June 23, 2026
Editorials, Essays, Interviews and Book Reviews picked from the World Top Papers
MIDDLE EAST (3 articles)
The Wall Street Journal, Editorial (Pay Wall)
Iran’s Regime Gets Its First Relief
The money is flowing to Tehran even before nuclear commitments.
While Vice President JD Vance says Iranian leaders want to “turn over a new leaf” with the U.S. and suggests we do the same with them, it’s worth checking Iran’s actions. How is the memorandum of understanding going so far?
• The Strait of Hormuz. Traffic is flowing, sending the price of oil below $80. Iran has already sent some $3 billion in crude oil through Hormuz for export, and the regime’s declaration—call it a threat—of a closed Strait on Saturday shifted traffic to the Iranian-controlled transit route. Other vessels went dark while crossing, as they did before the deal.
Iran has instructed all vessels transiting Hormuz to request access 48 hours in advance and acquire Iranian insurance, with the fee waived for now. Amid negotiations, the regime seems to be preparing for the Strait’s transformation into an Iranian waterway.
The mandatory insurance could easily become a toll 60 days from now, even under the MOU’s terms, and the request for access compromises freedom of navigation. Permission could be denied on a ship-by-ship or country-by-country basis to suit Iranian foreign policy. This isn’t an open Strait.
• Sanctions. On Monday the U.S. Treasury issued broad sanctions relief for Iran’s oil business. For 60 days the license lets the regime produce, ship and sell its oil and petrochemicals—and receive all the revenue rather than have it kept abroad in escrow. This will gut accumulated U.S. sanctions leverage, especially if the license is extended, as Mr. Trump will have difficulty refusing before the U.S. elections.
The license also allows anyone, even sanctioned conduits for Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to be paid in U.S. dollars. Only last week the State Department reported, “Iran’s oil and petroleum exports are a primary source of revenue for its armed forces, terrorist partners, and proxies.” Billions of dollars will now go directly to the IRGC and rebuild the regime’s foreign reserves.
Iran says some of its frozen assets have also been released, and this may be $6 billion held in Qatar. When released, the money can be used only to buy food, medicine and the like, Mr. Vance said. But this frees up other funds for military purposes.
• Nuclear. On Monday Mr. Vance said Iran has agreed to allow in U.N. inspectors. While we await details to judge the move’s significance—which nuclear sites, when, inspections on-demand or staged, collecting samples or not—Iran’s state media has denied this concession. Inspections are essential, but the U.S. seems to be paying for what Iran is already obligated by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• Lebanon. Mr. Vance and President Trump are pressuring Israel not to respond to attacks by Iran’s proxy Hezbollah, and on Sunday mediators announced a “deconfliction” mechanism that excludes Israel but includes Iran. This is an abrupt reversal in U.S. policy.
If Israel won’t concede an Iranian right to export terror to a sovereign third country, will Iran close the Strait? Will it expel inspectors? Iran’s regime now has a way to set the U.S. and Israel against each other.
“We don’t have to give the Iranians anything if they don’t make the commitments that we want long term on the nuclear program,” Mr. Vance has said while selling the MOU. Even a few days in, before Iran has made long-term nuclear commitments, that has proved false. When we warned of a bailout for the regime, this is what we had in mind.
The Wall Street Journal (Pay Wall)
We Parsed Trump’s Shifting Rhetoric on the Iran War
President initially said his goal was to dislodge the regime in Tehran, destroy its missile arsenal and curtail its nuclear program. Here’s how his views have changed.
At the start of the U.S. war against Iran, President Trump released a video in which he boldly listed his goals and hopes for the military operation. Trump exhorted Iranian demonstrators to take over their government and vowed to confront the “wicked, radical dictatorship” in Tehran with devastating force.
The U.S., Trump said, would destroy Iran’s missiles and the factories that make them. Iran’s navy would be sunk, and its proxies would be so badly weakened that they could never again pose a threat to the region. Importantly, Iran would no longer have the option of developing a nuclear bomb.
“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people,” Trump said in a video he posted Feb. 28 on Truth Social.
Iran responded by closing the Strait of Hormuz, which is the pathway to 20% of the world’s oil supply, causing gas prices and inflation to rise and the world’s oil reserves to dwindle. It also launched missiles and drones at American forces and U.S. allies across the Middle East.
With the signing last week of a memorandum of understanding opening the strait and setting the stage for nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran, some of Trump’s key objectives have been dropped entirely or shifted. His comments on the nuclear issue have been more consistent.
To understand which of Trump’s views have changed, The Wall Street Journal reviewed his statements before, during and after the war.
Iran’s political future
When Iranian demonstrators took to the streets in January, Trump urged them to wrest control of the government’s institutions and promised that the U.S. would help, though without spelling what assistance might be provided. Trump repeated that encouragement to the regime’s opponents when American and Israeli bombs began to fall.
The Israeli airstrike that opened the military campaign on Feb. 28 killed Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and other high ranking Iranian officials. Khamenei’s son Mojtaba succeeded his father as supreme leader while Masoud Pezeshkian remained as the nation’s president, a post he assumed in July 2024. The influence of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is widely assessed to be greater than ever. That security force, which was established after the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah, has played a pivotal role in training and equipping foreign proxies and in quashing dissent at home.
After four months of war, Trump has described the country’s current leaders as more pragmatic and no longer talks about helping the regime’s opponents.
- January 2026
‘Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!’ — Truth Social Post Jan. 13
- February 2026
‘Finally, to the great, proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations….America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.’ — Video issued on Truth Social Feb. 28
- June 2026
‘They have a new group of leaders. ..I think they’re very smart. I think they’re far less radicalized. ..I think they’re really good. They love their country…Their one set of leaders is all gone, their second set of leaders is all gone. Their third set of leaders, a little bit gone. …Frankly, I think that’s regime change. I think they are going to behave much different.’ — Press conference at G-7 Summit in France, June 17
Unconditional surrender
Trump said at the start of the war that he wouldn’t negotiate a deal with Iran but would insist on Tehran’s unconditional surrender, adding that he hoped to have a role in picking Iran’s next leaders.
Last week, Trump said he agreed on the memorandum of understanding to avert an economic collapse. While Trump didn’t provide details, worldwide oil inventories had been dropping following Iran’s move to close the strait.
- February 2026
‘To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces and all of the police, I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity. Or in the alternative, face certain death.’ — Video issued on Truth Social Feb. 28
- March 2026
‘There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.’ — Truth Social, March 6
- June 2026
‘The one thing I didn’t want to see is I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened. But all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship.’ — Press conference at the G-7 summit in France, June 17
Iran’s missile force, regional proxies and nuclear program
Trump said at the start of the war that the U.S. would destroy Iran’s missiles and its missile factories. Underscoring the point, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that unless the U.S. targeted Iran’s missile capability, Tehran would have such a large conventional arsenal that it would be able to deter the international community from taking action to halt its nuclear efforts.
Trump said the U.S. would eliminate Iran’s navy and air force. Iran’s proxies such as Hezbollah, he said, would be weakened to the point that they couldn’t present a threat to the region.
After months of conflict in which the U.S. battered Iran’s military, Tehran retained thousands of missiles. Last week, Trump said that Iran was entitled to have a missile force like other states in the region. Iran’s missiles won’t be covered under a U.S.-Iran deal. But, Trump said, they can be discussed in a parallel set of discussions involving Iran and Arab Gulf states.
Hezbollah in Lebanon remains a potent militia and has been clashing with Israel. Trump said that the U.S. will talk to Iran about its proxies. The president remains adamant that Iran can’t have a pathway to a nuclear bomb, but much will depend on nuclear negotiations that are expected to begin soon.
- February 2026
‘We’re going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. We’re going to annihilate their navy. We’re going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces.’ — Video issued on Truth Social Feb. 28.
- June 2026
‘They have to have some because other people have some… Missiles aren’t the problem…They hurt a little location, but they don’t blow up the planet….We’ll talk also about the terrorist proxies that they have, that we don’t want that to happen.’ —Press conference at the G-7 summit in France.
Money
Trump blasted former President Barack Obama for providing billions of dollars in sanctions relief as part of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, including $1.7 billion at the start of the agreement to settle a dispute over American arms bought by Tehran before the 1979 revolution that were never delivered.
The current memorandum of understanding states that Iran will be able to sell oil before nuclear negotiations get under way. To facilitate the sales, the U.S. will wave sanctions on those exports and related services, such as shipping and insurance, providing an economic boost for Iran.
An unspecified amount of frozen funds also might be provided for humanitarian purposes under a plan the U.S. is discussing with Qatar as the MOU is implemented. The U.S. will also waive sanctions so at least $300 billion is provided by regional partners for economic development of Iran. Trump has said that none of those funds will come from the U.S., and American officials say this sanctions relief will be tied to progress in implementing a nuclear accord.
- May 2018
‘The deal lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for very weak limits on the regime’s nuclear activity, and no limits at all on its other malign behavior, including its sinister activities in Syria, Yemen, and other places all around the world.’ — Trump statement May 8, 2018, on withdrawing from the 2015 accord.
- June 2026
‘We have taken a lot of their money, and we have their money. We have taken their money, it’s not our money, it’s their money, and we froze it. At a certain point in time I guess we’re going to have to give it back. You know, if we didn’t give it back, nobody would ever invest in the dollar again.’ — Press conference at G-7 Summit in France, June 17.
The Jerusalem Post, Guest Essay
The headlines we didn’t write: Why the crisis with Trump was lost in translation
The backlash to Trump’s ceasefire push reflects a wider crisis: Israel and the West are no longer speaking the same strategic language.
Over the past few days, Israelis have watched US President Donald Trump’s actions with shock, anxiety, and a growing sense of betrayal, wondering: has the American president, who until recently enjoyed record-high approval ratings here, truly turned his back on his most loyal ally so bluntly?
