Mandamus

Alright, I'm not getting into the whole Brexit debate seeing as I don't think I know enough about the current economic/social situation in the UK to argue one way or another, but I wanted to ask UK citizens reading this thread what in their opinion would be the best possible outcome to negotiations with the EU. Should the UK aim for EEA membership? What about banks based in London and their ability to operate within the EU's financial market, should that be a priority to protect? What about expats? There are many of them where I live.

Thank you for the post – much appreciated. I hope you will be able to deal with that situation. To be honest, I don't feel a real need to defend the reputation of banlieues, nor to keep arguing on the points of the article, and as I said I do agree on the general assesment that banlieues are a very serious problem in France. So, with that in mind, I will probably keep away from that topic in the future.

You provided an article as a source to back your arguments. I just pointed out that what you were saying was not what the article was saying. I am not arguing that there are no problems with some of those neighborhoods, there are, I am merely saying that the term "no go zone" is inaccurate – just like the article you linked to was saying and drawing from my own experience. You know nothing about my ideology and I find that comment unwarranted, as you imply that my view on that specific issue is heavily biased due to a strong ideology (which one, I don't know) when all I did was call into question some of your opinion stated as facts. You don't even know my own opinion on banlieues. For all you know I could be in agreement with you on your main point: that the banlieues are a huge problem. As for this part I am not looking at the situation in banlieues through rose-colored glasses; I just happen to want some intellectual honesty when I am debating. Banlieues constitute a very serious problem, but they are not "no go zones," not according to your own source. If there is a point I really want to make, I will not use an article as a source and then a) not read it fully, or at the very least the conclusion and b) misrepresent the views of the author. I will also not attempt to try and dismiss someone else's position by claiming they are just ignoring reality. As far as I'm concerned, this is a matter of intellectual integrity, regardless of how important the point I want to make is. Anyway, I think I will bow out of this debate – I just gave my own answer to the OP who was asking for the opinion of Europeans, OP can either read it or dismiss it.

His conclusion is: "the term no-go area does not accurately reflects the situation." That's extremely clear to me; no "cultural no-go zones." In any case, according to your own definition "cultural no-go area" is misleading. How does "the outside world being shunned" and "the populous being extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community" make them "no go zones" for anyone? Who exactly can't go there? Individual outsiders can go there, as I (a non-muslim) have every week for the last four years to shop, go to the public library, meet with friends, even walk home at night. Non-muslim people can also live there. Policemen, teachers, firemen, doctors and judges also work in these areas, so they are not "no go zones" for the authority of the state either... Also, your definition of a "cultural no-go area" (which at this point has little to do with your source) is vague to the point that it could include rich neighborhoods (the outside world is shunned there, and the locals will be extremely hesitant to give information to those outside the community), small villages in remote areas, xenophobic neighborhoods, etc. You'd need to come up with a better definition for the expression "cultural no-go zone" to be used as a basis for discussion here. There is nothing in what you've said to even justify the term "no-go area," so could we agree that this term is not accurate and is in fact misleading? So because "absorption is strangled" (a statement I agree with!) there is automatically "a country within a country"? There is a huge leap between the two that should be acknowledged, huge to the point that the link between the two would need to be demonstrated and established before you can state it as a fact. How many countries do you have in the US if you go only by what you said? How many countries in cities like San Francisco, Miami or New York, where there are neighborhoods with distinct languages and cultures that are not ready to be "absorbed" any time soon? Are they all "cultural no go zones" and different countries within a country too? edit: Look, I'm not saying that there are not huge problems with the suburbs we are talking about here. I just happen to disagree with the term "no-go zone," because you definitely can go there and the state is present here. I find the expression very misleading and think that in order to try and find solutions to the problems these areas present, the current situation should be defined with accurate words and expressions. I agree with you that there are problems related to culture, that does not make them "no-go zones" or "countries within a country." The problems of those areas are (according to me, and you are welcome to disagree): very high unemployment rates breeding bitterness, inability to easily move out of these neighborhoods (because of poverty) leading to the establishment of "ghettoes for the poor," poverty linked to unemployment, gang related violence, feeling of alienation from mainstream culture leading to further isolation and the risk of individuals turning to radical islam as an answer to their problems. I agree with you on another major point: absorption into mainstream society should definitely be a priority for the state to solve those issues. Integration is the way to go, even if I don't know how this can be done.

Did you read the entire article or just the first paragraph from 2006? or

That's a good point. I doubt the state of these places in Detroit can be blamed on islamic extremism and sharia law. Just like in the US, we have derelict/miserable neighborhoods in France. Most of the Sensitive Urban Zones in France are not even that dangerous, they're just very poor. I know some of these neighborhoods very well, and they're certainly not "no go zones."

