Macron was bailed out by cooperation from the left-wing, and now he wants to play fuckwad games. How predictable. I hope they ream his ass out for trying this.
This deserves a riot. Hopefully the public sets him straight. I wish our own public would flip cars over politicians' lies and anti-citizen rulings.
"why don't leftists just cooperate with liberals and try to guide them left"
Well, this is why, most liberals (within power, it's the opposite in the populace) aren't "good hearted but misinformed and able to be moved left". It has been tried countless times and all that ever happens is they betray the left and try to push their right wing agendas.
The alternative here would have been to let the far-right win.
The issue isn't that the left did cooperate with liberals to prevent fascism. That's wholly laudable. One simply shouldn't expect one's enemies to be anything except temporary allies against worse foes (and I'm not accusing the French left of naivety here, mind, they probably understood and are prepared for this scenario).
The issue isn't that the left did cooperate with liberals to prevent fascism.
Correct. The issue is that the liberals aren't cooperating with the left to prevent fascism. They're just trying to use facsism as a tool against the left, as always.
they probably understood and are prepared for this scenario
I certainly hope so.
bullshit : i'm french. there is NO chaos at all. Just political entertainement as usual.
I'm amazed that "chaos" there in France is more like "normal". I remember some riots that happened couple of years ago and one commenter said France might verge into collapsing. I thought to myself that those who think that are not aware how France works, and rioting is a tradition since the French Revolution.
riots may happen in france, but for what is mention in the post, there is absolutely no riot, no chaos or anything else. It's just a political event without consequence.
I know. But I mean any political mess in France, riots or not, is seen as severe by outsiders but aren't aware how things work in France.
However, I admit that the situation in Mayotte is in a completely different context and unprecedented for overseas French territory.
This is a weird thing to not riot over from my perspective. You guys are being couped. But I guess that's how they can get away with this, is no one really cares who's in charge. Same thing happened to us in the 2000's election and as long as the coup is all according to the process or seems legal, or political, no one does anything.
When people riot over pensions or living conditions it’s because it affects them directly. Here it’s just squabbling over who gets to sit in the PM’s chair. Not surprising nobody wants to riot over which unlikable politician gets a promotion.
Ya that's basically what Game of Thrones is about lol.
It's still riots. But on TV and with ties on.
Literally every time I've been to France there has been a riot. Edit: actually that's not true, one of the times I was there it was only a riot watch, they were waiting for sentencing in some trial of righty separatists.
Not even a crumb of chaos? A morsel of mischief? Perhaps a scrap of sabotage?
Not so much as a shred of shenanigans.
Un peu de pagaille? Quelque chose de chienlit?
pass the Gauloises to gauche hand side
I know fuck all about French politics, but it seems strange that he doesn't just appoint the candidate from the left. It sounds like it's a fucked up non-functional situation, so he should just let them try to do the impossible and then fail. He's probably worried that she might actually succeed and is holding out hope for some way to cobble together something as close as possible to the centrist coalition that shit the bed in the first place.
Agreed. His excuse rings a little hollow. If there would be a no confidence vote, so be it. Give the left their PM, and if they get thrown out, then move forward with your compromise candidate.
If the candidate from the largest coalition can't survive a no confidence vote then I don't see how any other candidate would.
Usually its less about group membership and more about individual positions on individual issues. Usually anyway. You'd think there'd be at least someone from either the left or center that the other would find more amenable due to having a few things in common with the other one.
but it seems strange that he doesn't just appoint the candidate from the left.
From which part of the left? The New Popular Front is actually an amalgamation of broad left wing coalition of various parties. So Macron had to pick from the far-left communist leader Jean Luc Melenchon, or from the centre left Socialist party led by Olivier Faure.
The French legislative assembly works very differently compared to US Congress or the parliamentary system. There isn't really one, or two, or only five parties getting votes. The French system is much more pluralistic and it is more like a hodge podge of various parties forming a grand coalition that represents an ideology. Even the current French president Emmanuel Macron's so-called "party", Ensemble, is a coalition of centrist parties.
Not a choice he had to make. The NFP parties agreed on a consensus candidate - Lucie Castets.
I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know. However, it seems Lucie herself had previously rejected forming a coalition with Macron's group according to the Wikipedia article.
She's literally in the thumbnail of this post. You didn't even have to read the article, just the caption on the headlining picture. But thanks for telling us what you read on Wikipedia instead of reading the article you're commenting on.
This is why headline wording can be so important. People will just project their own biased understanding and skip the details.
