A Happy Story

Last week I went to the mairie to apply for SCB's French ID card. I had collected together all the documents on the list: my ID, proof of address and an official copy of her birth certificate dated less than three months ago. (Nothing makes you realise that time is flying by like your baby's birth certificate being out of date. And for British people, it's a bizarre concept anyway, because how could a birth have changed, but it's because in France, other life events, including death, would also be recorded on the birth certificate, so it does make sense here.) I had to fill in a form with SCB's details, including her height in cm, which will have changed in the time it takes to produce the card, she's growing so fast at the moment.We had also managed the amazing feat of getting approved style photos where SCB had her eyes open and her mouth closed - basically what a baby would look like if one were ever included in a prison line-up. The lady at the mairie actually complimented SCB on her poker face and we joked that she clearly already has the required skills for life in France.

When it came to the documents, however, she was not so sure. I had brought a justicatif from our energy company and not a bill, which is apparently not always acceptable, and she was almost certain that they would want to see UFM's ID, as he is the French parent. We live not far from the mairie, so I told her I could go and get the other documents to add to the file but she said they couldn't accept an incomplete file, so either I could hand it in and they would phone me if they needed more details or I could take everything away and come back to start from scratch. So far, so typical of l'administration française.

Being optimistic, lazy and not in a desperate hurry to receive the ID, I decided to take my chances. She gave me a receipt, told me it would normally take 3-4 weeks for the card to arrive and reiterated that they were likely to ask for the French parent's ID. So when I had a message on Monday from the mairie, I assumed that was going to be the reason ... but no, the card is sitting in their offices already and all I have to do is go and collect it! After our recent (and ongoing) experiences with the bank, all I can say is that I was in need of a pleasant bureaucratic surprise.

In other happy news, Nicholas Sarkozy has been knocked out in the primaries for the presidential elections next year. I can't say I'm a big fan of Fillon's ideas, but at least he isn't the man who was defeated last time by the guy who went on to become France's most unpopular president of all time. I was also pleased to see Jean-François Copé (he of the "droite décomplexée") come last with a paltry 0.3% of the vote. In the age of Brexit and Trump, it's good to know that the worst doesn't always happen.

On Brexit

I woke up this morning (having followed the referendum count on and off through the night) to the news that the UK has voted to leave the European Union.

I am devastated.

It's a strong word, but it is an accurate description of how I feel. Not because the majority of British voters have made a decision that I strongly disagree with, but because they made it for so entirely the wrong reasons.

Had there been a clean, factual, balanced campaign with respectable leaders on either side of the debate encouraging UK citizens to make an informed choice about whether the best way to work with our international neighbours was through the mechanisms of the EU or by some other (specified) means, I would have been worried and annoyed. But what has actually happened is so much worse than that.

We have been treated to the spectacle of some of the most privileged people in the country preying on the basest fears of ordinary people to convince them their troubles are caused by foreigners (whether they be politicians in Brussels or Romanian builders) and not the consequences of a global financial crisis or the government that they chose to elect. They have been aided and abetted in all of this by the British media at its absolute worst: nearly all the tabloids have been stirring up a "them and us" mentality based on half-truths and downright lies for decades. Nobody embodies this more than Boris Johnson, Eton and Oxford-educated (although ironically born abroad and a former pupil of the European School of Brussels), who had a previous career as a journalist spreading lies about Europe via the Daily Telegraph before moving into politics and who, having been one of the leading representatives of the Leave campaign, is apparently odds-on to be Britain's next prime minister.

I'm not upset and frightened because of what this means for me. I'm upset and frightened because these people have won and because it appears that my country is a place where the worst kind of politics can thrive.

Getting Political Again: The Loi du Travail

Much of the French news over the past few months has been dominated by the Loi du travail or the Loi El Khomri, the controversial new employment law that has brought demonstrators to the streets in a way that I don't remember happening since 2006. Even in the French media, much of the coverage has been about the demonstrations, and I've noticed that among my non-French (largely anglophone) friends, Facebook comments and dinner party conversations on the subject mainly focus on the burning cars and the sirens wailing into the night, with political commentary limited to "the French economy is tanking and unemployment is too high, so people just need to suck this up if France is ever going to survive in a globalised world."

A few years ago, my reaction would probably have been the same, but a combination of eight years in France and what I've seen happening in other more economically liberal societies has led me to a better understanding of the other side of the argument. I'm not saying I agree with all the trade unions' demands, and I believe as strongly as anyone (91% of the French population) the casseurs who take advantage of every demonstration to spread violence and vandalism need to be stopped immediately, but in the interests of a balanced perspective, here is my understanding of some of the arguments against the law:

- The law aims to make it easier to fire employees for economic reasons. Companies have to show that they have been making a loss for a certain period of time (which depends on the size of the company) before they are allowed to do this, and this period of time is to be reduced. Certainly, the fact that it is difficult to get rid of employees is often cited as a reason why employers are reluctant to take on new workers. However, easy hiring and firing does not necessarily lead to a strong economy in the long term. The reason for this is that over the last few decades, shareholders have gained more and more control over the decisions that are taken about how companies are run compared to other stakeholders, such as managers and employees (who also have an interest in the wellbeing of the company, as their jobs depend on it). Easy trading of shares means that shareholders are massively more interested in making a quick profit than in the long-term wellbeing of the company. This means it is less likely that they will vote in favour of measures such as training and improved procedures which lead to a real increase in productivity ("good" capitalism) and more likely to approve measures which increase profit in the short term.* So laws which make it easier to get rid of people do not necessarily improve the state of the economy in the long term.

