But the Social Liberals are flirting with the 2 % additional member cut-off for parliamentary elections, and parties tend to start hitting panic buttons when that happens. Which makes them a bit unpredictable. So this tea-leaf reading should be taken with an even larger grain of salt than is usually the case.
The Popular Party, meanwhile, is grandstanding. They get a soundbite where they get to show how tough they are on brown people, and by the time it gets killed in Parliament (by my count, R and DF have all of 20 % of the MPs between them...), everybody will have forgotten about it.
On the off chance that they can rope in a majority, the government's lawyers will tell them that they can't legally apply such rules only to brown people. Then the Popular Party will probably drop it. With the mandatory hissy fit about The Unelected (EUropean) Courts/Lawyers/Bureaucrats obstructing The Will Of The People, As Expressed By The People's Anointed Representatives - namely, the Popular Party. Or they'll carry it through on the (depressingly justified) expectation that they have been able to pack the Ausländeramt with enough quasi-skinhead goons to ensure preferential treatment of white Americans anyway.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I'm not clear about this point: do you mean they don't advocate such a line (and perhaps distinguish themselves from the DF over that explicitely); or that they go along with the DF but don't play up this point? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Such subtlety is generally lost in the astonishment that R and DF have managed to agree on the general outline of a law. There's so much personal animosity between those two parties that it'd be a newsworthy story if they agreed that the sky is blue.