Oh Hamas rejected the ceasefire deal again...
That's fair it was all the way in the article you're commenting on
It's amazing all the credit we gave him for that snap election decision is being completely erased.
Well it's not like he deserved any of that credit in the first place 🤷
I thought people credited Macron with the error and poor timing of the election. But credited the French voters with saving the election (against the far right and polling, quickly uniting with a practical strategy).
Hey! It's the part where the "centrists" betray the left and cede power to the facists! Damn. You'd think someone would write a new script or something.
So fucking tired of world shaking events always having a played out joke as the top comment.
If only world shaking events weren't always the same mistakes as before. Then we wouldn't be able to use the same jokes.
So tired of once-in-a-lifetime historical events happening every couple weeks.
He's going to make a deal with the nazis, isn't he.
AFAIK he's not talking to RN either, and if you look at actual parties and not groups then RN is the strongest party. It looks more like he's trying to break the NFP to get the support of some of the parties like social democrats or greens, because in such a coalition his party would be the strongest. In a coalition with RN his party wouldn't be the strongest and would have a hard time claiming the prime minister position.
No, he won't.
Time to break out a uniquely French solution?
Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.
The president had hoped consultations would break the political deadlock caused by the election that left the Assemblée Nationale divided into three roughly equal blocks – left, centre and far right – none of which has a majority of seats.
So, in parliamentary systems -- which, for these purposes, France is similar to -- typically this is dealt with via multiple factions making concessions to each other and forming a coalition. Is that an option?
France’s aversion to coalitions means any new government risks early collapse
In France, however, political leaders from left and right have lined up to rule out a coalition government after Sunday’s snap election produced a parliament of three roughly equal blocs – none with a majority, and all with wildly differing platforms.
Well.
What a fucking shit stain...
What a fucking trace de pneu
If that's what I think it is, we use "skid marks" as a euphemism in English too.
What a macaroon...
Sacrebleu!
So call a second election. The people will solve the impasse. Either a majority emerges or eventually the parties, exhausted by campaigning, will learn to compromise and make a coalition. Democracy will find a way.
will learn to compromise and make a coalition
Lol. You're new to French politics?
French Unity is when deGaulle has you dragged out back and shot for disagreeing.
Only in the colonies, so that was allowed!
How are your trash cans looking? Are any of them on fire yet? Y'all really know how to protest
I expect that as a random US person, coming onto a native, you have at least spent some university time on European political systems to have some arguments?
the constitution doesn't allow for another election
there's actually never been such a situation in this constitution (yes, our constitutions are just laws, not gods given sacred scrolls, so we change them whenever they're no longer adequate), and the current politicians cannot fathom working without a majority (although that was typical in the third and fourth republic, and in a lot of the other euro countries)
the president wants a so called "technical" government that will just do as it's told while the chambers fight among themselves
And yes, it's a shitshow. Shall we go back to how you're about to elect an insane game show host along with a guy that's had half his brain eaten by a worm?
Trump has no hope next to Harris, Biden stepping down has been the smartest move I've seen from Democrats since runnng Obama, people are energized, no one wants the other confused old guy.
That's what many people hope for. But then it's the US, so anything goes.
To be fair to us, the brain worm guy dropped out.
Could you explain please why another election is not allowed in France? I though Macron dissolved the parliament early for a new election, which brought us to this situation in the first place.
The constitution says that you can only do it once a year. Which makes sense as you have to deal with the stupid decisions you make.
Shall we go back to how you’re about to elect an insane game show host
Hey now. There's slightly over a 50% chance we get the coconut lady, instead.
As a Greek I have some familiarity. Our politics is just as adversarial (if not more) and there is no tradition of coalitions. But when push came to shove, they figured it out, if only for a bit.
While Greece was arguably mismanaged, it didn't deserve the harshness it got. But the same political mess could well be in the future of France.
100% agree
The parties aren't the problem. Macron holds the presidency and appoints the PM. The largest (coalition) party is giving him a candidate AFTER compromises and he's refusing STILL because he only wants a PM from his own party, who came in second (edit: not third, my bad, they did beat National Rally. They did come in third in the first round of voting though).
Macron holds the presidency and appoints the PM.
The big debate is on whether he "appoints" the PM or "picks" the PM.
The constitution doesn't exactly specify which, and usage was that he would appoint the one issued from the majority vote (but there's no majority, there's just one group that's a wee bit larger). So he's having his fun, pretending to have a chat with everybody, while knowing all the time that they can really all fuck off and the he'll do as he pleases.