In America and Europe, meanwhile, observers are reacting with an astonishment of their own to the Israeli response: Did you really think you could harness an unpredictable and volatile figure like Trump indefinitely? Did you honestly not see this coming?
As journalists, this is the point where we must admit our failures: this is, first and foremost, a crisis that got lost in translation. Almost three years after October 7, the internal Israeli discourse is so raw and visceral that it has become almost entirely detached from the conversation in the West.
We need to admit the truth: as news editors, we know our readers are traumatized. It is incredibly difficult to make readers, sitting with their families in a bomb shelter after yet another barrage of Iranian missiles, understand, or even care, how the world currently views our ongoing conflict.
But the fact that Israelis are uninterested in hearing how the world sees them does not stop the discussion taking place outside of Israel. Today, the man in the White House is best known for “The Art of the Deal.”
This is not merely a book title; it is a worldview. This is how he and his inner circle approach big problems. Washington’s operating premise is that every conflict is solvable, given sufficient incentives for all sides.
World’s view on Israel’s problems
The world views our problems as a multi-piece puzzle that can be “cracked”: envoys like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner hop from one front to another, closing “deals.”
When the expectation in America and Europe is for a “deal” that will finally quiet the recurring crises of the Middle East, it is clear why Israel is perceived as a stubborn, problematic actor.
Since the October 7 massacre, the Israeli media discourse has been the exact mirror image of this transactional mindset, which in Israel is now associated with the discredited pre-October 7 “conception.”
The prevailing Israeli sentiment today is a deep disdain for any initiative that might be perceived as “rational” or “naive” in the “jungle of the Middle East.”
In-depth polls by research institutes and major political parties gearing up for election campaigns all point to the same diagnosis: the vast majority of Israelis have lost all faith in “arrangements” and the idea that security can be bought through economic and political incentives.
Following the trauma of October 7, the other side is perceived as driven by irredeemable fundamentalist ideology, and any outreach is seen as an act of naivety that will ultimately lead to another disaster.
For the community, it is far easier to look at Israel right now and see a country that has seemingly lost control, unable to restrain itself from within. As Vice President JD Vance said of Israeli critics of a ceasefire: “They offer endless conflict and want it to go on until every bomb drops or every Iranian is dead.”
This is exactly the point that was lost in translation: the world looks at Israel and sees a society stuck in the conflicts of the past, while Israelis look out at the world and see detached leaders trying to solve 21st-century problems using 20th-century agreements.
This gap is revealed not only regarding Trump or Iran. Over the past two years, it has appeared at almost every intersection between Israeli and Western discourse.
One of the most popular topics in the Israeli media in recent years has been the coverage, exaggerated in most cases, of how Western countries are dealing with the terrorist threats of radical Islamist groups.
Alongside genuine concern, there is also a certain grim satisfaction in watching others confront dangers Israelis believe they have been warning about for years.
This is the modern “Cassandra Complex”: Israelis feel like reluctant prophets, offering the world a dire warning of what is to come, yet no one is willing to listen to them or believe them.
This week, this gap blew up in Israelis’ faces, and far too many were surprised. The global discourse barely penetrates the protective shell of most media consumers in Israel, but it dictates the geopolitical reality on the ground.
In our journalistic heshbon nefesh (soul-searching), this issue must take center stage. Just as it is our duty to accurately report on Israel to the outside world, Israelis must also be exposed to the discourse about them taking place in the offices that determine the geopolitical fate of the entire region.
The US and Europe often prefer to view us through a pathological lens, as a traumatized society in need of a responsible adult to impose order. This absolves them of the need for genuine strategic introspection.
But we, too, must ensure that Henry Kissinger’s famous cliché that “Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic politics” remains just an amusing historical anecdote and does not become our political reality. In Trump’s world, those who choose to close their eyes eventually pay the price.
The writer is a journalist, head of the news department and digital editor-in-chief at Maariv.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-900139
U.K. POLITICS (2 articles)
The Wall Street Journal (Pay Wall)
The Forces That Broke the Two-Party System in the U.K.
Britain’s revolving door of prime ministers is spinning faster, opening an opportunity for an unpopular populist to take power; ‘People are fed up’
LONDON—Nigel Farage has never held a position in the British government. As leader of the anti-immigration party Reform UK, he oversees just eight lawmakers in Parliament. Among voters, he has one of the lowest favorability ratings of any politician.
Yet when his upstart party, in May local elections, handed the ruling Labour Party its worst drubbing in the postwar period, it turned Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s own party against him.
A decade after Farage helped orchestrate Brexit, the 62-year-old former commodities trader was positioned to again disrupt the country’s political order.
“If Starmer goes,” he told an aide as the election results rolled in, “that’s the third prime minister I got rid of.”
Starmer resigned Monday. His likely successor, ex-Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, will be the sixth new face at 10 Downing Street in seven years—a revolving door that started a decade ago with the Brexit-induced departures of former Conservative prime ministers David Cameron in 2016 and Theresa May in 2019, and has only sped up, including the seven-week tenure of Liz Truss in 2022.
It’s a remarkable turn of events for a country that has long prided itself on political stability. Between 1945 and 2016, Britain had just 13 prime ministers and power flipped between Labour and the Conservatives.
Now, prime ministers change on average every 14 months, and there are five or six major political parties in England, plus nationalist parties in power in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Reform has spent the past year leading polls at just under 30%, the first time since World War I that any party other than the Tories and Labour has led for so long.
Britain’s merry-go-round of leaders has turned the country into a political laughingstock—the new Italy of Europe—and spooked investors, pushing up government borrowing costs and curbing foreign investment. It has also hampered the government’s ability to deliver key long-term changes in policy, undermining voter trust.
Starmer was elected just two years ago with a promise to end the drama. While never especially popular, the prime minister has seen his ratings crater and Labour’s voter base splinter to a range of parties, including Reform on the right and the eco-populist Greens on the left.
“It’s unprecedented to have extremist parties so strong and the center parties so weak,” says Vernon Bogdanor, a politics professor who has written about British politics since the 1970s. “It’s difficult to see it going away quickly.”
The cigarette-smoking Farage has helped catalyze the upheaval. He has tapped into shifting tides in British politics that look set to prevent any single party from getting too big, making politics inherently more unpredictable.
Farage himself will struggle to get more than 30% of voters, pollsters say, and supporters of other parties might band together to stop him from winning national elections. The recent rise of a new nativist party backed by Elon Musk, called Restore Britain, has siphoned off some support.
But the fragmentation, and a winner-take-all voting system, has given Farage a shot at pulling off what was once unthinkable: an unpopular populist taking power in Britain.
New fault lines
Politics in the U.K. has in the past decade gone from predictable and patrician to utterly maverick, thanks to a historically poor run of economic growth, a surge in immigration, a once-in-a-generation shift in political attitudes—and the blundering response of its two traditional parties.
The 2008 financial crisis ended a long period of heady growth, and the self-inflicted austerity that followed only worsened the downturn. Brexit caused more years of uncertainty and weak investment. Then came the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which caused inflation to spike. Adding insult to injury were a series of political scandals, including raucous drinks parties in Downing Street during pandemic lockdowns.
The upshot: A typical food shop that cost £100 in 2020 costs around £140 today, or $188. Real wages, meanwhile, have broadly flatlined. With an aging population raising costs for everything from welfare to healthcare, the tax burden is at its highest level since World War II.
Immigration skyrocketed under the Tories, even after many Brits voted for Brexit in part to limit the flow of people into the country. One of Labour’s first moves on coming to power after 14 years of Conservative rule was to raise taxes—despite a pre-election pledge it wouldn’t—hurting the economy more. Public services have yet to noticeably improve, with seven million people on waiting lists for routine healthcare.
“People are fed up,” says Ros Connors, who heads a local community radio station in Basildon, in eastern England, and gets an earful from listeners about everything from the cost of living to immigration.
But the fracturing of the British political system also has to do with new fault lines. For decades, politics in the U.K. was largely dictated by class: The working class tended to back Labour and the aspirational middle class and wealthy usually voted Tory.
That left-right distinction began to collapse more than a decade ago, when new divisions emerged on globalization, immigration and social issues, echoing the upheaval that gave rise to Donald Trump in the U.S. and populist leaders across much of Western Europe. Like them, Farage has inserted himself into the gap.
The ‘somewheres’
The atrium in Reform UK’s London headquarters has the words “Family, Community, Country” emblazoned on the wall over a large map of Britain. Inside a glass office, James Orr, a Cambridge theologian who heads the party’s policy team, explains that Reform aims to redefine politics.
“If you’re still looking at us through the prism of left and right, you’re going to be mystified,” he says.
Orr refers to British author David Goodhart’s analysis of how Britain is now split between the “anywheres,” college-educated urbanites who largely benefited from globalization, and the “somewheres,” people who live near where they were born, are often working class and feel alienated by the rapid social changes brought on by trade, technology and mass migration.
“Somewhere” voters have become disconnected from traditional politicians on questions like immigration, climate change and foreign policy, Orr argues.
Reform is pitching a mishmash of policies—plucked from the left and the right—to win them over.
These include a pledge to deport some 600,000 people it says entered Britain illegally and curb legal immigration by levying a fee on employers who hire workers from abroad. While it pledges to trim taxes for the wealthiest, it also backs guaranteed increases to the state pension and keeping the state-run health service.
Orr, who speaks with a crisp posh accent and grew up in Belgium, says he went to lunch recently in London with a top lawyer who quizzed him about Iran, Ukraine and Trump. “I said ‘I’ve not read a word about what’s happening in Iran. In the last nine weeks, I’ve had other things on my mind…. I am a lot more worried about Kent than I am about Kyiv.’”
