I come from what might be called an "English privilege" position, where most of the cross-contamination in languages that are changing over time is coming from English words creeping in.
On the other hand, English itself is deeply a blend of foreign language, well beyond being a Germanic tongue heavily overlaid with Norman French. While we get into all sorts of zaniness over grammar, we've been more than happy to adopt words from every language we run into. So it's hard to feel too much sympathy for other folk being paranoid about English creeping into their tongue.
As for language simplifying, well, that's another matter. It always sounds good, but Americans, at least, gave that up after Noah Webster. The closest I can think to an attempt that actually worked was the Third Reich doing away with the blackscript lettering that Germans and Austrians had used forever. Dictating to people how to spell, or what words they are allowed to use, rarely works on a macro level.
The circumflex: A battle over an accent mark
A controversy brewing in France over a decision to eliminate the circumflex highlights fears about ‘English taking over’. Agnes Poirier takes a closer look.
The anger over the reform has little to do with a supposed British invasion, in my humble opinion. Orthograph is a skill that's very much linked to social class and origin here, and by leveling the field, the reform would simply blur the lines between "elite" and common people. That's all there is to the fuss.
VISU KARALIU BUREJOS YRA JU KARALIENES AR SUVOKAI KAD JOS JOS VIETOEJ JU TU SUVOKT REIKIA.
KAS TURI VYKDYTI TIK NE ZMONES .JUS JAU SISIVAIZDUOTI PRIVALETUTE. ATSTOKITE JEI TURITE TEORIJAS SAVO IR KITU .,TAS ZMONIU.