"Geopolitics of Europe" offers a dynamic program on both tensions and issues within the European Union, as well as its interactions with the rest of the world. Through maps, iconography, videos, computer graphics and role playing, the Mooc renders the main geopolitical issues appropriate to Europe while focusing on its representations around the world. Definitely multi-disciplinary, this Mooc offers the learners a real tool box built up through a combination of History, Geopolitics, Economics, Political science, Geography and Law. Format : The pedagogical program is both progressive and modular. It is composed of seven thematic blocks. Each block has a different scale and view point. Even though the main issue exploration in each block is thought as free navigation, each block remains marked out by specific steps : a mapping situation scenario, the study of a documentary corpus, a focus on the national perceptions, as well as an emphasis on the news. Please notice that some very limited content will only be available in French. The knowledge acquired in the first four blocks can then be assessed through a quiz and put into practice through the final serious game : a European scenario, a mission, and decisions to make...! Block number seven offers new analysis that will enable you to understand the latest events of the year 2016.
Sylvain Kahn - The victory of the "Leave" is the Name for What?
Loading...
来自 Sciences Po 的课程
Geopolitics of Europe
157 个评分
从本节课中
To go further: 2016 : The European Union crisis is getting more acute
In 2016, the European Union current affairs were troubled. The challenges analysed within the six sessions of the Mooc have become even more pronounced.
These videos of analysis will allow you to integrate and to put these news into perspective along with the best experts.
与讲师见面
Sylvain KAHNProfessor
History and Geography
Thomas RAINEAUProfessor
History
Philippe PERCHOCProfessor
History and Political Science
"What does the "leave" vote mean?"
-Hello, Sylvain Kahn.
-Hello, Sophie Teyssieres.
-You are a historian and geographer, a senior teacher at Sciences Po
and you specialize in the European construction.
How would you explain the Brexit vote in the referendum
organized on June 23rd 2016 in the United Kingdom?
What does the "leave" vote mean?
-The very interesting fact, to answer your question,
is that the "leave" vote uncovers an actual territorial divide.
It has often been said, we must repeat it, say it here,
that, when looking at the different nations that form the United Kingdom,
"leave" was voted in England and in Wales, while "in" was voted
in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is really essential.
Of course, England is United Kingdom's most...
Remember that the United Kingdom's full name is
"the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
There are four nations, Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland.
England alone represents 40 million inhabitants,
that is to say the huge majority of the British people.
So, of course, we can explain that England predominantly voted "leave".
How can it be explained?
It could be said, of course, that there is this affection,
this very ancient British political culture coming from England,
some say it goes back to the Middle Ages
with the famous 13th century great charter, the Magna Carta.
This national political tradition means that there is
no written constitution.
Consequently, the Parliament, thus the national representation,
is considered as the source of legitimacy above all.
Since the United Kingdom joined the EU in 1973, the EEC at that time,
there has indeed been discussions and political debates
among the British people, among the electorate,
saying, "What is this European Union we joined
whose laws are imposed on our Parliament?"
It can be said that there is a so-called sovereignist tradition
but not in a nationalist sense, rather in the sense
of the importance given to the sovereignty
of the British Parliament
in the British, and particularly English,
political culture.
This fact can explain why England predominantly voted "leave".
Other explanations were given by some of my colleagues
specialized in British civilization, Pauline Schnapper, for example,
a professor at Paris 3.
She pointed out the fact that there might have been
an indirect effect of devolution. What is it?
In the days of Tony Blair, the Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007,
whose mandate was extended by Gordon Brown
who was his former Minister for Economic Affairs until 2010
before David Cameron and the Conservatives took over
from 2010 until today, devolution consisted in giving
more independence, or more competences, to the other nations,
to the other parliaments that we would call "regional" in France.
The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, the Parliament of Ulster,
that is to say Northern Ireland. But no English Parliament was created.
The Westminster Parliament is the British Parliament.