Since Covid-19 there has been a dramatic shift in the way Brits view their own country, according to British Social Attitudes, an annual survey by the National Centre for Social Research that has tracked public opinion since the 1980s. In 2022, around half of people believed that migrants were good for the economy and enriched cultural life. Last year, following a record influx of migrants, that fell to a third.
After a glut of pandemic government spending, which sent the tax burden soaring, almost 20% of voters now want the government to cut tax and spending, the highest-ever share recorded by the BSA, and up from 6% five years ago. Trust in government to “almost always do the right thing,” meanwhile, has halved to 12%.
Britain is now deeply cleaved between liberals, who are heavily represented in big cities, and social conservatives in suburbs, towns and rural areas, the poll concluded. Unlike the traditional left-right split, where parties win by pitching to the middle ground, these new groups have “significantly different expectations and perceptions,” leaving a smaller middle ground.
Burnham, who seems likely to take power in mid-July, is framing his own Labour agenda to meet shifting attitudes, saying the party has “lost that ability to speak to that working-class ambition” of the postwar generation and needed to champion “those people, those places that have felt neglected for the past 25 years.”
He is pitching a “politics of place” that focuses on giving local authorities more tax money and autonomy to fix problems.
Pub-crawl to power
Blackpool, on the coast of northwest England, is a window into shifting political allegiances. The town, famed for its sprawling seaside resort, is one of Britain’s most deprived urban areas. It has the lowest life expectancy in the country. It overwhelmingly backed Brexit. It voted Tory under Boris Johnson. Then it voted Labour in the last election. Few expect it to do the same at the next.
For the past five years, both Tory and Labour governments have used a picturesque seafront hotel—the faded Metropole—to house hundreds of asylum seekers as they waited for their claims to be processed. The asylum seekers are now being moved out of the hotel, but the episode galvanized voters, leading to sporadic protests, joined on occasion by Farage himself.
Peter Flynn, a 54-year-old local electrician, likens Reform’s rise to the peasants’ revolt in 1381, when a group of disaffected rebels stormed the Tower of London. “That’s what’s happening right now,” he said. “The general people, normal people, are actually getting off their bottoms and doing something.”
Flynn is more active than most. He and a business partner bought the Talbot, a Conservative party social club, and last year gave it a makeover. The two-story brick building was repainted in Reform teal, a large picture of lions wearing Union Jack flags hung on one wall. Management added a new beer called “Remainer Tears,” a nod to those who voted to stay in the European Union, and flyers with Farage’s image saying “Reform Needs You.”
Today it’s the country’s first official Reform pub. There are plans to open another in Kent on the south coast.
Flynn said it was time for Brits to stop blindly voting for the two main parties. “What’s the point of a politician standing on a soap box explaining his situation if all you’re going to do is vote Labour, Labour, Labour, or Conservative, Conservative, Conservative” like your parents did, the former Tory voter said as he sipped a pint.
Unlike London, Blackpool didn’t thrive under globalization. In the 1970s, cheap foreign travel decimated its tourism industry. Bed-and-breakfast hotels turned into cheap boardinghouses, attracting Britain’s sickest and poorest. After the 2008 financial crisis, central government funding was slashed. In real terms, by 2024 Blackpool had about £1,400 less per person to spend on its population than a decade ago.
After Johnson’s election as prime minister in 2019, the town got a considerable pot of cash to spend as part of a general effort to “level up” left-behind parts of the country. The problem is this takes time to trickle down.
Blackpool council is halfway through a £2 billion program to regenerate the town and has taken direct control of a number of tourist attractions, including the local waxworks museum. In the meantime, Blackpool is stuck in a whirlpool, where cheap accommodation draws in people down on their luck, who in turn place huge strain on local government services.
Lynn Williams, the Labour leader of Blackpool Council, says the damaging austerity-era budget cuts were followed by the economic own-goal of Brexit. “And who owns that?” she asked, pointing the finger at Farage.
“Why people are struggling and feel they’ve got no hope is absolutely a consequence of all of those years,” she said.
What isn’t to blame in Blackpool, Williams added, are asylum seekers, who usually leave the city soon after their cases have been heard. They also don’t claim subsidized social housing, contrary to what many locals think, she said.
Williams believes Labour’s best hope to regain voter confidence is replacing Starmer with Burnham. Starmer’s tenure has been hampered by a wooden speaking style and numerous policy U-turns, including a badly communicated plan to trim welfare spending by means-testing a winter heating subsidy for the elderly. Burnham, who is from the north of England, could make the case for Labour with a bit more vigor.
Last week, the former mayor won a special district election to enter Parliament in order to challenge Starmer. His comfortable win, in a district where Reform won recent local elections, burnished his credentials as the right man to take on Farage.
In the Talbot, several patrons said they liked Farage’s straight-talking style and felt the asylum system was unfair on taxpaying Brits.
The government has cut legal immigration sharply over the past two years, but levels are still high by historical standards and tens of thousands of asylum seekers continue to cross the English Channel on dinghies each year—helping drive more voters to Reform.
Farage, however, remains a controversial figure.
Drinking ciders in the corner of the Talbot was a ladies’ darts team from a neighboring pub. Farage, said Sharon Wells, 66, “is a d—head.”
The women, most of whom work for the local government in Blackpool, said they won’t be voting for him, in part because he is too divisive. According to YouGov, 65% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of Farage, a figure just slightly lower than that of Starmer.
A new ‘Basildon Man’
Basildon, a town just east of London in Essex, is getting a taste of what life could be like with Reform in charge. For years, “Basildon Man” was political shorthand for the median swing voter. These Brits, who toiled to get ahead in life, left Labour in the 1980s for the more aspirational Tories under Margaret Thatcher, flipped back for Tony Blair and continued to largely mirror national results in the ensuing years.
During the May local elections, Reform took control of Essex County Council, taking it out of Tory hands for the first time in 25 years.
A Ukrainian flag that had fluttered in front of the council building has been taken down and replaced with a Union Jack. The Lord’s Prayer will be said at the start of council meetings and “God Save the King” sung at their conclusion. Public libraries have been instructed not to promote events such as gay pride and Black History Month.
Reform is reviewing planned council expenditure on climate policies including home insulation and electric-vehicle charging points. It’s promised to cut wasteful local government spending to help ensure residents’ council tax doesn’t rise more.
“It feels to me like Reform is something that the electorate needs to get out of their system,” said Barnes. He wouldn’t be surprised if the party plays a role in the next government when national elections are held in 2029.
Outside the Basildon council office, Tony Hall, a 70-year-old stall owner, said he was ready to give Farage a go. “We have been invaded…. A whole way of life has changed,” he said.
When he recently went to his local pub, the Beehive, Hall said, he no longer recognized most of the patrons.
“It has all changed too fast.”
Le Figaro, Interview
« La Grande-Bretagne est en ébullition car elle a énormément changé » : l’évolution des prénoms britanniques analysée par Jérôme Fourquet
ENTRETIEN – Dix ans après le référendum sur le Brexit, et alors que le premier ministre Keir Starmer vient de présenter sa démission, le sondeur* a passé au crible l’évolution des prénoms en Angleterre et au pays de Galles depuis 1996. Une étude qui met en évidence les transformations profondes de la société britannique.
* Directeur du département opinion et stratégies d’entreprise de l’Ifop, Jérôme Fourquet a notamment publié « Métamorphoses françaises » (Seuil, 2024). Il présente une nouvelle émission pour Le Figaro TV, «La France de Fourquet» .
LE FIGARO. – Le Royaume-Uni traverse une crise politique majeure, avec la démission de Keir Starmer et la multiplication des manifestations anti-immigration, en Angleterre puis en Irlande du Nord. Est-ce aussi une crise culturelle ?
JÉRÔME FOURQUET. – Depuis le référendum sur le Brexit il y a dix ans, la Grande-Bretagne traverse une crise politique larvée, marquée par des tensions identitaires. Jusqu’à présent, le mode de scrutin avait assuré une grande stabilité du paysage politique britannique, avec deux forces ultra-dominantes, le Labour et les tories, puis une force d’appoint, les libéraux. Depuis quelques années, malgré ce mode de scrutin, le parti de Nigel Farage est venu « disrupter » le paysage politique. De l’autre côté de l’échiquier, les écolos sont montés en puissance sur une ligne assez proche de celle de l’aile gauche des démocrates américains ou de LFI en France. Cette instabilité politique et ces bouleversements électoraux sont le résultat de transformations très profondes de la société britannique, que sont venues souligner ces dernières semaines les émeutes contre l’immigration. La Grande-Bretagne est en ébullition parce qu’elle a énormément changé.
Pour comprendre ces changements, vous avez analysé l’évolution des prénoms donnés en Angleterre et au pays de Galles depuis 1996. Que disent ces prénoms de l’évolution culturelle et religieuse du pays ?
La question migratoire est éminemment sensible en Grande-Bretagne. Elle a été un des ferments du vote pour le Brexit. Et le slogan des Brexiteurs était : « Take back control ». Or, on voit à l’aune des prénoms les mutations démographiques tout à fait substantielles qui se sont opérées ces dernières années. On est passé de 5 % de nouveau-nés qui recevaient un prénom arabo-musulman en 1996 à 15 % aujourd’hui. De manière encore plus emblématique, le prénom Muhammad est devenu le prénom masculin le plus donné en Angleterre et au pays de Galles en 2024. Il était 108e en 1996. Le prénom Muhammad représente à peu près 23 % de l’ensemble des naissances recevant un prénom arabo-musulman masculin, ce qui est un marqueur de religiosité de cette population musulmane. En l’espace de vingt-cinq ans, le Royaume-Uni a connu une très forte croissance de la population de culture musulmane issue, pour l’essentiel, du sous-continent indien. Tout cela n’est pas sans poser des questions qu’on connaît ici aussi en France, sur l’intégration, l’assimilation et la cohésion du pays.