We don't have no go zones in France... we do have dangerous neighborhoods, but the police don't ignore them, on the contrary. The article kvnchrist linked to seems to reach the same conclusion.

What is happening in Syria is tragic but I'm really not sure a Western intervention would help at all. Like most civil wars, there are extremists on both sides, I don't see how helping one side get rid of the other by dropping a few bombs here and there is going to help any. Besides, I think perhaps the West as a whole should get out of Middle Eastern regional affairs. They are a time and money sink; at a time when other superpowers like China and India are emerging, and with the West experimenting some sort of decline, we should be focusing on getting our finances and industries back on track; are we really willing to throw away our economical advance for the Middle East? What will we get out of it in the long run? China, India, and African countries like Nigeria are going to become increasingly powerful as time goes by. I say the West should prepare itself for that, and not waste time, money, and people with the Middle East; they don't even want us there.

I mostly agree with your post, but the parts I emboldened sound like wishful thinking to me. Intelligent debate... sure that's what people do here, in this section of the forums, but many people tend to disregard facts in favor of their own emotional outlook on specific issues. Just like you said earlier in your post, "you'll not convince them otherwise no matter the science presented." Here is an example. Where I live we have laws which state that holocaust denial is a crime. These laws are, clearly, a restriction on freedom of speech. I'm not saying they are perfect, but if they were to be abolished, I do not believe for a second that "intelligent debate" would be enough to fight off the false idea that, in the end, the holocaust didn't happen. Now maybe in countries like the United States or the UK this doesn't really matter, but in some countries in continental Europe, such laws work as safeguards. I seriously wouldn't want that dam to be opened. The abuse wouldn't "die in a day."

I don't know where you live but that's not the case in my country (I don't have statistics to back that up, though).

Won't waves of immigration take care of that, though? I think I remember reading somewhere that Latinos would become the majority in Texas by the 2020s, won't this change the perception of immigration among the majority of Texans?

TRoaches and Lord Garon: thanks for your posts. What you say is somewhat depressing, though. It doesn't seem to be an effective democratic system, when two parties have such a strong hold on the political scene at the expense of all the others. My country also has a strong 2 party system, especially when it comes to the presidential election, but this is mitigated by the strength of smaller parties that do have influence over the policies of the two main parties. The two main parties often need the support/endorsement of smaller parties for legislative and local elections, and they are forced to compromise and forge alliances. For instance, the mayor of my city (a socialist) was elected with the help of the Green party, which gives some leverage to that smaller party. The conservative party forges alliances with centrist parties (but not with the far right). Maybe the Tea Party and other alternative political movements in the United States could start working at the level of local elections (mayors and local councils) and work their way up from there. National elections should not be their priority, not at first.

I wanted to post a belated thank you to TRoaches for his explanation on page 3. I have a question, though, which I think has been raised before in this topic but not quite answered; if the fiscal conservatism and the general platform of the Tea Party are at odds with the Republican party (which, from what you say about the origins of the movement in the Bush era, appears to be the case), wouldn't the movement be better off operating as a full fledged independent party? I know that in a 2 party system it can be hard to survive for a smaller party, but wouldn't it be better in the long run? The dissociation from Republican social conservatism would be more obvious to the public eye, the focus on smaller government clearer.

I admit I don't know much about the Tea Party movement (I'm not American), but this thread's made me curious. When people say the Tea Party is for smaller government, what is actually meant by that? Is it only about reducing the budget and the national debt or are we talking about stripping the federal government of some of its powers? And if so, in what areas? Another question, regarding the origins of the movement. I only started hearing about it in early 2009, was it founded as a result of the 2008 election? And who started the movement? Was it a spontaneous grassroot movement or can we link its creation to the efforts of specific lobbies or associations? I've read parts of the wikipedia article but it's a little vague on the origins of the movement.

National service was abolished 15 years ago in France, I never had to join the army. On a personal level, I will admit it makes me glad. Previous posters have stated better than I could do some of the positive aspects of the abolition of military conscription. I do think that there are some dangers in getting rid of it, though. I don't know much about the situation in English speaking countries, but in France it was one of the few ways of building a sense of national community. My dad met plenty of persons he would never have without the army, persons from all over France and from different social classes. Our society is very hierarchical, so the army really helped "glue" everything together, if that makes sense. Additionally, conscription keeps the army from being cut off from civil society, which (in my opinion) decreases the risks of a military coup. A professional army attracts some seriously weird individuals (I won't go as far as to say deranged, but a few I knew would definitely fit that description).