In the end he'll most likely have what they call a "technical" government made of non political ministers that will just do as they're told, because the chambers will be too busy infighting to do anything about it.
It sounds like the candidate PM would not have the confidence of the Assembly though because the center doesn't want to play ball with the left and the left doesn't have a majority.
That's why I'm suggesting elections. Keep going until either a majority is elected (in which case I assume the president is obligated to appoint its leader) or the parliamentary math changes.
If Macron and the center are serious about keeping the cordon sanitaire against the far right, they should obviously play ball with the left. The fact that they are not tells me that they are not serious. The left should be able to make that argument to the electorate and hope to convince a majority.
Edit: not only is Macron showing lack of seriousness in keeping the far right at bay, he is also undermining the legitimacy of the presidency by playing parliamentary shenanigans and triggering such a constitutional crisis. I never really understood the fundamentals of France's semi-presidential system, but in a parliamentary republic like Germany, or Ireland, or Greece for example, the president does not get to play politics with the parliament's confidence like this. I don't understand why the French think this is a good system.
Why the fuck are centrists and right wingers always holding hands to prevent any kind of leftist power?
Oh right, money
Not possible, there's a one year delay.
God damn it, De Gaulle really screwed you guys over, eh?
You can't repeatedly dissolve the chamber. I don't think that's a bad thing.
The real problem isn't with the constitution. It's with the fact that the French are no longer able to create coalitions around a project. The whole political system is built around the idea that one group has a majority and does as it pleases until the next election. Talking to others is completely alien to them. And that is a real problem.
Most of the other European countries work with coalitions. It makes much more sense (I understand that this is alien to US people).
Most of the other European countries work with coalitions. It makes much more sense
Eh. Post WW2 European "coalitions" are largely just iterations of the modern Democratic Party subdivided by region and cultural touchstone. There isn't a huge ideological gap between German Christian Democrats, Christian Socialists, Free Democrats, and Greens, for instance. The real divide is between East and West, and that's where you get a rump AfD that grew out of the corpse of GDR Communists.
Similarly, Macron's En Marche party is itself this coalition of French business interests that are terrified of Melanchon and conservative nationalists who don't sit well with LePen's National Front. He's synthesized a position between his old boss Hollande's champagne socialism and Sarkozy's moderate business friendly white nationalism. But now all the half measures have dried up his base of support.
Spain's government is similarly bifricated along lines that go back to the civil war of the 1930s. Italy's is a hogpodge of parties that are still strictly aligned with the industrial north or rural south. You can repeat this pattern across the entire continent. Yeah, a multi-party system exists, but the coalitions are ultimately all defined by their relationships to international business. Are you the finance friendly international markets party or are you the angry proletarian outsiders?
The social policies of the parties might vary based on whether the base is liberally cosmopolitan or conservatively rural. But the root of the divide always comes down to questions of profit.
As a Dutch voter (who voted left) I’m happy with the coalition in the Netherlands if compared to a theoretical where the far-right party PVV rules alone shudder
the parties, exhausted by campaigning, will learn to compromise and make a coalition
Good luck with that.
But then he risks losing again.
"Chaos in France"
Just... Can these people exercise any restraint when it comes to sensationalist headlines?
"Chaos in France" doesn't really mean much either. As far as France is concerned that's just a normal day.
They should add a new word then.
I hate headlines like this. There is no "chaos". A bunch of politicians are arguing and having meetings. Bureaucracy chunters along as usual. Paralympics are happening.
If the politicians were having shootouts in the Champs Elysées and disrupting traffic then yes, a bit of chaos in Paris. But they're not. Sigh.
"Democracy" at work.
It is, presumably the elected havent decided yet
presumably the elected havent decided yet
Yeah maybe
...or maybe Macron is opposing the Democratic decision to select Lucie Castets?
From the article.
NFP has put forward Lucie Castets, a 37-year-old economist and director of financial affairs at Paris City Hall, as its candidate. After Monday’s announcement, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the LFI president, accused Macron of creating an “exceptionally serious situation”.
So he's pulling a Maduro. No kind of interest paid to the first place party, but I guess we won't hear any neolibs complain about that.
So he’s pulling a Maduro.
Oh, I didn't realize he was falsifying elections. You do have a reason for accusing Macron of that, right, and aren't just throwing around accusations to try to lessen the seriousness of Maduro's actions, right?