À l’inverse, le prénom Mary a fortement chuté depuis 1996. Cela illustre-t-il l’affaiblissement de la matrice chrétienne dans le choix de prénom ?
La population britannique dans son ensemble est sortie de ce référentiel religieux. Mary est passée du prénom féminin le plus donné en 1900 au 337e rang en 2024. Il représente aujourd’hui 0,2 % des prénoms féminins donnés, soit le même pourcentage qu’en France. On observe aussi une inflation très spectaculaire du nombre de prénoms différents, qui se nourrit à la fois des phénomènes migratoires et du processus, encore plus puissant, d’individualisation des sociétés occidentales. On va vouloir singulariser son enfant, lui donner un prénom hors norme ou très spécifique, quitte à l’inventer.
La Couronne britannique n’est pas non plus prescriptrice en termes de prénoms…
Manifestement, la Couronne n’a pas d’influence sur les prénoms qui sont donnés, puisque le prénom du prince puis roi Charles n’a cessé de décliner au cours des vingt-cinq dernières années. Et ni son mariage ni son couronnement n’ont eu d’effet. Ses fils ne font pas beaucoup mieux. Le prénom Harry a connu un pic dans les années 2010 à une époque où il était assez bien vu et s’était engagé dans l’armée britannique. Mais c’était aussi les grandes années de la saga Harry Potter, peut être une autre source de prescription ! Depuis le début de sa relation avec Meghan Markle, la mode n’est plus du tout au Harry. Aujourd’hui, on est quasiment au même niveau entre Harry et William. On dit de William qu’il est populaire, mais l’engouement des Britanniques pour leur famille royale ne va pas jusqu’à prénommer leurs enfants en hommage à leur monarque ou à un membre de la famille princière. Le prénom Kate a également poursuivi sa tendance baissière, sans rebond au moment du mariage du prince William.
Il n’y a pas eu d’effet Brexit sur les prénoms, comme si le culturel et le sociétal menaient la danse et la politique se contentait de suivre. Le Brexit n’a été que la résultante de transformations ou de tensions préexistantes
À l’inverse, des prénoms de pop stars peuvent être beaucoup plus sujets à un engouement populaire. C’est le cas par exemple de Victoria, qui fut aussi une grande reine britannique, mais est redevenu très à la mode dans les années 1996, 1998, au moment de l’engouement autour des Spice Girls et de Victoria Beckham. Les Britanniques s’inspirent plus de la pop culture et des pop stars que de la famille royale pour choisir les prénoms de leurs enfants.
Beaucoup ont analysé le Brexit comme un moment de repli identitaire. Or vous observez que le pays suit les mêmes effets de mode que les États-Unis et parfois que la France…
La Grande-Bretagne s’est complètement globalisée. C’était historiquement une puissance impériale, donc il y a toujours eu une dimension mondiale, mais c’était elle qui se projetait à l’extérieur. Aujourd’hui, comme d’autres pays, la Grande-Bretagne est traversée par des influences culturelles étrangères. La fameuse anglosphère est encore plus puissante aujourd’hui avec les réseaux sociaux. Toute la production de contenus, de chansons, de vidéos, de textes, de prises de position sur les réseaux sociaux, se fait de manière synchrone entre les États-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne. Quand il y a des effets de mode autour de prénoms aux États-Unis, on les retrouve de manière concomitante ou avec un petit temps d’écart de ce côté-ci de l’Atlantique. Ça marche dans les deux sens : par exemple le prénom Isla a d’abord été à la mode en Grande-Bretagne avant de franchir l’Atlantique. À l’inverse, le prénom Lily a d’abord décollé aux États-Unis avant de se propager en Grande-Bretagne. On a constaté également que certains prénoms populaires en France, avec un petit temps de retard, franchissaient la Manche. C’est le cas par exemple de Noah ou Arthur. À l’aune de ces exemples, on voit que cette Grande-Bretagne si jalouse de son indépendance et de son insularité est quand même très insérée dans une globalisation culturelle.
Parler de Royaume-Uni archipellisé serait un pléonasme, mais le phénomène de fragmentation s’est-il accru, y compris au niveau des identités régionales ? Y a-t-il eu un effet Brexit sur les prénoms ?
Il n’y a pas eu d’effet Brexit sur les prénoms, comme si le culturel et le sociétal menaient la danse et la politique se contentait de suivre. Le Brexit n’a été que la résultante de transformations ou de tensions préexistantes. En ce qui concerne l’archipel britannique, son référentiel culturel est très globalisé, mais certaines parties du territoire sont jalouses de leurs spécificités culturelles. On l’observe au pays de Galles, avec 12,5 % de nouveau-nés portant un prénom gallois en 2024. C’est une survivance des identités locales face à la globalisation culturelle, aux modes continentales qui se propagent, et à l’immigration. Tout cela donne une nation très composite, qui a beaucoup changé. Dans ce cadre-là, il était illusoire de penser que les tories et les travaillistes allaient continuer leur partie de ping-pong sans que rien ne bouge. Le Brexit a été un coup de tonnerre, mais ce n’était pas un coup de tonnerre dans un ciel serein. En profondeur, les plaques tectoniques travaillaient et ce pays, comme le nôtre, s’est considérablement transformé en quelques décennies seulement.
FRENCH POLITICS (4 articles)
L’Express, Editorial
Finances publiques : les leçons de la crise budgétaire grecque pour la France
L’édito de la semaine. Notre pays est incapable de s’auto-administrer la cure indispensable pour enrayer l’hémorragie des dépenses publiques. Comme la Grèce il y a vingt ans…
96 ans, Jean-Pierre Fourcade fait partie de l’histoire de France. Cet ancien ministre de l’Economie de Valéry Giscard d’Estaing fut, en 1974, le dernier responsable politique français à présenter – et exécuter – un budget à l’équilibre. Les 25 grands argentiers qui lui ont succédé n’y sont jamais parvenus. Et pourtant, le Premier ministre Sébastien Lecornu y croit. Non pas à revenir à un solde zéro – ne rêvons pas, surtout après le déficit abyssal de 5,1 % de l’an dernier – mais plutôt à remettre de l’ordre dans des comptes publics particulièrement malmenés ces dernières années.
Il y a urgence : le budget de 2027 est déjà dans les cartons et, pour l’heure, le chef du gouvernement s’emploie à calmer les ardeurs de ses ministres dépensiers. Des demandes irréalistes, a-t-il cinglé, en évoquant les 30 milliards d’euros supplémentaires réclamés. Confronté à des nouvelles dépenses incompressibles (6 milliards de plus pour la programmation militaire, 8 pour la charge de la dette), l’hôte de Matignon veut réintroduire de la rationalité dans le budget.
Peut-il y arriver, alors que les aléas géopolitiques se traduisent par une succession de douches écossaises sur la conjoncture et que les coûts d’emprunt s’envolent ? Sans compter l’irresponsabilité collective des députés. Le contexte, à quelques mois de la présidentielle, n’aide pas : la campagne va engendrer, hélas, un catalogue de promesses coûteuses : : il faudrait être masochiste pour réclamer aux Français du sang et des larmes.
C’est ainsi qu’évolue notre pays. Incapable de s’auto-administrer la cure indispensable pour enrayer l’hémorragie des dépenses publiques. D’autres pays l’ont fait, à l’instar du Portugal ou de la Grèce. C’est donc possible. Idem en Allemagne, quand notre voisin a dû, il y a un quart de siècle, digérer le coût de la réunification : sous l’impulsion du chancelier Schroeder, les boulons budgétaires ont été resserrés. En France, jamais. Ou plutôt : jamais suffisamment. Certains songent à instaurer une année blanche, en écartant toute revalorisation des dépenses : efficace (7 milliards d’économies à la clé), ce remède fait l’unanimité contre lui.
Côté réformes structurelles, il est urgent de maîtriser l’explosion de nos dépenses de santé (déficit supérieur à 20 milliards en 2026), en limitant les remboursements et en contrôlant les arrêts maladies. Des options préconisées par l’exécutif. Mais une épée de Damoclès pèse sur le gouvernement : trop de sérieux budgétaire menace de tuer dans l’œuf la prochaine loi des finances. Or sans budget voté, a déjà prévenu Sébastien Lecornu, le déficit risque de s’envoler entre 6 et 7 % du PIB. En Grèce, il y a vingt ans, le trou des finances publiques atteignait 5,95 % du PIB, un niveau proche de celui de la France aujourd’hui. Devenu incontrôlable, le déficit grec dépassait trois ans plus tard les 15 %, précipitant le pays dans une méga crise financière. Avis aux Français…
Contrepoints
Enfin, les Français n’ont plus confiance en l’État-providence
Les trois quarts des Français pensent que les systèmes publics de protection sociale (retraite, chômage, maladie, dépendance) vont se dégrader dans les années qui viennent. Et 60% estiment que le système actuel de retraite par répartition sera incapable de leur donner une pension suffisante.
Tels sont les chiffres chocs qui ressortent de l’enquête menée par YouGov pour le courtier Meilleurtaux. Cela pourrait expliquer pourquoi ces mêmes Français, dans d’autres enquêtes, restent largement opposés au recul de l’âge de départ à la retraite. A quoi bon, en effet, travailler plus longtemps si c’est pour cotiser en pure perte à un système en faillite ? Cela explique aussi sûrement pourquoi le taux d’épargne des Français est aussi élevé (20%) aujourd’hui. Ils préfèrent, comme l’a dit Thomas Vandeville, le PDG de Meilleurtaux, sur franceinfo, « prendre en main leur avenir financier de manière extrêmement proactive ». Ainsi, 54% des sondés estiment qu’il leur revient de préparer leur retraite.
