The French influx to London suggests what governments can and can’t do to boost their cities’ allure

Great article.

No matter all the faults of the EU; no matter how many mistakes it makes in doing something that no other region on Earth has ever attempted.....

...in some ways and for some people it is working perfectly well.

I am not saying that the EU is perfect, but most of the people referred to in this article prove that the social and labour mobility of the EU is working extremely well.

A lack of work prospects drove many French to find work in Ireland. Now that Ireland is having economic problems, some have moved to London for work..... and I am guessing that this may extend into the future depending on which areas of the EU boom and stagnate.

This is one of the great strengths of the US economy and only now is it starting to become the norm in the EU too.

What does it say about Paris when her young dream of a better life in London?

Just a small factual mistake (I won't discuss the number of French citizens in London... though it seems that the figure of 400,000 is more than a bit overestimated. Isn't it a typo, the real figure being 40,000). Back to the factual mistake, then : South Kensington is known as "Le Petit Paris" or the 21st arrondissement (and not the 17th : Paris has already 20 arrondissement !) :-))

I always heard that there were around 200,000 French in London. 40,000 seems far too low.

Andrew Scott wrote, "It's no wonder English people have such a bad reputation for conceit on the Continent”, and then followed it by saying, "In a nutshell, a bad article that panders to what's worse in the British public, that annoying sense of superiority that gives a bad reputation to Britain in the rest of the world".
I'd just like to say that as long as people like yourself, Andrew, who whether knowingly and if so arguably racist at heart therefore or not maintain that English and British are the same then the English will never be able to free themselves from your blinkered view of them as it would seem that you and people like you are unable to change your views. Who then, I ponder, are the ones who think they are superior?

Yeah wow, that is more than a small factual mistake there. South Kensington is known as the "21st arrondissement" of Paris. I live in the 17th arrondissement of Paris...

It's always been the case of younger people leaving their homeland for the freedom of the new.

Jean-Jacques Goldman wrote about leaving France and heading to the new world in La Bas - I suppose London is closer and more familiar - but with similar freedoms

In London and New York, creativity comes from the street and works it's way up - in Paris it is only allowed to occur from the top down.

Things are changing - there is a new generation of French for whom the status quo means nothing - and they are prepared to realise their dreams, if not in Paris, then in London where there are less barriers.

i know 3, i know it isn't many but nevertheless it's quite interesting to get their and a number of other W.Europeans views on London.
so, the Economist moderator, hold onto your hat 'cause you really are not going to like what you're about to read.
so, well, where do i begin. ok, so let's start with a conversation i was having with one young French person that has been living in London for a little while. so, i'd just discovered -(i'm newish to London myself) how appealing the Bloomsbury area is and was really going on and on about all that exists there, how attractive i think the area is, the amazing atmosphere about the place etc, etc. so, i was in the middle of trying to bring to life all of what i considered to be Bloomsbury's charms, presumebly while taking a while to do it 'cause the young French person (i'm pretty sure he wont be reading this, so i think i'm ok to write this). so, he stopped me mid flow with what he presumed was the more direct and to the point statement: 'because there are white people'.
so, before the usual PC knee jerkists get going you should just think about this. 'cause we then started to talk all about what we've seen in London and how much of has been destroyed by Labour's immigration policies.
to say that they hate and detest the, ok, so the moderator, this is what they say, this is exactly how they say it, the detest all of London's:- 'Africa and Pakistan area' (they usually don't add the s to the end of the word 'area'). the 3 that i know now when talking about all that they've discovered now divide up their experiences into what they seem to have decided are their London experiences categories -
1) new bar and club experiences were a) great 'cause 'there were white people' or b) were not so great 'there were no white people'
2) new areas in London are a) attractive because 'there were white people' b) were not attractive because is 'Africa and Pakistan area'.
and they find the majority of London to be 'Africa and Pakistan area' places.
nobody that is reading this can say anything about this. you can't go after anyone for feeling this or thinking this or saying this out loud.
i'll give another recent e.g. this was, i really hope they're not going to get wind of this but anyway, only the other week. so, another W.European, we were talking about how repulsive most of London has become because of Labour's immigration policies. they were talking about how amazed they were at discovering just how much of London has been completely lost, quite simply turned into a part of the 3rd world. so, these people are left wing, Marxists academic types (in process of aquiring PHD's) about as far away from being your standard fare, white supremacist racists as you could get. but they've been worn dorn by all of the repulsive, in your face, oppressive, unable to get away from-ness of Labour's immigration policies. so, we were talking about how, you know, the uglyness, the dirt, filth, overcrowding, everything, how horrible so much of London has become and one of them said (an enormous part of their social life takes place in the arty, lefty, Guardian reading enclaves here) said about how much they enjoy going to the BFI and then added - 'it is one of the few parts of London where there are not only Africans'.
nobody gets to judge this. it just goes to show how far over into a demented extreme have Labour's immigration policies been.
area after area after area there really is NOTHING but majority immigrant, as the French that i know would describe them, 'Africa and Pakistan area' areas. you don't get to dismiss people as racists for moving to London, moving here because they want to experience, i'm going to say this in a way that is technically correct, they come here because they want to experience white culture.
fashion. that is something that is an aspect of white culture. they migrate to this part of the world because white, English youth culture has a unique and fascinating appeal. that's been smashed, destroyed in most parts of London. instead we're expected to tow the set line - immigrant communities represent the very latest in all things dynamic, vibrant, vital along with another expected to be trotted out line - mixed. and so all of those little, parochial French youngsters can then all make their way over to our oh, so multiculturally far forward shores to look on in awe while simultaneously getting to appreciate the rapidity at the expansion of their previously small, little minds.
fucking, fucking, FUCKING please! -(are we allowed that, can we do that the Economist? or would European style expressions of passionate anger really be considered all a bit much for you?)
this is all flipping bulls**t.
one commentator was irritated at what he thought was the Economists English cultural supremacy, yes, i agree, but for a different reason. you read this, not just here, but all over the left leaning publications.

