Why I will be voting remain on 23 June.

The UK would be stronger if it remained in the European Union. Whilst I admit that the case for remaining has been exaggerated somewhat by the StrongerIn campaign, just as Vote Leave have exaggerated their argument in support of Brexit, on the facts a Britain in the EU would be far stronger than a Britain outside the EU.


The UK is currently part of the world’s largest trading bloc, with the European Union accounting for around 22 percent of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) according to International Monetary Fund figures. This makes the EU the world’s second largest economy in terms of GDP, after the United States. The effect of this is that countries like China and the United States are forced to take the EU seriously when it comes to trade negotiations. If we were to leave the EU, and then had to go to Washington or Beijing for a trade deal, we would be doing so without this bargaining power. Without the might of the combined EU economy, a trade deal with the UK would not be a priority for the likes of the United States and China. Even if we did get a trade deal, it would likely take many years to come about, as international trade deals typically take rather a long time to negotiate it could be years before we manage to do a proper trade deal with the United States. Indeed, on a visit to London in April, President Obama said the following: “I think it’s is fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon because our focus is on negotiating in a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.”

Without the might of the combined EU economy, a trade deal with the UK would not be a priority for the likes of the United States and China.

In addition, the UK would be unlikely to be considered to be an especially important trading partner to these countries. Indeed, when David Cameron visited China in 2013, newspaper the Global Times said, “The Cameron administration should acknowledge that the UK is not a big power in the eyes of the Chinese. It is just an old European country apt for travel and study.” As a result, we would be unlikely to get the preferential treatment that we can receive as members of the EU. In short, leaving the EU would cause a significant loss of power and leverage when it comes to negotiating international trade deals.

As well as the difficulties that would be inherent in negotiating trade deals following an exit from the EU, there are other significant benefits to trade which come courtesy of EU membership. The EU incorporates the free movement of good, services, capital and people. The so-called ‘four freedoms’. The free movement of goods means that companies based in the UK are able to sell their goods in EU countries without being subject to tariffs or other protectionist trade policies. This lack of tariffs can mean a huge saving for businesses who export their goods, meaning higher profits. Whilst it is true that European Union membership does bring with it some added red tape for business owners to have to deal with, the truth is that the gains from avoiding trade tariffs offset the irritation of this red tape significantly. If we were to leave the European Union, there is no guarantee that we would be able to retain a trade deal as beneficial as the one which we have access to today. In fact, it seems highly likely that any trade deal that we secure with the rest of the European Union after we leave will be on far worse terms than we currently enjoy, particularly if the Vote Leave campaign continue their mission to curtail the free movement of people which will likely come at a severe cost in terms of a worse trade deal with the European Union. Switzerland and Norway both benefit from some of the European Union’s trade rules, however they must also accept the free movement of people. If the UK leaves the European Union, and is then intent on also curtailing in the free movement of people (in itself a terrible idea) then we will almost certainly be landed with relatively poor trading terms. In any case, there is little doubt that exporting would become more expensive for British businesses. The imposition of tariffs would also likely mean that goods being imported into the UK for sale would be more expensive. As always, this increase in cost would be passed onto the consumer. The head of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Robert Azevedo, suggested in May that leaving the European Union could cost British consumers around £9bn a year. Although it is almost impossible to truly estimate the costs of leaving of the European Union, it is virtually indisputable that trade would become more expensive.

Therefore, in terms of securing our position as a competitive trading nation, the UK must remain members of the European Union.


Another significant benefit of the single market is that companies choose to base themselves in the UK, or at least have a significant presence in the UK, in order to gain access to the single market and thus benefit from the free movement of goods. Many American companies choose to have significant presences in the UK due in part to the common language and strong business infrastructure, but also in order to gain access to the single market, in particular the free movement of goods. For example, American investment bank JP Morgan employs 19,000 people in the United Kingdom, whilst Japanese car manufacturer Nissan employs 4,000 people in the UK. The same is true of many other multinational companies, who have a significant presence in the UK, in part, because of our membership of the European Union. Whilst it seems unlikely that any of these companies would completely leave the UK in the event of Brexit, there is a strong chance that they will end up reducing their presence in the country as a result. CEO of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, suggested that JP Morgan could cut 4,000 jobs in the the UK, if the UK were to vote to leave the European Union. Of course it is easy to simply dismiss statements regarding potential job losses as scaremongering, but there is genuine risk. Seeing as these companies extract real benefit from the UK being in the EU then it stands to reason that they will move their UK business into a country which remains an EU member in order to capitalise.

