This is a huge win for global order. Had France elected Le Pen, the EU would likely have collapsed. The next important election is the German election, which ap

This is a huge win for global order. Had France elected Le Pen, the EU would likely have collapsed. The next important election is the German election, which appears to be leaning more liberal than those in the US, Britain, and France. So long as Germany elects liberal or moderate conservative, the EU will stick around. This will make greater tensions over Brexit, and give the rest of Europe greater leverage in the negotiations. It seems to me that many of the current (reasonable) arguments for nationalism and ending globalism stem from the belief that Westphalian principles still apply just as strongly now as they did in in the 1960s. If this were true, it would make sense for China, Russia, and the US to look inward, and all compete independently to become the global hegemon. However, in a political climate governed by instantaneous information transfer and diminishing privacy, global order becomes something different. People paying attention have much more information than they used to, and this makes the peoples' relationship to their government different - namely, it diminishes the need for trust. In such a system, why should officials need to negotiate on behalf of the interests of people? There do still exist circumstances in which this is necessary, but broadly, there is probably more cultural commonality between Hong Kong and New York than New York and Wichita. And more interestingly, there is probably more in common between Elko NV and Kalgoorlie/Boulder Australia, than Kalgoorlie/Boulder and Sydney or Elko and San Francisco. How does global order change to cater to this paradigm?