- It will be harder to take an employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal. Many people claim that in France there are far too many people who know that they are unsackable and therefore take the mickey by staying in comfortably in their jobs and doing the bare minimum. However, it is a little known fact that France, with all its workers' rights and people who have been put in a cupboard instead of fired, has a higher productivity (measured in terms of GDP per hour worked) than both the UK and the US.

- A contract issued by an employer can override the convention collective (collective bargaining agreement) agreed by the trade unions for different employment sectors. This is one of the most controversial aspects of the law, and it's easy to see why. While it might accord certain employers with specific or unusual needs more flexibility, its also a massive undermining of the trade unions. Given that employers can already offer employees different conditions as long as they are not deemed to be less advantageous than the conditions in the convention collective, this part of the law opens the way for a race to the bottom in terms of working conditions. And when I hear about things like the UK's much-debated zero hours contracts or this story about US poultry farm workers having to wear nappies because they aren't given toilet breaks, I'm glad to live in a country which has higher standards.

- The restrictions on the hours that employees can be asked to work will be less severe, meaning that people can be expected to spend a longer time at work over a given period, and they will work more hours before this is considered as overtime. But it's another misconception about France, largely caused by the 35 hour week, that French people work fewer hours than people in other western countries. This article explains that France works only slightly below the Eurozone average hours per week ... and the countries where people work fewer hours include Germany, Europe's golden child of economics. And even if it were true, why would people who already have jobs working longer hours be a solution to the country's unemployment woes?

(According to the BBC article, countries with lower unemployment also often have a high number of part-timers. At least in the UK, part-timers are often parents (usually mothers) of young and not-so-young children, whereas in France, childcare is cheaper and the school day is more conducive to parents working - which it wouldn't be if people were expected to work more hours on a week-by-week basis. Couple this with the aforementioned zero hours contracts and people being told by Jobcentres to become self-employed doing jobs where it isn't possible for them to make a decent living, and the statistics elsewhere start to look a little less rosy .)

- Finally, foreigners are often surprised that even young people are demonstrating against the law, given that youth unemployment is so high. I suspect that there is an element of lycée strikes being a rite of passage for the students, and I do wonder how many have really reflected on both sides of the issue, but I guess that those who have would argue that they are taking a long-term view. In your twenties, it's easy to put in the long hours and work harder than everyone else to avoid being first in line for a licenciement économique, but when you are older and have other responsibilities (children or ageing parents, for example) it's not so easy. It's also a lot harder to find another job as you get older, particularly for people in their late forties and fifties, who are often seen by recruiters as being over the hill despite the fact that they have ten or twenty years ahead of them before retirement.

So there you go. As I said, I don't agree with all of the demonstrators' claims, but I do think that if you're going to live and work in a country and enjoy the benefits that it brings (hello job security and RTT days!) you should at least accept that these have often been hard-won and understand that privileges usually demand that a sacrifice is made somewhere.





I learned this from Ha Joon Chang's 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism, which is a surprisingly easy read for someone with interest in but very little knowledge of economics (like me!).

On Being Sort Of Accidentally Tear-Gassed

Yesterday afternoon I was travelling across Paris, quietly minding my business as I changed from the RER  at Nation. As I stepped on the escalator up towards the metro, I suddenly became aware that there were a lot of people coming down the stairs next to me, covering their faces with their hands and scarves, and someone mentioned the word incendie. Unfortunately, turning around on the escalator wasn't an option, so I had to go all the way to the top, by which time my eyes were starting to sting and I there was a strong chemical smell in the air. This wasn't smoke - it was tear gas.

There were a couple of policemen at the bottom of the stairs who explained nonchalantly that some of the people at the demonstration on the Place de la Nation (contesting the loi El Khomri, which many perceive as an attack on workers' rights) had turned violent, hence the intervention of the CRS. When I asked for more information (such as, was it safe to leave the station), he said they hadn't had any contact with the police up above and didn't know any more. Nobody else seemed particularly bothered though, so in the end I just followed the crowd, took another exit and walked the rest of the way back.

The side of the square where I exited the station seemed pretty calm and I was actually able to make my way across the marching protestors to head in the right direction for home, but I read some news reports later in the evening saying that around 300 casseurs (hooligans) had disrupted the demonstration and 24 police officers were injured, including one who was seriously hurt when a paving stone was thrown at his head.