He's straight up ignoring the will of the people, so it's pretty much the same shit to me. A wanna be dictator throwing rocks in the wheels of democracy just because he doesn't like the election results. Same thing could be said about Macron.
so it’s pretty much the same shit to me.
Jesus fucking Christ.
::: spoiler The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
Yeah, quite a tough decision to choose between 2 extremists :|
Classic brain-dead centrist perspective thanks for sharing.
Any factual argument or just ad-hominem?
here are two arguments:
Your stance is based on the idea that both sides have equal merit
You have no principles or independent thought
you can pick the exact middle
It’s hard to judge whether extreme right or extreme left is worse. They are both dangerous for a country, though in a different sense.
I personally am not in the exact middle but being radical is not a choice.
What do you think are the beliefs of the extreme left?
Usually the surreal ones such as extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.
Basically all actions that look very good on paper but at the same time are extremely expensive.
extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.
Ooooooooo scary!
Totally the same thing as literally exterminating entire groups of people based on characteristics they were born with.
In all seriousness though, you should look at what Finland has done regarding "public housing," and how great it has been for them. Spoiler alert, they're actually really nice, and affordable. Because nobody is looking to maximize a profit.
But please, let me know how "Finland is much smaller than the US, therefore impossible."
Well yes. They can go for it because they considering their size, they have a strong economy. They are literally the 3rd
most prosperous country in the world.
If you can afford it, go for it but firstly you need to make the money.
And how do you think they became prosperous? You have to give people the chance to spend money to have a growing economy, otherwise everyone's keeping money for later and nothings flowing.
You view those as similar in extremism to Nazis? That's a self report right there.
I would say nazis and communists are equally as bad and equally as dangerous.
I'm gonna go ahead and say you are not a member of any group targeted by the Holocaust then.
lol yes ok very dangerous and equivalent to fascism understood
my opinion of centrists has completely flipped, I totally get why "spending too much" and "enforcing an ethnic hierarchy" are the same degree of evil
snark aside: you should reflect about what exactly money is, what it's used for and what it represents, and how a government spending its own legal tender differs from household finances.
do you even hear yourself jfc
Your comments is literally just ad-hominem too bruh.
I have just pointed out that both sides have extreme views that are dangerous.
What extreme views are coming from the left side?
The right side is fascism, the left side is plans to raise the monthly minimum wage, impose price ceilings on essential foods, electricity, gas and petrol, repeal Macron’s deeply unpopular decision to raise the retirement age to 64, and invest massively in the green transition and public services.
How are those 'exteme' and 'dangerous'?
Exactly those are the views you mentioned. All these are extremely expensive and financing all of them without the debt increase is practically impossible. Combine it with almost no relevant plans how to improve economy and you have got quite a dangerous situation. You cannot just spend money without earning it.
That's not how modern monetary policy works, by the way. The US dollar has a ton of power worldwide for many reasons, so we determine what our money is worth, period. This is why every time the US government has spent money on "demand side" solutions (stimulus checks, etc.) they have provided nothing but upside.
This little trick that capitalists don't want you to know about: it's all bullshit. They want us to keep injecting cash into failing banks rather than just paying for people's garbage mortgages.
We owe nothing to nobody because those debts will never be paid (who would they even be paid to?).
There is zero practical reason (beyond "oh no, billionaires and multinational corporations need to pay taxes wahhh") that we cannot spend as much money as we like on every social program we like. Prove me wrong (or just read about "Modern Monetary Theory" as I'm not an economist).
Have you heard about what happened to greece?
For example, one third of population lived in poverty (in Greece) due to economic crisis. Is that not enough to take responsible money management seriously?
Raising the standard of living and improving the purchasing power of the individual DOES improve the economy because it enables more people to spend more on foods and services. They are financed by raising taxes on the ultra wealthy and corporations. The money is already earned, the difference it whether it gets pocketed and horded by executives or recirculated into the economy by improving the standard of living of the populace
Those ultra wealthy people and corporations are not that stupid. If they see they can exist and pay less in a different country, they will just move. Everyone will be happy apart from the country which rose the taxes.
Of course that rising living standards improves economy but not in a way where you just sponsor good housing for your whole population.
Europe disagrees, infact they site that increasing access to good public housing is critical for the economy going forward
Well sure they don’t flee New York, California and other places where despite high taxes they can still make large amounts of money. Simply because most of development is there. If they can make 50k a month and pay 50% taxes in NY (just an example) compared to 10k and 10% taxes somewhere else (they would just stay).