It may therefore be possible, as Pauline Schnapper and others explain,
that English people thought, "It is nice to give power
to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament
and to the Parliament of Ulster,
but where can we, English people, have our say?"
So there might have been an indirect effect
of this so-called devolution process. This is only a suspicion,
I do not think it has been confirmed by any study.
Anyhow, it seems very interesting.
But there is a second major order of explanatory factors.
We need to have a look at maps
and a territorial divide can clearly be seen.
Put simply, it is London and the London Basin,
more broadly the southeast, that is to say the rich
and middle-class England, open to the world,
which is a global capital, one of the three "global cities"
described by Saskia Sassen,
that massively and predominantly voted "in".
The rest of England, that is to say medium-sized cities,
former coal mining and industrial areas,
the countryside that is not rich, not the great homesteads, in short,
the England of the invisible, the ordinary people,
the petty bourgeoisie, former workers, the unemployed...
The England that people in France, Germany or Spain tend to forget
because, from there, they mainly see the great London,
this huge economic lung which attracts expatriates from France, Spain,
Germany, Lithuania, Poland.
The England that is not the great London and the southeast,
predominantly voted "leave".
Very few political and geopolitical scientists have seen it coming,
except a few British specialists in the English voting map.
Finally, there is a second unexpected divide.
Even my colleagues specialized in the United Kingdom
who are British academics did not really see it coming.
It is xenophobia.
During the four-month campaign, it was as if the political elites
who supported the Brexit, the "leave"...
Think of Nigel Farage, the main leader of UKIP,
the United Kingdom Independence Party, who,
consistently over the last 15 years,
has called for the United Kingdom to leave the EU, and who ended up
sending 25 members of Parliament to the European Parliament
during the last elections in 2014.
But also half of the Conservative Party, David Cameron's party,
especially with a figure, Boris Johnson, who, today,
is the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the new Prime Minister, Theresa May.
There has been a kind of coalition of "leave" supporters,
from the extreme right with Nigel Farage and UKIP
to half of the Conservative Party, that also formed an alliance
with the left wing of the Labour Party.
In a way that we did not really expect,
these different supporters of the "leave" defended the "leave"
in the name of xenophobia, in the name
of "Because the United Kingdom is part of the European Union,
there are too many foreigners."
There are too many foreigners, but not so much, or not only,
from outside the Community, after all in the context
of the Commonwealth, there are Pakistanis, it is normal.
Even though Muslims cannot be trusted because they plant bombs, so they say.
But there are too many Poles, Lithuanians, Europeans.
We do not control our borders anymore, there are too many foreigners.
In the Labour tradition, too many foreigners steal our jobs.
In the so-called right or extreme right conservative tradition,
it would question the "Britishness". This was a major surprise.
All journalistic investigations show, that, since the "leave" was voted
on June 23rd 2016, the rate of xenophobic assaults
has been raised by 100%.
Indeed, it is not huge in absolute value.
But one can feel that a voice has been liberated, a superego was expressed.
We did not expect this, because France and continental Europe have mythicized
this United Kingdom which was the only democracy
that did not fall into fascism during the interwar years,
and resisted against the military invasion of Nazi Germany.
Of which it has been said that Churchill
saved the face of all Europeans. So we are really surprised.
Here are the three factors.
Peripheral nations wanted to enter or stay in the EU and they are now
in an awkward position vis-à-vis the central British core.
There is a territorial divide which very clearly opposes
those who benefit from globalization and are comfortable with it,
and those who feel, rightly or wrongly so, banished from it
and losers because of this globalization.
Finally, this partially intersects with this second factor,
there are all the people who think that there are too many foreigners
in the United Kingdom and who are driven today by a xenophobic reaction.
This is what we can learn from the Brexit.
Those are the reasons for which it can be said that the Brexit represents
this xenophobic populist movement which can be observed
to varying extents in all the countries of the European Union
and which is now legitimized in the way it is expressed
in almost all countries.
-Thank you very much, Sylvain Kahn. -Thank you.