Of course it is easy to simply dismiss statements regarding potential job losses as scaremongering, but there is genuine risk.

There is a big reason why so many international financial services companies choose to locate their European headquarters in London, and that reason is our membership of the European Union. The access to the single market which comes with our European Union membership has been a key reason behind the City of London becoming the global financial centre which it is today, leading to over half of the world’s largest financial services firms choosing to base their European headquarters in the UK. This sector provides over one million jobs all around the UK, with many of these jobs intrinsically tied to our membership of the European Union. Indeed, 100,000 of these jobs are said to be at risk if we were to vote to leave the European Union.

Access to the single market also offers significant benefits to manufacturing companies as they can export their goods tariff-free throughout the European Union. Access to the single market has been a key reason behind Britain’s thriving car manufacturing sector. Both Nissan and Honda have a significant presence in the UK, in part because of our access to the single market.

Many European companies also choose to have a significant presence in the UK because of our membership of the EU. This is because of our access to the single market. For example, German multinational Siemens employ 13,760 people in the UK. Chief Executive of Siemens UK, Jurgen Maier, has been vocal about the company’s wish for the UK to remain members of the European Union stating that, “it is very important”, for Siemens that the UK remains members of the European Union. The same is true of many other European companies who have significant presences in the UK. In February, a survey of 700 businesses carried out by the Bertelsmann Foundation found that 29% of British and German companies polled would relocate completely or reduce their capacities in the UK in the event of a vote to leave the European Union. This is an incredibly worrying finding. Even more worrying is that the wish to leave the UK in the event of a vote to leave the European Union, was particularly prevalent amongst companies operating in the IT and technology sector. This is currently one of the fastest growing business sectors and with continued innovation will continue to grow at great speed, meaning that it is absolutely crucial for our future prosperity. The possibility of technology companies leaving the UK in the event of a vote to leave the European Union would be a huge blow.

Ultimately, leaving the European Union could be a huge blow to the UK in terms of loss of jobs. Therefore, it is vitally important for employment that the UK votes to remain in the European Union on 23 June.

The Economy.

Aside from trade and employment, leaving the European Union would also have wider implications for the UK’s economy as a whole.

In a poll conducted by the Financial Times at the beginning of the year, 100 economists were surveyed. Three-quarters of these economists predicted that leaving the European Union would have an adverse effect on the UK’s economic prospects in the medium-term, with only eight per cent suggesting that a vote to leave the European Union would have a positive effect on the UK’s economy. This alone shows that there is a broad consensus amongst economists that a vote to the leave the European Union would be damaging to the UK’s economy. At the very least in the short to medium-term.

Evidence suggests that if we vote to leave the European Union, then the UK economy will suffer an immediate negative shock. In addition, if we were to vote to leave the European Union then there would be a transition period which would likely last around two years. During this period there would be significantly heightened uncertainty surrounding Britain’s trading relationships which would have the potential to significantly damage trade and investment. Traditionally, trade and investment decreases significantly in times of uncertainty, and that would be unlikely to be any different in this case. This would be likely to have a significant knock-on effect on the UK’s economic growth, and on household income levels.

There is also the fact that the UK depends upon migration from the European Union in order to meet our economic targets. Chancellor George Osborne has set the target for the UK to achieve a budget surplus by the end of the current decade. Analysis has suggested that this will not be possible without an increase in migration. Therefore, if leaving the European Union has a significant impact upon migration, which surely it will do, then this could have far wider reaching implications for the UK economy.

It has also been suggested that a vote to leave the European Union could leave a hole in the UK’s public finances. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (an independent think tank) has forecast that a vote to leave the European Union would lead to a hole of £20bn to £40bn in government finances, as a result of lower economic growth and higher borrowing costs. In turn this would be likely to mean the necessary extension of austerity for at least two further years, until 2022. This would clearly offset any financial benefit that we might gain my no longer having to make a financial contribution to the EU budget. The deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Carl Emmerson stated that, “the overwhelming analysis suggests that the economy would shrink by more than enough to offset the positive effect on the public finances of the reduced financial contribution to the EU budget.” Therefore, leaving the European Union could deal a hammer blow to the UK economy.