La défiance de nos compatriotes vis-à-vis de l’État-providence ne se limite pas aux retraites : 58% pensent que l’Assurance maladie ne sera plus capable de prendre en charge correctement leurs dépenses de santé. Comment leur donner tort ? Le gouvernement n’est-il pas en train de préparer de nouveaux déremboursements et l’augmentation du ticket modérateur ? Bref, de transférer de nouvelles dépenses vers les assurés et les complémentaires qui n’auront alors pas d’autre choix que d’augmenter les cotisations des mêmes assurés. On comprend qu’ils soient de plus en plus nombreux à se détourner des contrats dits « responsables ». A 80 ans, la Sécurité sociale est décidément bien fatiguée. Elle devrait passer la main.
Notons, par ailleurs, que l’Éducation nationale est également remise en cause. La moitié des sondés anticipe une dégradation du système et la nécessité de se tourner vers le secteur privé, ce qui devrait générer une hausse des coûts de scolarité.
La bonne nouvelle dans tout cela, c’est que les libéraux ont des solutions éprouvées : retraite par capitalisation, assurances maladie privées, chèque-éducation…
Souhaitons maintenant qu’un candidat à l’élection présidentielle s’en empare et sache y faire adhérer les Français. C’est le moment : ils sont en train de comprendre que l’État est « cette grande fiction sociale à travers laquelle chacun essaie de vivre aux dépens de tous les autres » (Bastiat).
https://contrepoints.org/enfin-les-francais-nont-plus-confiance-en-letat-providence/
Le Monde, Editorial
« Le caractère inédit de la fin de règne d’Emmanuel Macron à la présidence de la République complique la tâche de ceux qui prétendent lui succéder »
La dissolution de l’Assemblée nationale en 2024 a eu des effets délétères sur le fonctionnement de la vie politique, mais elle n’a pas eu raison du chef de l’Etat, qui continue de démontrer sa capacité à affronter les crises, relève Françoise Fressoz, éditorialiste au « Monde », dans sa chronique.
Qui se souvient encore du climat délétère qui régnait après la funeste dissolution de l’Assemblée nationale, en juin 2024 ? Dans la foulée d’élections européennes aux résultats catastrophiques pour son camp, Emmanuel Macron avait tenté un coup de poker pour reprendre la main sans même s’entourer de la précaution de prévenir les siens ni de les mobiliser. Cette décision allait conduire à un Hémicycle sans majorité, un exécutif en plein désarroi et un président de la République tellement affaibli que ses opposants les plus irréductibles n’étaient plus les seuls à miser sur le coup de balai. Une partie des prétendants à la succession demandaient eux aussi qu’il s’en aille.
Deux années plus tard, Emmanuel Macron fait plus que résister. Il frémit encore. La présidence du sommet du G7 qu’il a assurée à Evian-les-Bains (Haute-Savoie), du 15 au 17 juin, et qu’il a prolongée par un dîner à Versailles avec le président des Etats-Unis, Donald Trump, résume ce qui fait à la fois la force et la faiblesse de ce jeune chef de l’Etat, élu à l’âge de 39 ans et obligé de s’effacer, dix ans plus tard, en 2027, en raison des règles fixées par la révision constitutionnelle de 2008.
Même au plus bas, l’ancien banquier de chez Rothschild n’a jamais renoncé à se battre en utilisant toutes les armes du soft power français, y compris les plus urticantes, comme le château de Versailles, symbole de la monarchie absolue sous Louis XIV et de la haine déclenchée par celui qui l’occupe sous Louis XVI. Et quand, le 18 juin, sur France 2, la journaliste Caroline Roux l’interpelle sur les aspects négatifs de son bilan – le chômage qui repart à la hausse, la réforme des retraites à moitié abandonnée et l’endettement record qui menace de précipiter le pays dans la relégation sans un effort substantiel de redressement –, Emmanuel Macron contre-attaque avec vigueur.
Le président de la République plaide notamment avoir été visionnaire sur un certain nombre de sujets auxquels les Français n’étaient pas spontanément préparés : la défense de la souveraineté, la nécessité de travailler et d’investir davantage ou celle de soigner inlassablement l’attractivité du pays dans une économie ouverte aux quatre vents.
Dans son livre Alerte sur la France qui vient (Ed. de l’Observatoire, 288 pages, 22 euros), le président du MoDem, François Bayrou, qui se décrit comme un « allié » et non un « dépendant », dresse le portrait de ce président hors norme, qui aura finalement évité les fins de règne crépusculaires vécues par nombre de ses prédécesseurs – Charles de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, François Mitterrand ou Jacques Chirac. Emmanuel Macron le doit non seulement au dynamisme lié à son âge, mais également à sa compétence. « Il est à la hauteur… Nous n’avons jamais eu honte », fait notamment valoir l’ancien premier ministre qui purge, par l’écriture, son passage mouvementé à Matignon entre décembre 2024 et septembre 2025, en mettant notamment en lumière le rôle joué par Emmanuel Macron sur la scène européenne et mondiale durant un double mandat traversé par les crises.
Cela ne l’empêche pas de constater dans le même temps l’ampleur des « réactions violentes de rejet » suscité par le même personnage parce qu’il est « trop » : « trop chanceux, trop jeune, trop séduisant ou séducteur, trop couronné par la fortune, trop précoce en tout… donc exaspérant. » Le tout se solde par une popularité de l’ordre de 25 % qui reste faible sans être pour autant invalidante et par la résilience d’un camp, le centre macronien, constitué en 2017 sur les décombres d’une gauche et d’une droite de gouvernement au plus mal et qui ne se sont, depuis, jamais remises.
Succession compliquée
Le caractère inédit de cette fin de règne complique la tâche de ceux qui prétendent succéder à Emmanuel Macron : le président du parti Les Républicains, Bruno Retailleau, se présente comme « le candidat du sursaut » en assurant qu’« après dix ans d’En marche, plus rien ne marche » (réunion publique du 20 juin à Paris). Il oublie de reconnaître qu’une bonne part de sa popularité vient de la période durant laquelle il a occupé des responsabilités ministérielles sous la présidence Macron.
Le 7 octobre 2025, Edouard Philippe avait appelé, au nom de l’intérêt du pays, à la démission du chef de l’Etat sous peine de condamner la France à l’arrêt entre la dissolution de l’Assemblée de 2024 et l’élection présidentielle de 2027. Le président du parti Horizons a été obligé de rectifier partiellement le tir en proclamant, dans La Tribune Dimanche du 21 juin que « le problème n’[était] pas de rompre ou de ne pas rompre, mais de faire ».
Gabriel Attal avait cru pouvoir s’introniser comme héritier naturel en prenant la tête du parti présidentiel, Renaissance, le 8 décembre 2024. Or, l’ancien premier ministre est bien obligé de constater qu’étant donné l’âge du président et du peu d’estime que celui-ci lui porte, Emmanuel Macron risque de compter encore dans les années à venir, même si personne, à commencer par l’intéressé, ne sait s’il sera en situation de revenir.
Le débat autour de l’héritage se complique du fait que jamais le Rassemblement national n’est apparu si proche des portes du pouvoir. Tout un procès en responsabilité risque de s’ouvrir au cas où la dynamique ininterrompue créée par Marine Le Pen depuis 2012 et relayée, depuis, par le président du parti, Jordan Bardella, déboucherait sur un basculement du pays à l’extrême droite.
Emmanuel Macron aura beau jeu de plaider qu’il a été celui qui a battu à deux reprises la candidate d’extrême droite au second tour d’une l’élection présidentielle. Ceux qui guignent sa place seront tentés de rejeter la responsabilité du séisme sur la coupure entre le peuple et l’élite dont le président sortant est devenu le symbole. Le paradoxe d’Emmanuel Macron reste, à cet égard, entier. Il a été élu, en 2017, en misant sur l’ampleur d’une crise politique que les gouvernants n’avaient pas voulu reconnaître. Il a cependant été incapable, neuf ans plus tard, d’y apporter des solutions satisfaisantes.
Contrepoints
Institutions : le discours gaullo-souveraino-libéral de David Lisnard
Le maire de Cannes et candidat à l’élection présidentielle a dévoilé à Bayeux ses propositions de réforme constitutionnelle.
Déroulant progressivement son programme présidentiel, David Lisnard a choisi un lieu et une date symboliques : Bayeux, le 17 juin. C’est dans cette ville du Calvados que le général de Gaulle, le 16 juin 1946, a dit tout le mal qu’il pensait du projet de Constitution de 1946 et a dessiné un cadre de bonnes institutions qui préfigurait le texte fondateur de la Ve République. David Lisnard s’est tiré avec beaucoup d’élégance de cet exercice, que le contexte historique aurait pu rendre un peu délicat. Il a navigué avec habileté entre plusieurs écueils.
Les propositions de révision constitutionnelle
Il a entamé son discours en affirmant que rien ne serait possible sans une refondation de nos institutions. Elles auraient selon lui été doublement dévoyées, par des révisions successives et par des décisions de jurisprudence tant françaises que communautaires et européennes. Il n’a cependant pas fait mention d’un autre dévoiement, dû à la pratique gaullienne des institutions. Car si le président de la République a acquis tant de pouvoir, il le doit à l’inflexion donnée dès 1959 par le général de Gaulle et acceptée à contrecœur par son fidèle Premier ministre, Michel Debré. Le pompidolien Lisnard loue la République gaullienne, estimant qu’avec les institutions de 1958, l’Etat a été « rendu à ses missions premières », ce qui est une interprétation libérale très large libre de l’interventionnisme gaullien… Rappelons que la France était déjà dans les années 1960 l’un des pays les plus interventionnistes et les plus fiscalisés qui soient, selon les proportions de l’époque bien entendu car nous aimerions bien avoir aujourd’hui le taux de prélèvements obligatoires de la France d’alors…
Le président de Nouvelle Energie a ensuite rappelé les vertus de l’Etat de droit, justement qualifié de « bouclier de l’individu contre l’arbitraire », par opposition à un « droit fabriqué au-dessus du peuple », entre autres par le Conseil constitutionnel ou la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.
