of South Africa and the relic of it. There is no such thing as rebuilding a country that was intentionally built divided to keep the elite in power. If you believe in one you pretty much have to believe in the other. It’s not so much a matter of renaming as it is overhauling the status quo and breaking down barriers that keep people from living well, in which case it was the government then and quite stark in contrast it’s the government now. SA needs a lot more yet the economy only caters to the same few companies that have been running SA since forever (literally) why not fill your pockets while you’re at it? The world’s longest running gravy train runs just not with the same velocity as in its yesteryears that we’re so fond of.
If there’s any truth in the title of the article I’d say it’s time to do away with the concept of South Africa and the relic of it. There is no such thing as rebuilding a country that was intentionally built divided to keep the elite in power. If you believe in one you pretty much have to believe in the other. It’s not so much a matter of renaming as it is overhauling the status quo and breaking down barriers that keep people from living well, in which case it was the government then and quite stark in contrast it’s the government now. SA needs a lot more yet the economy only caters to the same few companies that have been running SA since forever (literally) why not fill your pockets while you’re at it? The world’s longest running gravy train runs just not with the same velocity as in its yesteryears that we’re so fond of.
Apartheid and colonisation destroyed South Africa before the ANC ever took over. The ANC surely are corrupt and have failed. A country, like the UK, which has not been invaded for a millenium has been able to evolve and develop systems of government by experience and mostly peaceful consensus – the Cromwellian period being the exception. When you create an elitist, violent and oppressive regime that seeks to monopolise wealth and keep most people in a state of abject dependence, and then end it suddenly, things seldom run smoothly in the first century after the colonisers move out. The vacuum is filled with inexperience at best and opportunism at worst. It will take a while yet for South Africa to settle down, for a mature and viable system to emerge from the wreckage of apartheid. Most post colonial countries are the same.
Some of what you say is true, the former apartheid regime was oppressive, elitist and violent as well as racist, however, the post-apartheid government took over a mature and functioning state, they were not starting from nothing, there was no vacuum, Additionally many of the people who took over were educated and had large numbers of educated whites and “coloureds” who were more than willing to be involved in making/keeping SA a stong wealthy nation. Goodwill was wasted by trying to form what was essentially another racist, elitist society, just inverting the victim and perpetrator does not make for a cohesive society. As far as I can tell from the many analyses of SA’s problems that I have read this former oppressive, elitist, violent and racist power structure has been replaced by a new oppressive, elitist, violent and racist power structure with added spice of corruption, and that cannot be exclusively blamed on what went before. It is all such a waste of potential and lives and it makes me weep.
I think you may have missed the key point – the vacuum is one of experience, management and leadership and that vacuum is filled by opportunism and incompetence (classic Peter Principle) which over time drives out competency across all levels. That is the downward spiral which is slow at first and then rapidly increases. That is where we are at now.
Having lived in Africa for many years , I see nothing but continued corruption, continued Nepotism and continued failure.
South Africa, like Zimbabwe were very wealthy, they had infrastructure, minerals and resources and everything required for success.Unfortunately, good old affirmative action and the stupidity and short-termism it deploys has led it nowhere but in a downward spiral to the bottom, just as the vast majority of educated people predicted and saw coming. A clear warning to the clowns who want to engineer equality of outcome by not providing equaility of opportunity. Public service and manufacturing industries require the smartest and most suitable candidates to manage them, not people who are friends of General Gdanga and who cannot be trusted with a butter knife.
At the rate South Africa is going it will not ‘settle down’. The only ‘down’ you will see is further down into the abyss. There is an orgy of corruption and stealing seen on a grand scale. The immaturity and inefficiency of the incumbent ANC could be explained away as a result of apartheid for many years, but more than 25 years has gone by and the inefficiency still goes hand in hand with the corruption.