The economy would shrink by more than enough to offset the positive effect on the public finances of the reduced financial contribution to the EU budget.

Overall, it is the uncertainty which could be most damaging to the UK’s economy. Leaving the European Union could lead to years of uncertainty, with the potential to plunge the UK into another recession. This uncertainty would have far-reaching effects on the UK’s future economic growth, and household income. Therefore, the UK should vote to remain members of the European Union on 23 June. Economically, voting to leave is just too big of a risk to take.

National Security.

European integration was originally seen as a way in which to reduce the chance of a repeat of the Second World War, which saw huge loss of life and destruction throughout Europe. Although there seems little chance of war between European countries in the near future, membership of the European Union still remains crucial for the UK’s national security.

The European Union has significantly contributed to a safer Europe through its ability to impose sanctions upon Russia, with the European Union taking the lead in the confrontation of Russia over its annexation of Crimea. The European Union has also been a key player in confronting Iran over its nuclear programme.

In addition, the danger from terrorism around the world has scarcely been greater. Fighting terrorism is incredibly difficult as it is, but membership of the European Union does make it somewhat easier. Cooperation between European Union countries on the exchange of aircraft passenger records for example, can go a long way to help foil a potential terrorist attack. Continued cooperation between European Union countries will be absolutely integral to continuing success in the fight against terrorism, and remaining members of the European Union is the only way to ensure this.

Overall, remaining members of the European Union will benefit our national security greatly. Continued cooperation between European Union countries is the best way to maximise our chance of success in foiling terror attacks, and minimise war, in order to ensure our national security and the safety of our citizens.


I have tried to keep this relatively brief by focusing purely on the economy and national security. I could comfortably have talked about the environmental protections brought in by the European Union, or the workers rights and safety standards which have been brought in by the European Union, but I felt that to focus on the effect that Brexit would have on the UK’s economy and its security would really hammer home the negative effect that leaving the European Union would have for the UK. I also felt that these were the areas in which the leave campaign’s erroneous claims about the European Union could be addressed. One of Vote Leave’s major campaigning points is that the UK sends £350 million a week to the European Union. However, when we account for the money that the European Union sends back to us, as well as the European Union spending on the UK, then the net amount that we pay to the European Union is closer to £120 million a week. This cost amounts to a fraction of the economic benefits which we gain from being a part of the European Union and, even if leaving the European Union means that we will no longer have to pay it, the uncertainty caused by our exit will hit economic growth and investment so hard that it will offset any saving. Therefore, there seems to be no monetary benefit to be gained from leaving the European Union at all. As for sovereignty and democracy, the UK remains a democratic country regardless of our membership of the European Union, and European Union law actually comprises relatively little of the legislation enacted in the UK each year. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has claimed that an astonishing 75 per cent of the UK’s law originate from the European Union. This is patently untrue. In fact, the figure is difficult to calculate for certain, but it closer to between 15 per cent and 25 per cent than Farage’s claim of 75 per cent. Once again this is a small price to pay for the economic and national security benefits provided by the European Union. As well as comments about the proportion of law made in Brussels, Vote Leave also regularly comment on some the ridiculous laws constructed by the European Union. For example, Boris Johnson has recently been keen to talk about European Union regulations regarding ‘abnormal curvature of bananas’. Yes, laws like this are somewhat ridiculous. But is this really a good reason to leave the European Union? No. The fact that Vote Leave are having to resort to arguments like this shows that they realise they are losing the argument in terms of the economy and national security.

Overall, the European Union is not perfect. Realistically, no trading bloc or indeed sovereign country can ever be perfect for everyone. However, the benefits of European Union membership vastly outweigh the costs. For the sake of our future economic success and national security, the UK must vote to remain members of the European Union on 23 June.

For the reasons which I have outlined here, I will be voting for the UK to remain a part of the European Union on 23 June. For the sake of our country’s future success, I hope that you will do the same.

Reducing Immigration Is Not The Answer.