i need to make this snappy,
so i'll try and get to a point.
so this publication, like so many, is basically v. ignorant and arrogant about the already aquired multicultural experiences most young W.Europeans have already aquired way before they arrive in this part of the world.
each one that i've got to know have already had their fill in their own countries. the Economist seems to have this notion about the French and the rest that they will be so amazed by getting to be around black people, for the very first time in their lives, that tht will mean that London will then get to blow their little, small little village minds.
get real.
oh, god, i haven't the time.
but let me just tell you, is it what London is getting oh so very right, espec' from the point of view of this tidal wave of immigration from the 3rd world, or is the reason why 400,000 French people live here because of what France is getting oh so very wrong.
'cause, for e.g, 2 of the French people i know, reason - 1) couldn't get a visa for the U.S
2) taxes far too high in France.
they both have the whole thing sussed. where to go (that they have a legal right to anyway) where they can get paid well and not get fleeced blind by the tax regime. Luxembourg has enormous appeal. that's on their radar. they're not here because the world is their oyster and they've discovered this whole amazing new world of multicultural brand new discoveries. they're here because they like the few remaining not 'Africa and Pakistan area' areas, the not high taxes and 'cause can't get visas for the U.S.
London is getting a bloody whole lot wrong in the eyes of many young French and other W.Europeans but Australia, Canada and the U.S don't have open door immigration policies for W.Europeans. they won't let us in. there's not much else to chose from. being a 22 year old French person that's capable of earning good money where else can they go? 'cause Luxembourg pretty much is it.
so, no, dream on if you think 400,000 young French people living in London is a validation of the Economists constant demands for ever greater levels of immigration, ideally from the 3rd world. it isn't. it only goes to prove what France is doing wrong and how blocked in we all still mainly are by still very restrictive immigration policies throughout the developed world.

As a 26 yo French (based in inner Paris) I'll toss in my 2 cents.

1 - Overall this is a good exec summary of why many young French people wish to flock to London. There are indeed 300-400k French in London, which is why Sarkozy dropped by in 2007 while campaigning for the presidential election. (And we call London the 21st arrondissement, not the 17th!)

2 - Paris is architecturally quite stunning indeed, but that does not make much difference in the daily life of Parisians. Nothing beats the relaxed, vibrant, open vibe of London – and that is what appeals to people of my generation. The bar / pub / clubbing scene in London is leagues above Paris; it simply does not even begin to compare. Parisians are only starting to question now why ‘la night’ has become so dreary in ‘le gai Paris’. (Answer : too many old people complaining about the noise; rigid laws; rigid mindset; lack of competition and expensive labor, meaning expensive drinks and venues; no feeling of belonging to a common public space due to the high & growing number of ‘racailles’ everywhere you go. Take a sample of Parisians and you’ll find them to be amongst the most party-loving crowds once out of France; but they will lead a very quiet life when in Paris, for lack of want and/or opportunity).

