No story, no votes

Do you know Donald Trump's slogan? Sure you do. Do you know Hillary Clinton's slogan? (silence)... And that's why Trump won. Without a story, no votes to win. Just because Clinton is a woman, that doesn't entitle her to anything.

Sure, Trump bashed the establishment. And 'the establishment', by the voice of Clinton, doesn't know how to bash an outsider, especially a reckless, insulting person that broke every rule an aspiring president shouldn't. But the establishment will be back in just a few sentences.

(c)

A story we've already heard in the Brexit campaign. Why bother using rational arguments in an irrational debate? Again, 'the establishment' was defeated. As in the US elections, the polls were wrong: people reply in polls in a socially acceptable way. They feel ashamed they choose the irrational vote. But in the end, no one's asking who they're voting for when they're at the ballot.

But the establishment is back in the Brexit. Judges in the United Kingdom ruled Parliament should vote on the Brexit - strange a Prime Minister is scared of her own Parliament, isn't it supposed to represent the people?

Also, it took the Prime Minister over 3 months to decide when exactly the procedure to leave the EU would start. In the first quarter of 2017. 6 months is an eternity in politics - who knows what will happen by then.

Regarding Trump, he'll have to deal with Congress and his own Republican party to get bills passed. Something Trump has about 0 clue how that has to happen, but that might be an advantage. Trump will have to hold press conferences and meetings - with Latin American leaders as well as females.

Trump will have a whole number of advisors with plenty of 'establishment' experience. Trump will have to deal with administrators from every US administration. In other words, Trump will be confronted with establishment about every day. Difficult not to become part of establishment.

A little Belgian story: a rather anti-establishment political party of whose prime goal is the independence of Flanders, has been in the federal government for years. Not one step closer to independence, but much more part of the establishment. Will the same happen to Trump?

Even if we don't know the answer, we can list his name between Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington.

Lectures on the United Kingdom and the European Union

The European Union and the United Kingdom share a special relationship. Sometimes isolationist, sometimes interventionist, the Brits have a very ambiguous stance on the European Union. Recently, the brexit and bremain views opposed each other in the referendum on the EU. Find out more about the relationship in these two lectures.

Referendums: a good idea?

Referendums, like the one in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016 about EU membership. Some see it as a miracle solution to connect (or reconnect) citizens with politics. By having more to say, they'll be motivated again for the political game. Or so goes the argument.

For the European Union, this may be a strong argument to hold referendums. The EU is sometimes seen as very distant from its citizens. So here's your miracle cure for saving democracy. Or not. In referendums, you get the wrong answers to the wrong questions.

Take the Dutch referendum on the association treaty with Ukraine. As some opinion leaders claimed, most of the Dutch didn't even know where Ukraine is on a world map. Let alone they read the over 300 pages of the document. Why ask the Dutch in a referendum about a trade treaty with a country thousands of miles away?

Referenda: a good idea? ©

A quick look on the comments on a website explaining the treaty shows that many persons didn't bother to inform further. One person commented to vote against as long as the government couldn't explain the treaty. Actually, he/she could have found a clear explanation on the government's website.

So instead of judging the treaty on its merits or its shortcomings, the 61% who voted against didn't vote against the treaty. They voted against the establishment, the EU, the government, or maybe just because they had a bad mood. They also voted against the incapacity of politicians to judge whether there should be a referendum or not.

However, that does not apply to the UK referendum: there's a clear question and clear answers. Still, people might just vote against, just because they don't like the UK's government. Or because they don't like politicians.

Switzerland took another approach: in addition to voting for the Federal Assembly (that's the parliament), about 4 times a year, referenda are held. In these referenda, they receive an explanation of the law, a choice (yes or no) and an advice of the government. This way, citizens inform themselves before voting. There's even a possibility to block new laws by collecting 50 000 signatures, and holding a referendum on the new law. Isn't that a better way?

Brexit: stars back European Union membership

250 actors, musicians and other cultural leaders of the United Kingdom urged the Brits to vote for membership to the European Union in the upcoming referendum. In an open letter published on 20 May 2016, they argue it's better to stay in than out: 'let's not become an outsider shouting from the wings'.

My question is: maybe that's exactly what they want: to be an outsider shouting from the wings?

Visit Hadrian's wall protecting the Roman Empire ©

It's important to understand where the Euroscepticism comes from. Deeply rooted in history, the Brits have always been afraid of one big power on the European mainland. The Roman empire is just one of the examples in the UK's history, resulting in a wall quite high up north to protect the empire from invaders. Some remnants can still be visited.

More recently, Napoleon, Hitler and perhaps Stalin have tried to conquer Europe to install one powerful superstate. The Brits have fought Napoleon and Hitler (Boris Johnson?) and won, through hard times, endless battles and countless casualties. Since than, the UK's foreign policy alternated different views: either divide the states of Europe, or isolate itself from the mainland.

One can easily make the comparison. Today, the Brits are fighting the ever more powerful superstate. They couldn't divide it enough from within (support to Turkey's EU accession is just one of the methods) so now it's time to isolate itself from the EU.

So for the supporters of Britain in the EU, namely Britain Stronger in Europe, I'd argue it's better not to warn their compatriots that they'll be outsiders. That's exactly what they want.

I think it's better to point out the world's challenges: Russia's aggressive stance in Ukraine, Turkey's concentration of power, and all the turmoil in Northern Africa. These arguments may be more convincing.

More information: interesting article from the Guardian and an analysis of the pro-EU Economist.