However, this is not California/NY and you can easily check what high taxes do here. People register companies in Ireland and Cyprus, so they can pay the least taxes possible. Then, due to european union being european union, they can operate in their home country.
We've already established that taxes on the rich/corporations that are used to improve the standard of living of the citizens of the country does increase development and stimulate the economy. Do you have any sources to back up your views? Because so far they don't seem based on any real world data
Macron was bailed out by cooperation from the left-wing, and now he wants to play fuckwad games. How predictable. I hope they ream his ass out for trying this.
This deserves a riot. Hopefully the public sets him straight. I wish our own public would flip cars over politicians' lies and anti-citizen rulings.
"why don't leftists just cooperate with liberals and try to guide them left"
Well, this is why, most liberals (within power, it's the opposite in the populace) aren't "good hearted but misinformed and able to be moved left". It has been tried countless times and all that ever happens is they betray the left and try to push their right wing agendas.
The alternative here would have been to let the far-right win.
The issue isn't that the left did cooperate with liberals to prevent fascism. That's wholly laudable. One simply shouldn't expect one's enemies to be anything except temporary allies against worse foes (and I'm not accusing the French left of naivety here, mind, they probably understood and are prepared for this scenario).
Correct. The issue is that the liberals aren't cooperating with the left to prevent fascism. They're just trying to use facsism as a tool against the left, as always.
I certainly hope so.
bullshit : i'm french. there is NO chaos at all. Just political entertainement as usual.
I'm amazed that "chaos" there in France is more like "normal". I remember some riots that happened couple of years ago and one commenter said France might verge into collapsing. I thought to myself that those who think that are not aware how France works, and rioting is a tradition since the French Revolution.
riots may happen in france, but for what is mention in the post, there is absolutely no riot, no chaos or anything else. It's just a political event without consequence.
I know. But I mean any political mess in France, riots or not, is seen as severe by outsiders but aren't aware how things work in France.
However, I admit that the situation in Mayotte is in a completely different context and unprecedented for overseas French territory.
This is a weird thing to not riot over from my perspective. You guys are being couped. But I guess that's how they can get away with this, is no one really cares who's in charge. Same thing happened to us in the 2000's election and as long as the coup is all according to the process or seems legal, or political, no one does anything.
When people riot over pensions or living conditions it’s because it affects them directly. Here it’s just squabbling over who gets to sit in the PM’s chair. Not surprising nobody wants to riot over which unlikable politician gets a promotion.
Ya that's basically what Game of Thrones is about lol.
It's still riots. But on TV and with ties on.
Literally every time I've been to France there has been a riot. Edit: actually that's not true, one of the times I was there it was only a riot watch, they were waiting for sentencing in some trial of righty separatists.
Not even a crumb of chaos? A morsel of mischief? Perhaps a scrap of sabotage?
Not so much as a shred of shenanigans.
Un peu de pagaille? Quelque chose de chienlit?
pass the Gauloises to gauche hand side
I know fuck all about French politics, but it seems strange that he doesn't just appoint the candidate from the left. It sounds like it's a fucked up non-functional situation, so he should just let them try to do the impossible and then fail. He's probably worried that she might actually succeed and is holding out hope for some way to cobble together something as close as possible to the centrist coalition that shit the bed in the first place.
Agreed. His excuse rings a little hollow. If there would be a no confidence vote, so be it. Give the left their PM, and if they get thrown out, then move forward with your compromise candidate.
If the candidate from the largest coalition can't survive a no confidence vote then I don't see how any other candidate would.
Usually its less about group membership and more about individual positions on individual issues. Usually anyway. You'd think there'd be at least someone from either the left or center that the other would find more amenable due to having a few things in common with the other one.
From which part of the left? The New Popular Front is actually an amalgamation of broad left wing coalition of various parties. So Macron had to pick from the far-left communist leader Jean Luc Melenchon, or from the centre left Socialist party led by Olivier Faure.
The French legislative assembly works very differently compared to US Congress or the parliamentary system. There isn't really one, or two, or only five parties getting votes. The French system is much more pluralistic and it is more like a hodge podge of various parties forming a grand coalition that represents an ideology. Even the current French president Emmanuel Macron's so-called "party", Ensemble, is a coalition of centrist parties.
If you want to find out more about France's current deadlock, here is a good succinct video explaining it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5Q5nCCF5ck
Not a choice he had to make. The NFP parties agreed on a consensus candidate - Lucie Castets.