3 - Corporate life in France really is quite awful. (No after work drinks with colleagues, stifling hierarchy, lots of facetime, god-awful corporate district in La Défense - the Jubilee to Canary Wharf at 9am is a shining paradise compared with a commute on the RER train!)

4 - That feeling that nothing will ever change in France and that the unions and public sector employees are condemning the economy to in inexorable decline.

5 - Street food (£10) has gotten generally better in London that in Paris. Wtf?

6 - Beware once you step out of the Périphérique in the Paris broader area: the quality gap (in terms of everything) vs inner Paris is mind-boggling. In London, the difference between zone 1-2 and the rest is not so steep, and that matters hugely for the majority of city dwellers.

7 - Which brings me to my conclusion: London beats Paris because of
(i) that English, anything-goes mindset, which makes life soooo much easier & funnier;
(ii) because of the English language, London is and always will be Europe’s cultural center; everybody in Europe speaks English nowadays, therefore anybody can try out a new life in London, contributing to that cosmopolitan, worldly feeling. Good luck doing that in Paris;
(iii) to state a very politically incorrect observation, it seems to me that third world immigrants in London are either (a) less numerous than in Paris or (b) kind enough not to come to the city center and import a lousy vibe. If in doubt, feel free to stroll along Regent Street; and then compare that with the Champs Elysées. If still in doubt, go clubbing to the Ministry of Sound or something; and then come spend an evening at ‘Le Mix’ in Paris. Believe me, you will see my point.

I like Paris but would like to live there only when turning 50 or something, a time when one looks for a more relaxed, dignified pace of life and has the means to retire in a happy bubble somewhere on the good side of the Périphérique. But until then, London rules!

The article is a generalisation but a fair one according to my experience. I know several young French people who moved to London to escape boredom (as well as the perception of better job prospects and the hope of plugging into to an English speaking international network). I don't know any young Brits who went to Paris for the same sort of reasons. It doesn't make London a better place than Paris of course.

the difficulty in London is to meet Brits, already in the seventies, we could meet all sort of persons except Brits, you have to go to the suburbs like Richmond

At the risk of seeming like a trainspotter, I don't think Eurostar trains go past the Emirates stadium. As far as I remember, after St Pancras, it goes straight into a tunnel which emerges in East London beyond Stratford.

I have to say that the comment that the only British people who have gone to France tend to be those who are retiring is certainly completely contrary to what I have experienced here in Scotland. Many people are working and having to live in France while working. This tends to be husbands who are supporting families or younger workers. I know of one young family who emigrated and at least two people who married French people and are now living there. I also know of another two young couples who bought chalets and are running them as ski holiday chalets where they cook etc. And that is just among the people I know so I wouldnt say its all retired people at all. The experience may be different down south where there are enough jobs up until now so people didnt have to look elsewhere for work..... but I wouldn't like to generalise like the author of the article !

Jen, I guess it boils down to marketing and each place promoting its USP. The UK lacks anything resembling the Alps. If your lifestyle is based around ski-ing, then SE France is an obvious destination for you. If you are an young, ambitious business professional, London has opportunities that Paris lacks. If you are an older person with a hankering after the sort of feudalism that went out in Britain with the last Peasant Revolt, then a farmhouse in Correze beckons.

It's a little odd how many of the French who come to England are not necessarily coming for better pay or employment; rather they like the "tate of globalization". How is France closed off from globalization if it is an EU member? Also, how do native English feel about this infux of French? Do they feel their job opportunities are being compromised? According to the comments below it seems that most of the young French are racists and like London because there is a significantly less number of immigrants of "African and Pakistani" descent. But, overall it seems the young French look at London as a funner place to live because of the night life and vibe.

"According to the comments below it seems that most of the young French are racists and like London because there is a significantly less number of immigrants of "African and Pakistani" descent"

uh racist? is a big word, rather surprised that Britain doesn't look like the image that the Rolling stones and the Beattles put in our collective memory

Being a Pole in London who works in the City its very interesting to read about a different minority in London. And I do have two observations to make about the French here.