Immigration is good for the economy. This doesn’t seem to be something which you hear very often. What with Nigel Farage’s constant statements of how an ‘Australian-style points system’ would solve all our problems, and Donald Trump’s rhetoric around the dangers of immigration, the positive case for immigration seems to be made ever so rarely. I aim to debunk some of the myths surrounding immigration and reinforce why we should vote to remain a part of the European Union on 23 June, with the unrestricted immigration from EU countries which this brings with it being a good thing for the UK economy, and the country as a whole.

Myth One: immigration causes economic growth stagnation.

It is often said that immigration is bad for the economic. However, this is simply untrue. Basic theoretical economics suggests that immigration in fact increases economic growth.

In order to understand how immigration drives economic growth, only an understanding of very basic economics is required. The basic definition of economic growth is an increase in the output of an economy over a period of time, whilst economic growth can also be defined as an increase in an economy’s productive potential.

As a general rule, most immigrants who come to the UK, come to the UK to work. These people are employed in a variety of roles within the UK economy. It may be that they are working in financial services in the City of London, they may be working as a doctor or nurse in the NHS, or they may be working as a labourer on a construction site.

Growth in an economy’s work force, allows an economy to increase its potential output. When the level of immigration exceeds the level of emigration then this leads to an increase in the workforce. An increase in the workforce means that the economy’s productive potential increases as more workers means more output. Simple, right?

The best way to illustrate this effect is by using a Production Possibility Frontier (PPF) graph. This graph illustrates an economy’s production level of consumer goods and capital goods and how an increase in the workforce can change the level of production.

                                              Production Possibility Frontier.

In this case, the purple curve represents the economy’s output level when only its original workforce is utilised. The yellow line shows how this level of output increases when new workers (in this case immigrant labour) are utilised and begin to contribute to the economy’s level of output.

As shown here, immigration is clearly a key driver of economic growth. As previously mentioned economic growth is effectively an increase in the production capacity of the economy. An increase in the workforce as a result of immigration is clearly something which achieves this. In fact, it is often said that the government would not get close to its economic growth targets if it were to meet its immigration targets.

Therefore, immigration clearly does not cause stagnation in economic growth. It is in fact extremely positive for economic growth.

Myth Two: immigrants are a drain on our public services.

It is regularly stated by campaigners for lower immigration that immigrants are a drain on our public services. In terms of the economic impact of immigration upon public services it is healthcare and education which are the most relevant public services to consider. It is often suggested that immigrants take advantage of the NHS and the UK’s state education system, whilst also claiming state benefits and therefore not paying tax. This would suggest that immigrants are a drain on our public services. It is often low-skilled immigrants from European Union countries who are particularly tarred with the brush of being a drain on public services.

However, studies have actually suggested that the opposite is true. In actual fact, immigrants are net contributors to the government’s finances. A studyby Christian Dustmann of University College London and Tommaso Frattini of the University of Milan into the impact of immigration on the provision of public services found that between 1995 and 2011, EU immigrants made a positive contribution of almost £4 billion. This can be contrasted with a negative contribution of £591 billion by native Britons. From these statistics it seems clear who is the real drain on public services.

As well as their net contribution to the public purse, it was also found that European immigrants were significantly less likely than native Britons to claim state benefits (eight percent less likely) and, less likely to live in social housing (three percent less likely). Therefore, from this standpoint as well, European immigrants are less of drain on public services than native Britons.

The effect on the provision of services such as healthcare should also be considered. Whilst it is true that an influx of immigrants means that there are a greater number of people for whom healthcare must be provided which makes healthcare more expensive, it is not as simple as this. Most immigrants pay tax and therefore pay into the UK’s healthcare system just as any native British taxpayer does. In addition, it has been found that there is a high likelihood that immigrants will return to their homeland following retirement. This means that the NHS does not bear the high cost of providing healthcare to many immigrants in old age. Therefore, for these two reasons, to suggest that healthcare is more expensive as a result of immigration, is clearly wrong.

It tends to be argued that immigrants lead to longer waiting times at hospitals and a less competent health service as a result. In actual fact the opposite has been found to be true. In a 2015 study by the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, it was found that there was actually a correlation between increased immigration and lower waiting times. In Nottingham and Sheffield, cities characterised by high levels of immigration, hospital waiting times were among the lowest in the UK. Contrast this with Dorset and Herefordshire, both of which have very low immigration, where waiting times were around 50 percent longer. Therefore, the common perception that immigration increases waiting times at hospitals is clearly a myth.

