That's why the EU is a neutral pushover bowing down to the whims and tantrum of US, China, Iran, India, Turkey, etc. because a lot of their industry, energy, exports/imports are from those countries so any disputes would be devastating to the EU economy.

They're trying to avoid any conflict since they have no energy and hard power to counter any confrontations, so they smile and nod to anything happening worldwide or push some stern words about "monitoring the situation" to social media, depending on the situation.

The drone war will be quite limited by chip production.

And once the chip fabs have been bombed, civilisation is set by by decades, and may end up fighting a lower-tech war.

>They will rapidly reindustrialize when the first shots are fired.

By WHO?! Russia is still stuck in 1/4 of the Ukraine and fear mongers make it sound like they're about to reach Paris any day now.

It's true. Rearming and mobilizing troops will cause a reciprocal reaction in your neighbors. Whether or not war is or was imminent is irrelevant; europe will manifest it regardless.

I do think there's the possibility Russia attacks a NATO country in an attempt to save face. I don't think they have the manpower or equipment to sustain an assault that would require any level of mobilization from EU countries.

"Conservative" parties in the EU are largely left by US standards... Like, Macron is conservative by Euro standards but Le Pen is obviously way further right.

The point is that the actual far right is rising all over Europe and will likely be ascendant in the next round of elections, the establishment is trying to stay in power.

I presume hes using it as a shitty euphemism for pro mass migration. Conservative governments have kind of taken side on that front despite rethoric (see Boris wave of the conservatives, CDU and such)

I agree that it's justified. SOME immigration is needed in order to save "duh economy," but what we got instead was economic warfare against workers.

From what I can tell, a big part of the problem in Europe is that people seeking asylum are prohibited from making a living (due to widespread belief in the lump of labor fallacy) and so have to be dependent on welfare.

If they are only asylum seekers, it means they are still in the validation process.

Unfortunately the hard-right has also defunded that process for many years, and have thus created this problem themselves. The agencies tasked with figuring out if asylum seekers have a legitimate claim are overwhelmed with all the work. This is purely a self-created problem (intended to gaslight the population in there being a huge 'immigrant problem').

Well, don't forget some of these wars are caused by us. The Western countries invaded Iraq under false pretenses so Dubya could make his Halliburton buddies happy. As a result and pure neglect to form a legit democratic government after the war a power vacuum ensued which caused the rise of ISIS which contributed to the war in Syria. Which directly caused the mass migration on foot from Syria.

In this way we do have responsibility towards them. The migration from Africa is a different issue but it is already possible to quickly reject asylum-seekers from known-safe countries.

> Of course, legal migration to the UK is vastly higher than illegal arrivals. And this is the larger issue putting pressure on housing, healthcare, transport, and more.

Well exactly but nobody is talking about that. Everyone is talking about the asylum seekers. Which are only a small part of the issue.

And the pressure on housing is very multifaceted. A lot of NIMBYism when it comes to new construction, and boomers who have invested in the housing market and don't want to see their investment evaporate by more supply on the housing market. So the parties backed by those with money are always obstructing new construction and other means to make housing cheaper. This is a much bigger problem when it comes to housing than those few apartments granted to asylum seekers.

Those processes benefited ourselves during WWII.

But this anger and hatred you demonstrate so well is exactly what the right feeds off. That's why they are gaslighting you. Anger activates and motivates more than happiness.

Unfortunately it's a dead-end road, it doesn't solve anything, because immigrants and asylum seekers in particular aren't the cause of our problems. The hatred just serves to distract from the real problems. The richest getting ever richer, environmental pollution, issues nobody wants to solve because they touch their voter base (like the farmers in Holland I mentioned).

For the insane part of the left, yes. For the majority, let's be honest: no. And for the centrist voters without whom neither the left nor the right can do anything: absolutely not. Immigration was going to solve our economic troubles. Immigrants would bring welfare. That was the idea.

Well, that didn't happen. As to whether that's to blame on immigration ... I would argue it's to blame on the rate and the source of immigration. At a slow rate, selective immigration brings welfare, certainly. At this rate? Of course not. Infinite, mostly fake, refugees? No they don't bring welfare. Of course not.

If it's indeed the case, it adds more value than 100 comments explaining non-happening course corrections, and revolts, and backlashes they believe we'll see.

It's useful to add some cynicism in the mix (or in this case, pragmatism)

That's how multi-party parliamentarism usually works. A minority is not allowed to choose the leader just because they are a slightly larger minority than the others.

Because no party has an outright majority, there are weeks of negotiations after the elections, as the parties try to find a compromise acceptable to a majority. Once a deal has been reached, the parliament votes to confirm it. If the vote fails, the parties return to negotiations.

Von der Leyen was chosen to head the Commission, because she was an acceptable compromise. All lead candidates had been tried before her, but all of them failed to obtain majority support in the negotiations.

I agree, my point about political capital was about the overton window shifting to allow a more mainstream EU-skeptic platform for national parties, platforms which up until recently were easily labelled Russophiles or European traitors for US money.

I was aware that VDL obtained her role by routing around the Spitzenkandidaten process, but I was never aware that her confirmatory vote was done in this way.

Her unpopularity at home also reinforces the idea that unpopular politicians can be sent to Brussels, because "in Brussels, you can't hear them scream".

It is popular because governments are failed to address legitimate issues and gaslight population.