I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know. However, it seems Lucie herself had previously rejected forming a coalition with Macron's group according to the Wikipedia article.
She's literally in the thumbnail of this post. You didn't even have to read the article, just the caption on the headlining picture. But thanks for telling us what you read on Wikipedia instead of reading the article you're commenting on.
This is why headline wording can be so important. People will just project their own biased understanding and skip the details.
Oh Hamas rejected the ceasefire deal again...
That's fair it was all the way in the article you're commenting on
It's amazing all the credit we gave him for that snap election decision is being completely erased.
Well it's not like he deserved any of that credit in the first place 🤷
I thought people credited Macron with the error and poor timing of the election. But credited the French voters with saving the election (against the far right and polling, quickly uniting with a practical strategy).
Hey! It's the part where the "centrists" betray the left and cede power to the facists! Damn. You'd think someone would write a new script or something.
So fucking tired of world shaking events always having a played out joke as the top comment.
If only world shaking events weren't always the same mistakes as before. Then we wouldn't be able to use the same jokes.
So tired of once-in-a-lifetime historical events happening every couple weeks.
He's going to make a deal with the nazis, isn't he.
AFAIK he's not talking to RN either, and if you look at actual parties and not groups then RN is the strongest party. It looks more like he's trying to break the NFP to get the support of some of the parties like social democrats or greens, because in such a coalition his party would be the strongest. In a coalition with RN his party wouldn't be the strongest and would have a hard time claiming the prime minister position.
No, he won't.
Time to break out a uniquely French solution?
Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.
So, in parliamentary systems -- which, for these purposes, France is similar to -- typically this is dealt with via multiple factions making concessions to each other and forming a coalition. Is that an option?
kagis
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/09/french-government-risks-no-confidence-motion-as-leaders-rule-out-coalitions
Well.
What a fucking shit stain...
What a fucking trace de pneu
If that's what I think it is, we use "skid marks" as a euphemism in English too.
What a macaroon...
Sacrebleu!
So call a second election. The people will solve the impasse. Either a majority emerges or eventually the parties, exhausted by campaigning, will learn to compromise and make a coalition. Democracy will find a way.
Lol. You're new to French politics?
French Unity is when deGaulle has you dragged out back and shot for disagreeing.
Only in the colonies, so that was allowed!
How are your trash cans looking? Are any of them on fire yet? Y'all really know how to protest
I expect that as a random US person, coming onto a native, you have at least spent some university time on European political systems to have some arguments?
And yes, it's a shitshow. Shall we go back to how you're about to elect an insane game show host along with a guy that's had half his brain eaten by a worm?
Trump has no hope next to Harris, Biden stepping down has been the smartest move I've seen from Democrats since runnng Obama, people are energized, no one wants the other confused old guy.
That's what many people hope for. But then it's the US, so anything goes.
To be fair to us, the brain worm guy dropped out.
Could you explain please why another election is not allowed in France? I though Macron dissolved the parliament early for a new election, which brought us to this situation in the first place.
The constitution says that you can only do it once a year. Which makes sense as you have to deal with the stupid decisions you make.
Hey now. There's slightly over a 50% chance we get the coconut lady, instead.
As a Greek I have some familiarity. Our politics is just as adversarial (if not more) and there is no tradition of coalitions. But when push came to shove, they figured it out, if only for a bit.
While Greece was arguably mismanaged, it didn't deserve the harshness it got. But the same political mess could well be in the future of France.
100% agree
The parties aren't the problem. Macron holds the presidency and appoints the PM. The largest (coalition) party is giving him a candidate AFTER compromises and he's refusing STILL because he only wants a PM from his own party, who came in second (edit: not third, my bad, they did beat National Rally. They did come in third in the first round of voting though).
The big debate is on whether he "appoints" the PM or "picks" the PM.
The constitution doesn't exactly specify which, and usage was that he would appoint the one issued from the majority vote (but there's no majority, there's just one group that's a wee bit larger). So he's having his fun, pretending to have a chat with everybody, while knowing all the time that they can really all fuck off and the he'll do as he pleases.
In the end he'll most likely have what they call a "technical" government made of non political ministers that will just do as they're told, because the chambers will be too busy infighting to do anything about it.
It sounds like the candidate PM would not have the confidence of the Assembly though because the center doesn't want to play ball with the left and the left doesn't have a majority.
That's why I'm suggesting elections. Keep going until either a majority is elected (in which case I assume the president is obligated to appoint its leader) or the parliamentary math changes.