Il a formulé de nombreuses propositions, par exemple rétablir le septennat, « rendre la parole au peuple » par la voie du référendum présidentiel de l’article 11, « remettre le Conseil constitutionnel à sa place », supprimer le principe de précaution et le remplacer par un principe de responsabilité, faire approuver les nominations aux plus hauts postes par une majorité qualifiée de l’Assemblée nationale, réviser l’article 55 (relatif aux traités et accords internationaux) donnant la primauté au droit français.
Les interrogations subsistantes
Nous avons particulièrement apprécié que David Lisnard insiste sur la subsidiarité, dont le socle serait la commune, et l’on connaît tout son attachement à ces deux termes ; tout comme nous avons adhéré à sa détermination en faveur d’un président qui préside et d’un gouvernement qui gouverne. Mais nous avouons notre perplexité quant à une Assemblée nationale qui légifèrerait : d’abord parce que le Sénat n’y est pas associé, rélégué à l’évaluation des politiques publiques, alors même que le bicamérisme effectif est une garantie pour refroidir les passions de la chambre basse ; ensuite parce qu’il y a bien longtemps, même si certains s’en lamentent, que dans les régimes parlementaires, une fonction gouvernante dirigée par l’exécutif et englobant le législatif a remplacé la traditionnelle fonction législative.
La volonté d’un retour à un chef de l’État exerçant ses misions dévolues par l’article 5 (qui donne la liste de ses grandes missions) nous semble fort opportune, mais nous nous interrogeons : l’accroissement prévisible des pouvoirs du président par le truchement d’un article 11 (relatif au référendum) élargi à toutes les domaines législatifs et permettant une révision constitutionnelle en court-circuitant l’article 89 (article unique du titre consacré à la révision de la Constitution) n’est-il pas de nature à consolider un président tout-puissant, à rebours de l’intention affichée ? Et comment les conflits de légitimité entre le chef de l’État et l’Assemblée nationale seront-ils tranchés en pratique ?
Quoi qu’il en soit, nous saluons le courage de David Lisnard d’en revenir à l’idée fondatrice de nos institutions : la dyarchie (président/Premier ministre), une dyarchie que le général de Gaulle avait ensuite explicitement et vertement empêchée d’exister… Or, l’une des singularités originelles de la Constitution de 1958 provient justement de l’existence d’un attelage entre, d’une part, un chef de l’État versé dans les questions internationales et titulaire d’un pouvoir d’intervention en cas de crise et, d’autre part, un Premier ministre ayant pour l’essentiel des pouvoirs liés aux questions internes. Un partage délicat, avec une zone grise à dominante présidentielle s’agissant de l’armée et des relations extérieures, passé par pertes et profits, hormis les périodes dites de cohabitation sous François Mitterrand et Jacques Chirac, lorsque notre régime est devenu quasiment une exception mondiale avec un régime parlementaire à présidence forte.
David Lisnard a opportunément marqué son attachement à l’État de droit et au libéralisme par sa volonté de resserrer l’Etat dans ses attributions régaliennes. Mais son insistance à « redonner la parole au peuple » pour remettre tous les juges à leur place sur fond de souveraineté nationale amène à se demander qui nous protègera du « peuple », en pratique de la volonté exprimée par une majorité des votants à un moment donné ? Or, le constitutionnalisme libéral est fondé sur l’idée que la démocratie pure est si dangereuse qu’il a fallu lui opposer de strictes limites. C’est ce que l’on a appelé la démocratie libérale. L’extension inconsidérée du champ référendaire et la bascule dans une sorte de démocratie référendaire risquent d’amplifier le domaine du politique, donc de réduire encore plus la sphère de la société civile.
Et qu’adviendra-t-il du respect de la Constitution si la loi directement votée par le peuple, et comme telle expression de la volonté populaire, ne peut être contrôlée ? Il ne faudrait pas jeter le Conseil constitutionnel, si imparfait fût-il, avec l’eau du bain.
N’oublions pas que, lorsque l’on bâtit une Constitution ou qu’on la réforme, il ne faut pas tant avoir à l’esprit ce qu’une personne de bonne volonté pourrait en faire que ce qu’une personne dangereuse pourrait en tirer…
https://contrepoints.org/institutions-le-discours-gaullo-souveraino-liberal-de-david-lisnard/
RUSSIA’S ECONOMY AFTER 4 YEARS OF WAR
The Economist (Pay Wall)
Here we go again : Russia’s war economy has problems—but is not about to crash
Vladimir Putin is still able to fund his aggression
IS THIS IT, finally? After four years of sanctions-busting growth, a growing chorus of think-tank economists is calling time on Russia’s war economy. A new report published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy argues that Russia now faces “structural exhaustion”. Charles Hecker of the Royal United Services Institute reckons that “Russia is probably already in recession”. Nigel Gould-Davies of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, one more, talks of “the coming crisis in Russia’s political economy”. Even Russian official figures point to GDP shrinking by 0.2% in the first quarter, year on year.
Since invading Ukraine in early 2022 Vladimir Putin’s Russia has thumbed its nose at those who have repeatedly predicted economic doom, defying Western sanctions by reorienting trade towards countries like China and India, and spending its ample fiscal reserves on the armed forces, infrastructure and social benefits. Between 2022 and 2025 Russia’s GDP per person, adjusting for inflation, rose by 12%—not impressive by the standards of other emerging markets like China or India, and flattered by defence production that does not benefit households, but not bad when compared with the dire predictions. Despite fresh strains, the country’s war economy is not about to collapse.
Start with the weak official statistics. These are, in large part, a statistical mirage. A rise in value-added tax (VAT) in January, from 20% to 22%, had encouraged Russians to make lots of purchases in late 2025, boosting that quarter’s growth at the expense of the next. Early 2026 also had fewer working days than a year earlier, and—even by Russian standards—grim weather. A potentially cleaner gauge of economic activity, produced by Goldman Sachs, is consistent with sluggish growth but no slump (see chart 1). Data from VEB, another bank, points to an acceleration in GDP in March and April, in part thanks to a surge in oil prices. Russia is almost certainly not in recession.
Elsewhere, the picture is mixed. Consumer confidence has slipped, according to a measure tracked by the Levada Centre, an independent pollster. But that was from close to an all-time high (see chart 2). Jobs may be a little harder to come by than a year or two ago, yet unemployment remains close to a record low of around 2%. Russia is finding it harder to export fossil fuels, the lifeblood of its economy, as Ukraine ramps up attacks on its energy infrastructure, even as oil prices have crashed from the highs they hit during the Iran war. Even so, overall goods exports in April (the latest available official figures) were slightly higher than in the previous year.
In other ways the economy is actually improving. Inflation is half its recent peak of more than 10%. Real wages, already 25% higher than in 2019, continue to rise. Many companies are doing just fine. In the first five months of 2026 Aeroflot, the national carrier, carried its passengers on journeys totalling 40bn kilometres, nearly a tenth higher than the same period of the year before. Oligarchs are evidently doing even better. Sales of luxury cars smuggled from the West are soaring; so far this year they have bought 80% more Lamborghinis than in 2025.
It is true that this resilience owes a lot to Russia’s heavy fiscal stimulus. Last year the government spent the equivalent of 7-8% of GDP on the armed forces. This enormous outlay, those who foresee a crisis argue, sucks manpower from the rest of the economy, as well as draining the government’s finances.
Perhaps. Yet Russia’s military splurge represents an increase of 3-4% of GDP from the pre-war norm—not nothing but not enough to have enormous knock-on effects. The civilian economy is treading water, rather than contracting.
Russia’s fiscal problems, meanwhile, are not yet acute. To pay for Mr Putin’s war the government can increase taxes, as it recently did with VAT. It can fund any remaining shortfall—currently around 3% of GDP—by drawing on the government’s rainy-day funds. It can borrow from the captive domestic market. At a pinch, Mr Putin’s financiers can raid the rouble deposits held by corporations and households. This would be a last resort with real knock-on consequences. But who would stop them?
All things considered, Russia can expect GDP growth of around 1% this year: about as good as France or Canada. Tougher sanctions, such as those unveiled by Britain on June 16th, may cut this growth a bit. So will oil prices, if they continue to fall, and Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil infrastructure escalate. But it would take something much more radical to keep Mr Putin’s war economy from trundling along. ■
POLITICS AND RELIGION: JD VANCE
The Wall Street Journal, Commentary (Pay Wall)
JD Vance’s Faith-Based Ambition
Like the vice president’s religious beliefs, his politics seem rather too conveniently flexible.
The path to Rome is well-trodden. Converts to Catholicism have been among the most important contributors to the church’s evangelism. In the English-speaking world, the works of St. John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day and others have greatly enriched the intellectual heritage of Catholic life.
The path is still crowded. In recent years it has been followed by Protestants discouraged by the more milquetoast denominations’ teachings and attracted to the harder-edged contours of Roman orthodoxy. In an age of political zealotry, often underpinned by religious self-righteousness, a cradle Catholic can’t help but wonder about the motivation of some of these new members of the flock. You get the impression that for some it’s less about converting themselves to Rome than about converting Rome to them, supplying a more robust vehicle for their unchanging ideas.
My favorite literary example of a cynical attempt at a Catholic conversion is from “Brideshead Revisited,” Evelyn Waugh’s novel of the redeeming grace of God’s love for those who seek him and even those who don’t.
Rex Mottram is a ruthlessly ambitious man. Canadian by birth, a successful business career behind him, he moves to Britain to advance quickly in interwar high society and achieve political preferment. He plans to marry Lady Julia Flyte, a beautiful scion of Catholic nobility, to cement his credentials in conservative circles. He must convert to Catholicism to marry and is sent for instruction to a leading Jesuit priest.