First of all, at work - a Consultancy in the City, we have more and more very senior French individuals. French Partners, Directors and Senior Managers bring an interesting twist to the British working culture causing the development and implementation of innovative ways of working and solutions to Client's problems.

Second, the French, on the streets of London make this city that much more elegant, fashionable and sophisticated. It is very easy to spot a French lady on the street, usually with her LV bag, high heels and a fashionable dress. This does go slightly against the London style of wear whatever you want, everything is acceptable. The French do remind us that there are some universal canons of style and beauty to be followed. They bring order to the universal chaos. And lets thank them for that!

i knew there was going to be the racism accusation comment. 'course, it didn't take long.
no one has any idea just how much of London has been handed over to the 3rd world. that's not an exageration. area after area after is majority muslim, mainly Bangladeshi/Pakistani and African. the media has kept the extent of the influx quiet and the politicians spent 13 years trying everything, lying through their teeth, to ensure it was covered up. the ex London Mayor was on the BBC claiming that London's population has only increased by 100,000 people in the last decade. the official statistics in 2008 for the 8 yrs had the increase at over 500,000. then there is the 'hidden' population that the official statistics can't count. that, i suppose, is anyone's guess but you would have presume it would be around another 500,000 or well above that. the majority of these people are mainly from Africa or the Indian subcontinent.
they turn the areas that live in into disgusting, filthy, kebab shop strewn, hell holes. this happened to the once attractive, arty area that i lived in in Manchester. Somalian's don't frequent bars, cafe's, deli's or intersting little boutique shops. you allow for a mass influx of Palistani's and Somalians and that area will then become an area catering for people with zero interest in Western white culture, forget interesting little boutique stores because th majority of the women on the street are in burka's. they're all sending money back home in remitances so kiss goodbye to any ideas about attractive deli's on your local high street.
when so much of a city has been turned into that and people just have no idea how much of London has, nobody gets to describe people who don't want to live surrounded by nothing else but filth, dirt, begging and ,you don't get to describe people as racists that come to London to enjoy white culture. bars, fashion, deli's, alcohol, clubs. this is white, English and European culture. if you know London, have walked it's streets, have really got yourself out there on 7 hour marathan walking sessions -(which i have) you would know -it's gone. there's nothing left. there's the ridiculously expensive central areas that are still clinging on in there. then there's the only other alternative - the islamic 3rd world. it's either one or the other. no young, white, not muslim Western European that isn't earning £40,000 per year, 'cause that at a minimum is what you'd need to live in central London, can stand living in the 'Africa and Pakistan area' places. they're repulsive.
it's ridiculous that any reasonably affordable part of London has had this happen to it. most of London has been turned into this. and all that the Economist and the Left has to say in response is that there has been absolutely noting wrong with Labour's immigration policies, the whole thing has been perfectly in proportion, there's been no damage at all to any part of this society and the only way forward should be policies that continue to encourage ever greater numbers from parts of the world like Somalia and Pakistan.
as well, the tone in the article reminds of what you get from quite ignorant and arrogant American journalists when they write about backward, 'old Europe'. you get this constantly from this publication. they seem to honestly believe that this whole 'globalisation' experience that they are constantly harping on about has only managed to touch a few, small, key little places. London being at the absolute forefront of this. i take it the writer has actually been to France then? 'cause last time i was there ther wasn't exactly a whole of any untouched by, they call it globalisation, or as anyone else would describe it, tidal waves of mainly very dependent people from various different parts of, but in the most part islamic, 3rd world. they've had it upto their eyes balls there too. i don't know why anyone would imagine a French person wouldn't just come to London and feel tired of it all already. it's hardly going to be a very intersting and new experience for them. they've all of this over there too.
this is just standard fare cultural arrogance on the part of the Economist. imaging that they are all from these provincial little
backwater parts of the world where they've probably never seen a black man before and so will find of this so really terribly exciting. they've got all of this and then some. when i talk about all this with them, it's amusing 'cause it's now even started to take on a competive edge 'if you think your city has been so destroyed by this version then look at our version' 'well, i can't even walk out at night' 'well, neither can i' type thing. it's hilarious.
so get over yourself The Economist, we're not the only part of Europe which has had to do battle, a losing one, with all of this 'globalisation'.

Sarahsmith232- You sound very angry. Chill. Boyfriend dumped you??