If Macron and the center are serious about keeping the cordon sanitaire against the far right, they should obviously play ball with the left. The fact that they are not tells me that they are not serious. The left should be able to make that argument to the electorate and hope to convince a majority.
Edit: not only is Macron showing lack of seriousness in keeping the far right at bay, he is also undermining the legitimacy of the presidency by playing parliamentary shenanigans and triggering such a constitutional crisis. I never really understood the fundamentals of France's semi-presidential system, but in a parliamentary republic like Germany, or Ireland, or Greece for example, the president does not get to play politics with the parliament's confidence like this. I don't understand why the French think this is a good system.
Why the fuck are centrists and right wingers always holding hands to prevent any kind of leftist power?
Oh right, money
Not possible, there's a one year delay.
God damn it, De Gaulle really screwed you guys over, eh?
You can't repeatedly dissolve the chamber. I don't think that's a bad thing.
The real problem isn't with the constitution. It's with the fact that the French are no longer able to create coalitions around a project. The whole political system is built around the idea that one group has a majority and does as it pleases until the next election. Talking to others is completely alien to them. And that is a real problem.
Most of the other European countries work with coalitions. It makes much more sense (I understand that this is alien to US people).
Eh. Post WW2 European "coalitions" are largely just iterations of the modern Democratic Party subdivided by region and cultural touchstone. There isn't a huge ideological gap between German Christian Democrats, Christian Socialists, Free Democrats, and Greens, for instance. The real divide is between East and West, and that's where you get a rump AfD that grew out of the corpse of GDR Communists.
Similarly, Macron's En Marche party is itself this coalition of French business interests that are terrified of Melanchon and conservative nationalists who don't sit well with LePen's National Front. He's synthesized a position between his old boss Hollande's champagne socialism and Sarkozy's moderate business friendly white nationalism. But now all the half measures have dried up his base of support.
Spain's government is similarly bifricated along lines that go back to the civil war of the 1930s. Italy's is a hogpodge of parties that are still strictly aligned with the industrial north or rural south. You can repeat this pattern across the entire continent. Yeah, a multi-party system exists, but the coalitions are ultimately all defined by their relationships to international business. Are you the finance friendly international markets party or are you the angry proletarian outsiders?
The social policies of the parties might vary based on whether the base is liberally cosmopolitan or conservatively rural. But the root of the divide always comes down to questions of profit.
As a Dutch voter (who voted left) I’m happy with the coalition in the Netherlands if compared to a theoretical where the far-right party PVV rules alone shudder
Good luck with that.
But then he risks losing again.
"Chaos in France"
Just... Can these people exercise any restraint when it comes to sensationalist headlines?
"Chaos in France" doesn't really mean much either. As far as France is concerned that's just a normal day.
They should add a new word then.
I hate headlines like this. There is no "chaos". A bunch of politicians are arguing and having meetings. Bureaucracy chunters along as usual. Paralympics are happening.
If the politicians were having shootouts in the Champs Elysées and disrupting traffic then yes, a bit of chaos in Paris. But they're not. Sigh.
"Democracy" at work.
It is, presumably the elected havent decided yet
Yeah maybe
...or maybe Macron is opposing the Democratic decision to select Lucie Castets?
From the article.
So he's pulling a Maduro. No kind of interest paid to the first place party, but I guess we won't hear any neolibs complain about that.
Oh, I didn't realize he was falsifying elections. You do have a reason for accusing Macron of that, right, and aren't just throwing around accusations to try to lessen the seriousness of Maduro's actions, right?
He's straight up ignoring the will of the people, so it's pretty much the same shit to me. A wanna be dictator throwing rocks in the wheels of democracy just because he doesn't like the election results. Same thing could be said about Macron.
Jesus fucking Christ.
::: spoiler The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for The Guardian:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/26/chaos-in-france-after-macron-refuses-to-name-prime-minister-from-leftwing-coalition ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Yeah, quite a tough decision to choose between 2 extremists :|
Classic brain-dead centrist perspective thanks for sharing.
Any factual argument or just ad-hominem?
here are two arguments:
you can pick the exact middle
It’s hard to judge whether extreme right or extreme left is worse. They are both dangerous for a country, though in a different sense.
I personally am not in the exact middle but being radical is not a choice.
What do you think are the beliefs of the extreme left?
Usually the surreal ones such as extremely high minimum wages, fixed prices for food, state-sponsored housing, etc.
Basically all actions that look very good on paper but at the same time are extremely expensive.
Ooooooooo scary!