In 1963 at the Rivonia Treason Trial the chief defence lawyer was a white Afrikaner called Bram Fischer. He himself faced trial for opposing Apartheid and in his speech at his trial he made a remarkable statement. He stated (in as many words) that during the Boer War the Afrikaners had fought, and won Africa’s first anti-colonial war but, instead of building a post-colonial South Africa had attempted, particularly from the election of the National Party in 1948 to rebuild a colonial power based on a racial theory. By 1990 that had failed also.
There is not, and never has been, a simple and painless way to decolonise and those that have left it the longest will have the most difficult journey. Revolutionary movements do not usually operate as coalitions and it is almost inevitable that when power is gained it will be concentrated in the power or group that did the most to achieve it. The ANC has had the task of undoing a century’s worth of colonialism and 50 years of Apartheid, a system designed to ensure that the Africans were steered futher away from real political or economic power. And yes, in many many ways they have failed. However I can remember when places like India, Nigeria and Bangladesh were described as hopeless basket cases but now they are doing pretty well for themselves, in spite of, rather than because of, our stewardship of them in the past.
“There is not, and never has been, a simple and painless way to decolonise and those that have left it the longest will have the most difficult journey.“
Erm… the Commonwealth? Self-government, with British monarch as head of state. Only peaceful end to an empire in all history, so worth a look. Canada and Australia are doing quite well, I believe.
Canada, New Zealand, Australia do not really count, they were basically settler countries where the indigenous population had virtually been ethnically cleansed, even so it is not a totally easy ride for them now.
Perhaps you are thinking of the “Ghandi Myth” in India which holds that we were so struck by Ghandi’s doctrine of passive resistence that we graciously allowed them to govern themselves. The reality is that we partitioned and ran away fast as we had neither the resources, energy or man-power to hold India down for even a further year.And not much of the former empire holds the british monarch as head of state.
Look at the size of the Commonwealth. It’s incredible., all those apparently subject nations who chose to retain ties with the centre. They even get together to have a private “Olympics”.
Can you cite anything that compares?
We seem to be off on a tangent here, but I’m sorry Richard your assertion about ethnic cleansing in New Zealand just does not stack up, I know as I was born and raised there. The Maori tribes have a lot of political and financial clout these days.
Back on topic, the truth is that too many countries in Africa have become a byword for corruption, billionaire “leaders” while their people suffer. The Colonialist grievance industry does nothing to help this as it prevents these “leaders” being held to account.
Fact is that NZ did not have a huge majority of Maoris as a percentage
One great myth about Gandhi is that the h comes before the a in the English spelling.
I made it a few paragraphs into this article before I had to stop due to the usual regurgitation of apartheid bliss I picked up in between the lines on the article. There’s only a few unbiased opinions in any comments. Some people just need to have it out at the current state of affairs, and they must be solely blamed on the party they don’t like and don’t vote for. Because things didn’t work out for them, they’re going to talk about how things didn’t work out for the others, they’re going to talk about how much better things were a long time ago. I’m sure they really knew what things were like, or because they have/had subservient living in a shed in their back yard who agrees with them. Not everyone thinks SA is the best, particularly people outside of SA and they never thought it was a good place pre ’94 less the colonialist minded euro trash that lived on top of SA then (and still do today). Less those who still wish to walk on the broken backs of a nation under apartheid. Canada, NZ, and AU, even the US have less than 5% indigenous people left and it’s through a series of really bad sh-t. I like maple syrup on pancakes just as much as any red blooded nihilist oppressor but seriously people get a grip. All of those pancake lovers that migrated to Canada took a lot of money with them and I’m sure they worked very, very hard for it during those years and they didn’t benefit from the cheap slave labor and diminishing rights of workers and people to pull it off. Ignorance the world around these days.
Ever noticed how these people will try to throw in some Richemont-linked garb at the last second to prove the recipients of these useless trinkets were corrupted?
Singapore.
Probably a bit soon to tell if it’s really the only peaceful end, or if it’s an end at all.
Afrikaners were immigrants, not colonisers.
was the point I was making, but having fought ( and substantially won) a colonial war against the British they then sought to oppress the native people