Mottram is eager to please but theologically incurious and shows no interest or aptitude for the faith. Later, recounting his fruitless sessions with his hopeless catechumen, Father Mowbray tells the matriarch how he tried to explain to Mottram the concept of papal infallibility:
“I asked him: ‘Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said “It’s going to rain,” would that be bound to happen?’ ‘Oh, yes, Father.’ ‘But supposing it didn’t?’ He thought a moment and said, ‘I suppose it would be sort of raining spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it.’ ”
JD Vance is far too clever to misgrasp Catholic teaching so entertainingly. In this setting, he’d probably lecture the Jesuit on the evolution of papal authority and explain the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in perfect Yale Law School language.
But there is still something of Rex Mottram about the vice president. No one should doubt the sincerity of his faith. But it isn’t unreasonable, given his long, meandering, ideological and political journey, to wonder about the sincerity of this latest departure in his mental odyssey.
In his newly published book, “Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith,” a second memoir after the bestselling “Hillbilly Elegy,” Mr. Vance chronicles how he went from evangelical Christian to militant atheist to Catholic.
To lifelong Catholics, the zeal of the fresh convert can be a little unnerving. More steeped in the scriptural and doctrinal strictures than the rest of us, they sometimes seem to have overlooked the simplest of the church’s—and Christ’s—injunctions, on matters like love, mercy and charity. They can opine at length on Augustinian ensoulment and its relevance to abortion law or how the Thomist interpretation of the ordo amoris sanctions immigration restrictionism. But somewhere along the way a Beatitude or two got lost in the dogma.
Mr. Vance knows this and tries to correct it. He seems to have in mind Catholic social-justice teaching when he makes the case for a Christian approach to running the economy more fairly, and he works hard to reconcile the harsher elements of the populist nationalism he espouses with the ideals of the universal church on issues such as immigration and war and peace. Perhaps it is a zeal for peacemaking that has given him a prominent role in the Trump administration’s controversial proposal to end the war with Iran.
But the tensions are never far below the surface. This newly minted Catholic seemed to think it was fine to tell Pope Leo XIV that he needs to work harder on his theology. He expresses remorse for some of his less charitable rhetorical flights on his political journey, but he seems less contrite than concerned about the political effects. You have the sense that whenever his newly Catholic conscience is in conflict with his political priorities, it isn’t really a contest. Politics wins every time.
Waugh’s Mottram, by the way, was an opportunistic careerist who “flirted with communism and fascism” and ended up as a populist demagogue.
But there’s another moment in English literature that elegantly captures the Vance problem. In a scene in Robert Bolt’s “A Man for All Seasons,” St. Thomas More upbraids his future son-in-law Will Roper, a fierce partisan in the religious wars of the time, whose position on the Reformation shifts almost as much as Mr. Vance’s.
“Two years ago you were a passionate churchman,” More says. “Now you’re a passionate Lutheran. We must just pray that when your head’s finished turning your face is to the front again.”
That’s a prayer for Mr. Vance and his evolving beliefs that all of us, Catholic, or not, surely endorse.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jd-vances-faith-based-ambition-022f7388?mod=opinion_lead_pos6
CULTURE WARS AND THE MEDIA
| The Wall Street Journal (Pay Wall) |
At the New York Times, the Culture War Never Ends
Father’s Day is one more opportunity to promote transgender ideology.
There are billions of men on the planet. But this Father’s Day the New York Times chose to publish a guest essay by a biological woman now called Zach Ellams who writes a story headlined, “To My Daughter, My Gender Was Never Complicated.”
Readers are of course free to make their own assessments of the claim as the author writes:
I’VE BEEN LIVING AS A TRANS MAN SINCE I WAS 18 YEARS OLD.
BUT WHEN MY WIFE AND I HAD ELLIOT, I HAD TO LEARN HOW TO BE A TRANS DAD.
In comic-strip style illustrated panels, a child asks questions such as, “HOW DID YOU GROW A MUSTACHE IF YOU WERE A LADY?”
A theme of the piece is that while grown-ups may struggle to comprehend such situations, that’s not so much the case for children:
KIDS CAN ACCEPT THINGS AT FACE VALUE…
THEY CAN MOVE BETWEEN COMPLEX TOPICS…
IT’S USUALLY US ADULTS WHO COMPLICATE MATTERS.
Some readers may conclude that it is indeed the adult in this story who has complicated matters. But if the point of the piece is that choices like the one made by the author are generally not confusing to children, don’t bet on the media industry’s various “fact-checkers” to provide a rigorous analytical review of the evidence.
James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”
Neue Zürcher Zeitung , Guest Essay
Kuscheln mit der Hamas – die Scheinrebellen des deutschen Medienbetriebs
Aktivistische Journalisten prangern die angeblich israelfreundlichen Medien an. Ihr Geschrei erhält viel Aufmerksamkeit, wie das Buch «Staatsräsonfunk» zeigt.
Wer in einem medienkritischen Buch zum 7. Oktober und zu Gaza die Schlagzeile «Kriegsverbrechen im Selfie-Modus» liest, denkt vermutlich zuerst an die Hamas. Schliesslich haben deren Terroristen die Hinrichtungen jüdischer Familien mit Action-Cams gefilmt und selbstbewusst live gestreamt. Der Journalist und Social-Media-Agitator Fabian Goldmann sieht es aber ganz anders.
Die erwähnte Überschrift stammt aus seinem Buch «Staatsräsonfunk. Deutsche Medien und der Genozid in Gaza», das neulich im sozialistischen Manifest-Verlag erschienen ist. Für Goldmann sind die Selfie-Modus-Verbrecher nicht bei der Hamas zu suchen, sondern ausschliesslich bei Israeli. Gemessen an seinem redundanten Stil und seinem projektiven Charakter, wäre Goldmanns Buch nicht der Rede wert. Doch seine Kritik am scheinbar israelhörigen deutschen Journalismus stösst auf viel Resonanz.
Ich-Reportagen über «Islamfeindlichkeit»
Goldmann gehört im deutschen Medienbetrieb zu einem Kreis von Scheinrebellen, die trotz ihren Meinungen aus der ideologischen Schmuddelecke ernst genommen und hofiert werden. Mit ihrem gut gespielten Antagonismus zur deutschen Staatsräson und zu klassischer Medienmacht erreichen sie eine Armada von Followern.
Als Medienkritiker schrieb Goldmann für den in etablierten Medien oft zitierten Watchdog-Blog «Übermedien». Als vermeintlicher Experte berät er Redaktionen zu Themen wie Antidiskriminierung und Vielfalt. Dies im Dienst des Vereins Neue deutsche Medienmacher*innen, der teilweise mit Bundes- und EU-Mitteln gefördert wurde – und Journalisten zu diskreditieren versucht, indem er zum Beispiel Recherchen über Clan-Kriminalität in Deutschland pauschal als rassistisch brandmarkt.
Für den «Spiegel», «Vice» und evangelische Online-Magazine schrieb Goldmann Ich-Reportagen über «Islamfeindlichkeit» und israelische Abschiebegefängnisse, in denen sich sein Hass auf den jüdischen Staat und seine Bewunderung für dessen islamistische Gegner bereits abzeichneten.
Passend dazu bedient Goldmann mit «Staatsräsonfunk» eine Verschwörungsphantasie, die sich seit dem 7. Oktober im pseudoliberalen Kulturbetrieb und unter autoritären Linken zur Kollektivpsychose entwickelt hat. Die Geschichte geht so: Eine Phalanx aus israelischen Propagandabeamten und deutschen Journalisten zensiere jede Stimme, die Israels Krieg in Gaza kritisiere. Grund dafür ist angeblich die Staatsräson, die in deutschen Medien wegen des historischen Schuldgefühls vieler Journalisten wie eine Ersatzreligion wirke. So weit, so bekannt, so verzerrt.
Die Hamas «brutal» zu nennen, findet er falsch
Goldmann dreht diese These in seinem Buch noch weiter. Er beklagt, deutsche Medien hätten Israels Verbrechen systematisch geleugnet und dadurch einen israelischen «Genozid in Gaza» erst ermöglicht.
Diese These will Goldmann anhand von 11 125 Beiträgen in grossen Medien beweisen. Er spricht von einer «Untersuchung». Wie er diese eindrückliche Datenmenge gesammelt und ausgewertet hat, erfährt man aber nicht. Die schiere Masse soll überzeugen, dazu gibt’s nichtssagende Diagramme und Zitate von «führenden Fachleuten» und Persönlichkeiten wie Hannah Arendt, Edward Said, Judith Butler oder Helmut Schmidt.
Goldmann, das wird beim Lesen schnell klar, will mit der Wissenschaftspose ablenken. Wovon? Vom Antisemitismus der Hamas. Die Erzählung von den israelverliebten deutschen Journalisten stützt sich bei Goldmann allein auf die zynische Annahme, die Hamas wolle gar nicht alle Juden vernichten, sie führe nur einen nachvollziehbaren Kampf gegen die israelischen Besetzer Palästinas.
Die Hamas bezeichnet Goldmann verharmlosend als «palästinensische Bewegung» und behandelt sie wie einen normalen politischen Akteur, der in Gaza durch «demokratische Wahlen» an die Macht gekommen sei. Und nicht etwa durch das gewaltsame Auslöschen jeglicher Opposition. Das Massaker der Hamas vom 7. Oktober, bei dem Frauen vergewaltigt, Kinder ermordet und auch asiatische und afrikanische Arbeiter nicht verschont wurden, hält er – darin dem amoralischen Snobismus eines Ernst Jüngers gleich – für eine «taktische und militärische Glanzleistung».