Totally the same thing as literally exterminating entire groups of people based on characteristics they were born with.
In all seriousness though, you should look at what Finland has done regarding "public housing," and how great it has been for them. Spoiler alert, they're actually really nice, and affordable. Because nobody is looking to maximize a profit.
But please, let me know how "Finland is much smaller than the US, therefore impossible."
Well yes. They can go for it because they considering their size, they have a strong economy. They are literally the 3rd most prosperous country in the world.
If you can afford it, go for it but firstly you need to make the money.
And how do you think they became prosperous? You have to give people the chance to spend money to have a growing economy, otherwise everyone's keeping money for later and nothings flowing.
You view those as similar in extremism to Nazis? That's a self report right there.
I would say nazis and communists are equally as bad and equally as dangerous.
I'm gonna go ahead and say you are not a member of any group targeted by the Holocaust then.
lol yes ok very dangerous and equivalent to fascism understood
my opinion of centrists has completely flipped, I totally get why "spending too much" and "enforcing an ethnic hierarchy" are the same degree of evil
snark aside: you should reflect about what exactly money is, what it's used for and what it represents, and how a government spending its own legal tender differs from household finances.
do you even hear yourself jfc
Your comments is literally just ad-hominem too bruh.
I have just pointed out that both sides have extreme views that are dangerous.
What extreme views are coming from the left side?
The right side is fascism, the left side is plans to raise the monthly minimum wage, impose price ceilings on essential foods, electricity, gas and petrol, repeal Macron’s deeply unpopular decision to raise the retirement age to 64, and invest massively in the green transition and public services.
How are those 'exteme' and 'dangerous'?
Exactly those are the views you mentioned. All these are extremely expensive and financing all of them without the debt increase is practically impossible. Combine it with almost no relevant plans how to improve economy and you have got quite a dangerous situation. You cannot just spend money without earning it.
That's not how modern monetary policy works, by the way. The US dollar has a ton of power worldwide for many reasons, so we determine what our money is worth, period. This is why every time the US government has spent money on "demand side" solutions (stimulus checks, etc.) they have provided nothing but upside.
This little trick that capitalists don't want you to know about: it's all bullshit. They want us to keep injecting cash into failing banks rather than just paying for people's garbage mortgages.
We owe nothing to nobody because those debts will never be paid (who would they even be paid to?).
There is zero practical reason (beyond "oh no, billionaires and multinational corporations need to pay taxes wahhh") that we cannot spend as much money as we like on every social program we like. Prove me wrong (or just read about "Modern Monetary Theory" as I'm not an economist).
Have you heard about what happened to greece?
For example, one third of population lived in poverty (in Greece) due to economic crisis. Is that not enough to take responsible money management seriously?
Raising the standard of living and improving the purchasing power of the individual DOES improve the economy because it enables more people to spend more on foods and services. They are financed by raising taxes on the ultra wealthy and corporations. The money is already earned, the difference it whether it gets pocketed and horded by executives or recirculated into the economy by improving the standard of living of the populace
Those ultra wealthy people and corporations are not that stupid. If they see they can exist and pay less in a different country, they will just move. Everyone will be happy apart from the country which rose the taxes.
Of course that rising living standards improves economy but not in a way where you just sponsor good housing for your whole population.
Not true, High Taxes Don't Make Rich People Move
Europe disagrees, infact they site that increasing access to good public housing is critical for the economy going forward
Well sure they don’t flee New York, California and other places where despite high taxes they can still make large amounts of money. Simply because most of development is there. If they can make 50k a month and pay 50% taxes in NY (just an example) compared to 10k and 10% taxes somewhere else (they would just stay).
However, this is not California/NY and you can easily check what high taxes do here. People register companies in Ireland and Cyprus, so they can pay the least taxes possible. Then, due to european union being european union, they can operate in their home country.
We've already established that taxes on the rich/corporations that are used to improve the standard of living of the citizens of the country does increase development and stimulate the economy. Do you have any sources to back up your views? Because so far they don't seem based on any real world data
Let the capitalists flee, easier than rounding them up. The workers will still be there, and the workers are the economy
Yes, let the capitalists flee, so there is no one to pay the taxes. That seems like a very wise plan.
In addition, every company needs just workers. Management, engineers and so on are practically useless.
This would surely work very well.
Hint: You can actually see how brilliantly it worked during 1940s-1990s in the countries under Warsaw pact.
lol managers and engineers aren't workers TIL
Are you from the past? Like 2014?