Finally, without immigration, the NHS would not be properly staffed. More than a third of the doctors in the UK were trained abroad, and the same is true of many of the nurses working in the UK. If we were to significantly reduce immigration then the NHS would not have enough trained medical staff to operate properly. Of course most of those who support a radical reduction in immigration will answer that the solution is simple — train more doctors and nurses! However, it is hard to see how the UK will suddenly, magically be able to increase the number of medical staff that we train. Successive governments have failed to train a sufficient numbers of doctors and nurses, and it is hard to see how this will change in the short to medium term. Therefore, immigration is necessary in order to keep the NHS running to a high standard.

It seems clear that immigrants are not the drain on our public services that they are often made out to be. Therefore, we should not be using this as an excuse to reduce immigration.

Myth Three: immigrants drive down wages.

Basic economics would suggest that an increase in the workforce (in this case caused by immigration) would lead to a fall in average wages. This would mean an increase in the labour supply leading to a fall in the demand for labour, which would in turn lead to a fall in wages. This would look something like this:

                                                       The Theory.

In theory an increase in the labour supply leads to wage depression. As shown on this graph, the labour supply increases which causes a fall in demand for labour as previously available jobs are filled. This fall in demand for labour subsequently leads to wage depression.

However, this simple explanation fails to take into account the developed and dynamic nature of the UK’s economy. When immigrants come to the UK they increase the level of demand in the UK for a number of goods and services. This increase in demand for goods also leads to an increase in demand for labour through the creation of new jobs, which means that the wage level remains relatively unchanged. What actually happens looks something like this:

                                              What actually happens.

This graph shows how an increase in the labour supply leads to a subsequent increase in demand for labour, which keeps theoretically keeps wages at a stable level. Of course, this theory remains vulnerable to external shocks which can cause a wage decrease for the whole workforce as occurred as result of the recession. However, this is not something which is caused by immigration.

Therefore, immigration is not actually the most significant cause of wage depression.

Myth Four: immigrants caused the housing crisis.

A common theme throughout the immigration debate and the debate around the UK’s continued membership of the European Union has been the perception that immigrants caused the housing crisis. This stems from the view that the increased demand for housing from immigrants has caused the housing shortage that the UK faces today. This suggests that the problem is one of demand for housing being too high. However, this is fundamentally wrong. The problem is in fact, one of supply.

In 2004, the Barker Review of Housing Supply suggested that a quarter of a million homes needed to be built each year in order to guard against spiralling house prices and a shortage of homes. In 2007, this led to the UK government setting a target of building 240,000 homes a year until 2016. This target has not been met in any year since then, with the most successful housebuilding year being the 219,000 that were built in the year 2006–07. This lack of housing supply has been exacerbated significantly due the dramatic drop in new build property caused by the financial crisis. It is this legacy of the failure to build a suitable number of affordable homes that is hitting home now. It would be wrong to say that immigrants have no effect on the demand for homes, but their effect is negligible at best. This shortage in housing supply is likely to be exacerbated still further by the government’s extension of the ‘right to buy’ scheme which was announced in the Conservatives 2015 General Election manifesto. For right to buy to work properly the government must replace the social housing sold by building the same number of new houses. However, this does not happen. For example, government statistics show that 11,000 council houses in Cambridgeshire have been sold since 1980 under right to buy. Over this same timeframe, only 2,750 council houses have been built to replace them. The same is true all over the country.

Ultimately, the housing crisis is a problem of supply rather than demand. Immigrants are not responsible for the long-term failure to build a sufficient number of houses.

In addition, if immigration falls then the construction industry will be significantly harmed. All over the world the construction industry has always relied upon migrant labour, and the UK is no different. In the UK there are not enough Britons who are trained in construction, meaning that immigrant labour is required in order to fill the gap. Whatever your view on the causes of the housing crisis, there can be little argument that a strong construction industry will be vital to alleviating the problems with housing in this country. If immigration was capped, then the construction industry would be severely damaged and we may never properly recover from the housing crisis.

In summary, immigrants were clearly not responsible for the housing crisis and are in fact key to solving it.


