The breakup of the EU and the return of the Old Continent to a conglomerate of small and medium-sized states is the ultimate goal of the radical left and extreme right in France and the United Kingdom, and it is completely aligned with the geopolitical plans of the USA, Russia, China, as well as smaller regional powers.
Brexit has Europeanized the political scene in the UK much more than its “supporters” are willing to admit. Moreover, the British, or more precisely, the English political scene has never been more similar to France’s. The UK’s departure from the EU marked the end of the two-party system where, for an entire century, the Tories and the Labour Party alternated in power.
There is a significant chance that by the end of the decade, the President of France or the Prime Minister of the UK will come from the ranks of the extreme, anti-immigrant right. Indicative is that in realizing this scenario, pseudo-leftist formations like Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s and Jeremy Corbyn’s would play a major, if not decisive, role.
In other words, history is repeating itself, as we saw in the first half of the last century: radical left and nationalist right acting together, from different directions, against a disoriented and immature spectrum of parties from the moderate right to the center and moderate left.
The breakup of the EU and the return of the Old Continent to a conglomerate of small and medium-sized states is the ultimate goal of the radical left and extreme right in France and the UK, and it absolutely aligns with the geopolitical plans of the USA, Russia, China, as well as smaller regional powers.
A key difference between the two nations is that the British are, essentially, revolutionaries pretending to be conservatives, while the French, conversely, imagine themselves as revolutionaries but are, in fact, conservatives. It is no coincidence that all French revolutions have been followed by restorations and that nowhere are acquired privileges and special statuses defended as passionately as in the “Hexagon.”
A MIRRORED POLITICAL STAGE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ENGLISH CHANNEL
The formation of new far-right and far-left parties on the British Isles has mirrored the power balance found in the Fifth Republic. Centrist leaders, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, are in trouble with declining support among voters.
Traditional moderate right-wing parties, conservatives and republicans, are going through an identity crisis and are at a historic low in popularity. Populist, sovereignist, and, above all, anti-immigrant right-wing parties, such as Reform UK and National Rally, are galloping ahead and currently enjoying the greatest voter trust.
With the formation of Jeremy Corbyn and Zara Sultana’s new party, tentatively named “Your Party,” the British have their version of the “Unsubmissive France” of Jean-Luc Mélenchon—an anti-European, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic political force with open sympathies for dictatorial and autocratic regimes and an opportunistic stance toward (ab)using Islam for political purposes in order to win the votes of Muslim citizens in the UK and France. The two political formations have, more or less, identical target groups and potential voter bases, ranging from 10 to 20 percent.
THE COST OF BREXIT
Without Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour Party, logistical support from Moscow on social media, and media controlled by Rupert Murdoch, the duo of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson would likely not have succeeded in achieving Brexit. These are facts that “Brexiteers” and, more generally, Britons are ashamed of and, moreover, react angrily, trying to deny the reality.
The decisive moment for Brexit occurred in May 2015 when Corbyn, to widespread surprise, became the leader of the Labour Party, thanks to a newly adopted rule allowing anyone who paid three pounds to vote in the leadership election.
Corbyn subtly and insidiously undermined the campaign to keep the UK in the EU. Verbally, he showed indifferent support for the UK’s continued membership in the European family, but concretely, he worked in favor of Farage and Johnson.
An emblematic example of Corbyn’s duplicity is his friend George Galloway. The former Labour member supported Corbyn’s rise to party leadership but also Farage’s campaign for Brexit. Coincidentally or not, Galloway, in addition to his anti-Semitic views, is a staunch advocate for Palestine “from the river to the sea,” and worked for Russian propaganda outlets until 2022, when he was banned in the UK due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He recently stated that he trusts Putin and Keir Starmer more than others.
THE MUSLIM VOTER CARD
Mélenchon was the first of all Western European politicians to work on gaining the support of Muslim voters by adapting the rhetoric and policies of “Unsubmissive France” to resonate with this voter base. Corbyn, with his new political formation, can count on at least 25 parliamentary seats in England, where the Muslim voter base carries specific weight.
Actions ordered by Netanyahu’s government, Israeli military operations in Gaza, the suffering of the Palestinian civilian population, and the inaction of Macron’s and Starmer’s governments have contributed to growing support for Mélenchon’s and Corbyn’s newly formed groups. There has been an evident radicalization of the Muslim population in both countries, along with an increase in attacks or harassment of British and French citizens of Jewish descent.
Mélenchon and Corbyn apply classic double standards, minimizing or relativizing the wrongdoings of the side they sympathize with, while loudly and forcefully condemning the wrongs or mistakes of the opposing side.
However, as much as they try, Mélenchon and Corbyn will not be able to reach power, but they can serve as very “useful idiots,” much like communists did in the first half of the 20th century for the rise of fascists, Nazis, and clerical nationalists.
“UNSUBMISSIVE FRANCE” AND NATIONAL RALLY TOGETHER
Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen have far more in common than they are willing to admit. Their two parties have identical or very similar positions on key domestic and foreign policy issues. Besides their animosity towards Emmanuel Macron and liberal democracy, both are equally allergic to the European Union and any form of deeper European integration, while being very understanding and sympathetic to Putin’s Russia.
They share a desire to present their political formations as protectors of the so-called “losers” in the transition processes that have led to greater social stratification in French society. A case of joint action by “Unsubmissive France” and National Rally against the abolition of low-emission zones (LEZ) in city centers is quite indicative.
The law proposed that all vehicles manufactured before 2011 would not be allowed to circulate in urban centers. This rule applied to about 15 million vehicles, mostly owned by people with lower incomes. Both Le Pen’s and Mélenchon’s supporters celebrated the repeal of the law as a victory of the “poor” over the “rich and arrogant,” using almost identical narratives about protecting the “weak” who cannot afford to buy an electric or new car, and stopping social and geographic segregation.
MELENCHON’S HYPOCRISY
“Unsubmissive France” and its leader promote the idea that capitalism and liberalism are the source of all evil on the planet. They believe that it is immoral to be rich, that private property is not a “sacred cow,” that international law must be respected, and that it is unacceptable to impose one’s own models on other nations.
However, when it comes to Russia, everything changes. Deputies from Unsubmissive France and Mélenchon himself, along with National Rally, are the biggest opponents of seizing the assets of Russian billionaires and using them for the reconstruction of Ukraine from the war damage inflicted by Russia. If you’re a tycoon linked to Putin’s regime, then it’s not “immoral to be a billionaire”; if Russia invades another sovereign nation, then international law is not so important.
Mélenchon’s personal hypocrisy is also evident in his complaints, in the style of Kalimero, that he is being attacked on a personal level for his character, tastes, friends, and choice of associates. Often, it’s only a few minutes after this “lament” that he attacks Macron, calling him perverse, a Rothschild banker, a servant of big capital and financial power centers, a pompous and arrogant fool.
The main difference between Farage and Corbyn in England is that Nigel is a lesser hypocrite than Jeremy, just as Marine Le Pen earns points for having greater political coherence than Mélenchon. But this is scant consolation—it’s hard for the English with Farage and Corbyn, the French with Mélenchon and Le Pen, and Europeans in general with them all together, especially if they gain power, and they are getting closer to doing so.
About the Author