To put this into perspective, official estimates of the number of demonstrators range from 170 000 (according to the police) and 500 000 (according to the organisers), so 300 is a tiny proportion of the people who were involved, but sadly this is something that often happens in France: peaceful and legitimate political protest is hijacked by vandals who break windows, burn cars and have no scruples about seriously injuring either the police or anybody else who happens to get in their way. And for that reason, I have a lot of sympathy for the police, who are often criticised for their heavy-handed tactics, but are supposed to control this kind of behaviour.

On the other hand, it doesn't really present a good image to the public if hundreds of people in a metro station are exposed to tear gas and effectively given the choice between breathing it in or heading up to the surface and potentially being caught up in a riot. I was able to get myself out of the situation pretty quickly, but what about someone who had just got off the metro at the other end of that corridor? Or an old person who couldn't move very fast, or parents with small children?

It's a situation that reminds me a lot of football hooliganism a few years ago, where everyone's enjoyment was spoiled by a few people who were more interested in fights than the game and gave the sport a really bad reputation. Perhaps it's time for a similar crackdown on the casseurs.

UPDATE: watching footage of what happened on TV, it looks as if maybe what we were breathing in the station was tear gas which was thrown outside (because there was a LOT) and sucked down the air vents to the metro. So still not a great situation, but maybe less deliberate than it initially appeared!

Why I'll Be Voting to Stay in in June (Part 2)

Or, more accurately, why I don't think these are good arguments to for Britain to leave the EU. This post: Brussels Regulation.

Argument 3: The EU imposes ridiculous regulations on the UK and its businesses


For as long as I can remember, stories of absurd Brussels regulations have been a recurring event in the British media. There was one about bananas having to have a certain degree of curvature, and another which is something to do with cucumbers. This article from the BBC gives details of a further selection of the best Euromyths, and proceeds to entirely debunk most of them, while this article draws attention to the floppy-haired source of many of the stories.

It's a sad fact that the British media seems to be entirely incapable of balanced, factual reporting on European issues. The temptation to sell more papers with a bit of Frog- or Kraut-bashing is just too strong. There are two problems with this. The first is that a large proportion of the British public actually believes everything they read in the papers. The second is that certain types of (usually right-wing) politicians then get away with sweeping statements about how EU regulation is killing British business, but they don't actually mean rules about selling bananas. They're referring to things like the working time directive, which means that doctors can no longer be expected to work 72 hour weeks (and who wants to be operated on by a surgeon who's already worked 71 hours in 7 days?), maternity rights and environmental regulations.

I actually don't disagree with the argument that the EU can be overly bureaucratic at times, and when you've witnessed the difference between public administration in France, Italy and in the UK, it's easy to see how, when you bring together countries with such disparate expectations of what is normal, some conflict will arise. But that's what compromise is all about, and I would be much prouder of a UK which attempted to improve the situation from the inside, rather than throwing the toys out of the pram and refusing to play anymore, especially when its objections are based on such a biased and factually incorrect view of the situation.

Why I'll Be Voting to Stay In in June (Part One)

Unless you've spent the past few weeks on a desert island with your head buried in a bucket of sand, you almost certainly know that in June this year the UK will hold a referendum on whether to remain a member of the European Union or not. I don't normally post about political subjects, but this is such a hot topic that it almost seems wrong not to.

Obviously, if the UK voted to leave the EU, it would be a major hassle for me. I wouldn't have to leave the country, but there would certainly be plenty of paperwork to do, and the idea of queueing outside the prefecture at 4am to obtain a carte de séjour, as some of my American friends have had to do, doesn't really appeal.

However, I understand that it's not up to the rest of my fellow citizens to remain a part of a political institution against their will just for my convenience, so here are the real reasons why I believe the arguments for the UK to leave don't hold water.

Argument 1: EU decisions are made by politicians we never elected and can't get rid of if we want to

This is statement was made by UK Justice Secretary Michael Gove when he declared himself on the side of the "out" campaign last week. Michael Gove represents a constituency in which I have no right to vote, and much as I would like to, I can't get rid of him, and neither could all the members of the constituency in which I vote, even if a majority wanted to. This is exactly analogous to the UK not being able to kick out an MEP from another European country. It's how our democracy works, and the fact that our Justice Secretary thinks that he can get away with pretending not to understand this is somewhat scary.

Argument 2: EU decisions are made by unelected Brussels bureaucrats

The EU is governed by the European Commission, a cabinet government made up of one representative per member state. Commissioners are appointed by the democratically elected heads of state who make up the European Council and approved by the democratically elected European Parliament. This process of indirect election is similar to the system used for the French Senate, and a lot more democratic than the process by which people are appointed to the UK House of Lords. The other "bureaucrats" in Brussels are the equivalent of the UK civil service and government advisors.

Ironically, one of the most undemocratic aspects of European politics is the power of lobbyists in Brussels. If you ask many French people, they would say that the UK is largely to blame for the importing of what was originally much more a feature of American politics into the European Union.


Another supreme irony is that many of the people who complain about the lack of democratic representation in Europe will have voted UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) in the last European elections.  The MEPs from this party make a point of not attending the European Parliament as much as possible and of claiming their parliamentary allowances anyway. And then they claim that the UK has no voice in Europe ...


Up Next: Brussels Regulation and Unchecked Migration