Das Adjektiv «brutal», so belehrt er die Leserschaft, sei für die Verbrechen der Hamas eine «dramatisierende Bezeichnung». Diese Sichtweise haben die Medien laut Goldmann gefälligst zu übernehmen.
Antisemitismus kommt in Goldmanns Buch allein als inszeniertes Problem vor: Medien missbrauchten Antisemitismusvorwürfe, «um Kritik an der israelischen Regierungspolitik sowie Widerstand gegen israelische Besetzung und Kriege zu delegitimieren». Kein Wort zur Gründungscharta der Hamas, in der mit Koranzitaten zur Tötung von Juden aufgerufen wird, kein Wort zu ihrem Märtyrer-Fetisch und ihrer Indoktrination von Kindern.
Da die Juden hassende, vergewaltigende und mordende Hamas für Goldmann nur ein Phantom westlicher Propaganda ist, betrachtet er Israels Kampf gegen sie als rhetorischen Vorwand, um Palästinenser zu ermorden. Für Goldmanns Argumentation ist dieser Denkfehler entscheidend. Er läuft auf ein Ziel hinaus: die islamistische Ideologie der Hamas und ihre Verantwortung für den Krieg in Gaza zu verschleiern.
Dass Goldmann dabei wie der Watergate-Reporter Bob Woodward klingt und sich in die Pose des Enthüllungsjournalisten wirft, ist nicht nur Farce. Es ist Teil seiner Verschleierungstaktik. Hinter der Figur des Enthüllers steckt ein pedantischer Propagandist. Journalisten gibt Goldmann in seinem Buch Anweisungen, wie sie die Hamas freundlicher behandeln können; Überschriften von anderen Medien korrigiert er mit Rotstift.
In sozialen Netzwerken wie Instagram und X ist Fabian Goldmann für genau diese Rotstiftkorrekturen bekannt. Regelmässig postet er Bilder, auf denen er für ihn falsche, den angeblichen Genozid leugnende Überschriften richtigstellt. Er gibt vor, das weltoffene, moralische Gewissen eines zunehmend nationalistisch-verwahrlosten Deutschland zu sein.
Den jüdisch klingenden Namen hat er sich bloss zugelegt
Dabei unterstützt Goldmann mit der Hamas eine nationalistische, rassistische Bewegung. Er zeigt die Schnittmengen zwischen linken «Antiimperialisten» und gewöhnlichen Rechtsextremen. Seinen jüdisch klingenden Namen hat sich Goldmann erst vor ein paar Jahren zugelegt, früher hiess er Fabian Köhler. Als Chefredakteur einer Jenaer Uni-Zeitung zog er 2009 bundesweit Ärger auf sich, weil er ein weitgehend unkritisches Interview mit einem lokalen Neonazi veröffentlicht hatte, zu dem er engen, freundschaftlichen Kontakt gepflegt haben soll. Selbstverständlich nur, um eine Diskussion zu provozieren, wie Goldmann 2024 in einem Interview dazu sagte. Kurz darauf interviewte er in seiner Uni-Zeitung auch den Hamas-nahen Journalisten Khalid Amayreh.
Trotzdem liken und teilen Tausende Menschen Goldmanns irreführende Beiträge. Publizisten wie ihn gibt es leider viele. Die wichtigsten werden in seinem Buch lobend erwähnt: allen voran der Hauptstadtjournalist Tilo Jung, der selbst schon anbiedernde Interviews mit der Hamas geführt hat, zudem findet man Namen wie Hanno Hauenstein, James Jackson, Jakob Reimann oder Tarek Baé, der türkisch-nationalistischen Erdogan-Verbänden nahesteht.
Sie alle sind Minipopulisten – mit wachsendem Erfolg im empörungssüchtigen Mainstream. So hat es Tilo Jung auf der Berlinale binnen weniger Stunden geschafft, mit seinen Zensurvorwürfen gegen den Jurypräsidenten Wim Wenders die gesamte Berichterstattung über das Festival zu kapern. Angesichts der Eklats, die Kulturstaatsminister Wolfram Weimer seitdem durch seine patzigen Eingriffe in Verlagspreise und unabhängige Juryarbeit verursacht hat, dürfte die Wirkmacht dieser Scheinrebellen im Bereich von Kultur und Medien weiter zunehmen.
Jonathan Guggenberger ist Autor und Journalist aus Berlin. Sein Debütroman «Opferkunst» erschien 2024 bei Edition Tiamat.
https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/medien/kuscheln-mit-der-hamas-fabian-goldmann-und-die-scheinrebellen-
FOOTBALL AND POLITICS: ITALY
Politico
In the World Cup’s missing country, failure sparks bitter political battle
Giorgia Meloni’s government is keen to extend control over Italian football as fans mourn a third consecutive World Cup debacle.
ROME — Italy’s football crisis is turning into a test of Giorgia Meloni’s reach.
Failure to qualify for the FIFA men’s World Cup for the third consecutive time triggered a major political and public outcry in the football-obsessed country that has now morphed into a bitter fight over who controls the sport.
Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party leaped to propose curtailing the power of the country’s football association — the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC) — after its president, the 72-year-old Gabriele Gravina, resigned in April under heavy pressure following a World Cup playoff defeat to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
With new elections to run the FIGC slated for June 22, Meloni’s allies are pushing to call off the vote and place the body under special administration — an emergency procedure used in the past for the sport to overcome major corruption scandals.
In a country where football carries outsized cultural weight, Italy’s World Cup embarrassment has become a proxy battle over governance, reforms, investment and the Meloni administration’s willingness to extend political influence into independent institutions.
“The first concern should not be new elections; it is not through elections that you create the conditions for a rebound,” Italian Sports Minister Andrea Abodi said in an interview with POLITICO.
Football officials have denounced the government intervention as a power play to block the heavy favorite, Giovanni Malagò, a former president of the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) who is disliked by Meloni’s party.
“The idea of placing it [the FIGC] under administration, to me, only suggests an occupation [by the government]; it offers no kind of perspective for the future,” Gravina told POLITICO from his Rome office, adorned by two twinkling World Cup trophies and other relics from a bygone era of glory. “The idea of taking over the football world has been circulating for far too long now,” he added.
Opposition parties have accused Meloni of centralizing control, stifling dissent and putting acolytes in positions of power, a pattern they observe in Italy’s state-owned television network, financial markets supervisor and judicial system.
But the government rejects that it wants to extend its reach to the FIGC. “It is a pathetic and baseless claim. There is no element that could be seen as an attempt by politics to take over this domain,” Abodi said.
The fall of the House of Italy
Since it last won the FIFA World Cup in 2006, on a balmy night in Berlin against archrival France, Italy has gradually declined from global football powerhouse to second-tier team, mirroring the country’s wider economic stagnation.
Like the country’s broader establishment, Italy’s football leadership is aging and its attempts to carry out reforms have been undermined by vested interests and resistance from both bigger clubs and lower divisions.
“It’s a very close-minded world, and they rarely come up with any innovative ideas,” said a former Italian football official who was granted anonymity to speak freely for this report.
In an echo of the mechanisms that sometimes slow down EU decision-making, the FIGC’s constituent bodies — representing amateur football, players, managers and referees among others — can each wield veto power and block systemic changes.
With these rules, “you can’t start any reform process,” Gravina complained. He added that plans to cut the number of yearly promotions and relegations, and reduce the clubs in the Serie A elite football league from 20 to 18 — a proposal designed to improve financial stability and raise the Serie A’s level of on-field quality — were rejected 17 times by the lower divisions
After Bosnia, any broader Italian reckoning with the structural causes of its decline — such as crumbling stadiums and underuse of young Italian players in the Serie A — was soon overshadowed by the fight over appointing its new football chief.
Clubs from the Serie A — which have the financial firepower but only account for 18 percent of the votes — immediately swung behind the 67-year-old Malagò, who is widely seen as an effective operator and a people person. Football players and managers followed suit, bringing his expected support above the required threshold.
His rival for the post, Giancarlo Abete — another white-haired sports official who previously held the FIGC top job when Italy last played at a men’s World Cup in 2014 — is unlikely to pose a major threat.
Malagò’s march to power came as a setback for Abodi and football-loving Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti, with whom he clashed in 2018 over a controversial reform to curtail the financial firepower of the Olympic Committee.
Abodi, the sports minister, could barely conceal his misgivings about Malagò. He hinted that his role as the organizer of the Milan Cortina Winter Olympics earlier this year — which was recently subject to a judicial probe that did not directly involve Malagò — and his short-lived experience in football politics could play against him. He also frowned about Malagò’s remarks that he was approached to lead the FIGC before the fateful game against Bosnia.
However, the minister signaled willingness to work with Malagò if he wins the election. “We will cooperate with whoever is legitimately elected as president,” provided they commit to undertake necessary reforms, Abodi added.
Not everyone is convinced. “If they could, they would shoot Malagò between the eyes,” joked a second former Italian sports official.
Last-ditch plot
With less than a week to go until the election, the government’s dream of placing the FIGC under administration is losing steam.
Formally, the authority to do so rests with CONI, not with the government. Besides, the conditions that warrant such a move — such as serious misconduct or the disruption to the smooth running of football tournaments — haven’t been met.
Abodi encouraged the FIGC to spontaneously call for a special administration after “having acknowledged the system’s inability to reform itself.” But that’s unlikely to happen.
The government’s last resort to block Malagò’s bid is a legal review into whether his appointment breaches conflict of interest rules due to his previous, recent experience at CONI.
Meloni’s administration has tasked an independent anti-corruption body and the Olympic Committee to look into the matter before the June 22 election, but the two former football officials said the challenge is unlikely to succeed.
In a world, though, where political friendship often matters more than individual merit, Malagò’s strained relationship with the Meloni government risks being a major liability going forward.
“Whoever wins, I hope that relations with politics will not be a handicap for them, as they have been for me,” Gravina sighed.