> Protests erupted after a bill that would allow some French residents of the islands to vote, potentially diluting the power of the indigenous electorate. New Caledonia held a referendum on independence in 2021 that overwhelmingly voted to stay with France after key local groups boycotted the ballot.
This is an extremely misleading paragraph.
Everyone is a "French resident". My understanding of the situation is that the current agreement on the local governance of the territory is that only citizens who were residing there some 25 years ago have the right to vote in the elections for the local assembly. This is what the government wants to change.
The previous deal with independentists was to organise not one but three referendums on independence. They all took place and they all rejected independence. The last one in 2021 was boycotted by independentists "because of Covid". A cynical interpretation may be that they expected to lose again and that this was a tactic to be able to reject the result.
Since then the government has been working on giving more power to the local assembly and as part of this they are planning to give all residents the right to vote in those elections. Obviously this is likely to weaken the position of the independentists but it also makes sense in context.
A referendum decision split practically in half is a weird situation though. Imagine being part of the group that doesn't get anything because it's 3 percentage points smaller than the group that gets everything.. The difference is 3000 votes, and 1500 votes were deemed invalid - I really wouldn't feel good about that if I was an independentist there.
You can't agree to the terms of referendums and then reject the result if you don't like it.
They don't "not get anything", by the way. Lots of subsidies from mainland France, lots of effort to recognise local customs, local assembly and moving to more autonomy from mainland France while keeping all the benefits of being in France.
Interestingly New Caledonia has been French for longer than Hawaii has been American. The difference is that European migration to Hawaii has been much, much higher.
I agree completely, but consider that not everyone was part of that debate about the referendum and again - many probably were overpowered in voting and unhappy with it from the beginning. Again, it's really weird if the people who want your referendum to fail are the ones setting the rules or have significant influence there.
Anyways I don't mean to say it should be invalid, just that as a independentist person living there it must be really angering. If it was 70/30 it would be much easier to accept. France increasing their autonomy and recognition is a smart and sensible move given the situation.
Subsidies and the move to more local governance probably mostly benefit the area around the capital Nouméa, which is of course on the side that voted to remain.
I wonder how palatable a compromise would be where only part of the island becomes independent.
I think these are ethnic lines, with the "white" population mostly in the South.
Everyone on the islands benefit from the full French benefit and welfare system and on top of that there are plenty of subsidies, which are in part targeted at the indigenous population, which is actually benefits a lot from the mining industry (a lot in the North where there are the majority).
Sometimes people just want to be independent regardless of all the autonomy, money and opportunities they are offered. It's not just about practical matters, it's about "being ourselves".
The reason why this issue is so spicy is that the French hard right want the government to go hardcore on the rioters, who are arguing that the native "kanak" population is being replaced by white people, whilst at the same time the French hard right basically more or less acknowledges "The Great Replacement" as a reality( FN/MLP-Bardella is more careful with wording it, but the substance is there, R!/Zemmour outright says it).
On the other hand, French far left supports independence for them on the basis of "decolonialisation" and "white colonialists who are born there shouldn't vote like kanaks", but at the same time they outright reject those ethnic arguments for "white" people in France.
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 32.3 ms ] threadThis is an extremely misleading paragraph.
Everyone is a "French resident". My understanding of the situation is that the current agreement on the local governance of the territory is that only citizens who were residing there some 25 years ago have the right to vote in the elections for the local assembly. This is what the government wants to change.
The previous deal with independentists was to organise not one but three referendums on independence. They all took place and they all rejected independence. The last one in 2021 was boycotted by independentists "because of Covid". A cynical interpretation may be that they expected to lose again and that this was a tactic to be able to reject the result.
Since then the government has been working on giving more power to the local assembly and as part of this they are planning to give all residents the right to vote in those elections. Obviously this is likely to weaken the position of the independentists but it also makes sense in context.
They don't "not get anything", by the way. Lots of subsidies from mainland France, lots of effort to recognise local customs, local assembly and moving to more autonomy from mainland France while keeping all the benefits of being in France.
Interestingly New Caledonia has been French for longer than Hawaii has been American. The difference is that European migration to Hawaii has been much, much higher.
Anyways I don't mean to say it should be invalid, just that as a independentist person living there it must be really angering. If it was 70/30 it would be much easier to accept. France increasing their autonomy and recognition is a smart and sensible move given the situation.
Subsidies and the move to more local governance probably mostly benefit the area around the capital Nouméa, which is of course on the side that voted to remain.
I wonder how palatable a compromise would be where only part of the island becomes independent.
Everyone on the islands benefit from the full French benefit and welfare system and on top of that there are plenty of subsidies, which are in part targeted at the indigenous population, which is actually benefits a lot from the mining industry (a lot in the North where there are the majority).
On the other hand, French far left supports independence for them on the basis of "decolonialisation" and "white colonialists who are born there shouldn't vote like kanaks", but at the same time they outright reject those ethnic arguments for "white" people in France.
Result is a weird twilight zone.