There are many myths surrounding immigration, and immigrants from the European Union are routinely vilified as having a negative impact upon the UK economy and the country as a whole. However, this is not the case.

I hope that this article has succeeding in debunking some of the myths which surround the effect of European Union immigration to the UK, whilst also making the positive case for immigration.

What does Austria’s Presidential Election mean for Europe?

The Austrian Presidency has just been won by Alexander Van der Bellen, a pro-eu independent and former leader of the Green Party. Mr Van der Bellen narrowly prevented the Austrian Freedom Party’s Norbert Hofer from becoming the European Union’s first far-right head of state. Is this the peak of support for far-right politicians in Europe, or just the beginning?

This election has served once again to illustrate the deep divisions which exist in Europe, as well as the worldwide surge in support for anti-establishment political figures.

The primary cause of this disenchantment with traditional politicians has been the migrant crisis, and well as the lingering effect of the great recession. These issues mean that politicians who advocate strong controls on immigration, are opposed the the euro, and are opposed to further integration are now more socially acceptable than they have ever been before.

Taking Austria as just one example: Norbert Hofer and the Freedom Party of Austria won 35.1% of the first round votes in the Presidential election; whilst they went on to gain a total of 49.7% of the vote in the run-off election. In the previous Presidential election in 2010, the Freedom Party of Austria won just 15.24% of the vote. To increase your share of the vote by this extent is almost unheard of in modern European politics.

Nobert Hofer (right), who almost became Austrian President (Photo: Ronald Zak/AP).

The popularity of the Freedom Party of Austria is the latest in a trend of far-right candidates gaining momentum in elections across Europe. In December 2015, the Front National won 6.8m votes in French Regional Elections on a turnout of just 58.4%. In the 2012 French Presidential Election, turnout was 79.5%, suggesting that the Front National would be in line to gain a significantly higher number of votes in the 2017 Presidential Election. Indeed current polling has Front National leader Marine Le Pen consistently gaining around 27–31% support. This is significantly higher than the support shown for establishment politicians such as Francois Hollander, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Alain Juppe. It is indisputable that the Front National will reach the second round of voting in the 2017 Presidential Election. Indeed the Front National only failed to take control of any regions in the December 2015 elections as a result of tactical voting between The Socialists and The Republicans. It may well be the case that further tactical voting is required in order to prevent a Le Pen Presidency come 2017.

The rise of the far-right movement in France is also mirrored in the Netherlands where Geert Wilders Party of Freedom (PVV) currently leads opinion polls in advance of next year’s general election. In Denmark, the Danish People’s Party (DPP) came second in last year’s general election, winning 21% of the vote; whilst the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) won the October 2015 Swiss parliamentary election with 29.4% of the vote. In addition, the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece; Jobbik in Hungary; and, the Alternative for Germany; shows that mainstream politicians should be increasingly worried about the popularity of the far-right.

However, it is debatable whether it is truly the popularity of the far-right as an ideology that is driving the popularity of these movements. Of course, anger over the great recession and the migrant crisis has played its part; however in actual fact it seems likely that the main reason is the disenchantment felt by many voters towards traditional political parties.

For example, in the United States, polling by Gallup in April found that 79% of respondents disapproved with the way Congress is handling its job. In the United States this dissatisfaction has manifested itself in the surge in popularity for anti-establishment Presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The surge in popularity for Bernie Sanders suggests that it is not simply the far-right that is gaining traction, but in fact all political parties who can be considered to be anti-establishment. In this regard it is worth remembering that the ultimate winner of the Austrian Presidential Election was previously the leader of the Green Party. In the 2010 Austrian Presidential Election, the Green Party did not even field a candidate, choosing instead to endorse incumbent Heinz Fischer the candidate of the Social Democratic Party of Austria.

In conclusion, the Austrian Presidential Election serves to further illustrate the disenchantment of voters with traditional politics. Those who voted for Alexander Van der Bellen in order to prevent Norbert Hofer seizing victory should be applauded. Let us hope that a coalition of support from the centre-left and centre-right can also prevent Marine Le Pen from winning the French Presidency next year.

Moderate politicians from around the world must not dismiss these results out of hand. They must do more in order to retain support or they will find that anti-establishment candidates truly become the norm in elections in the United States and Western Europe.