|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing.
The dissensions between Russia and Europe is a little bigger than just uneasyness in my opinion. It's a real difference in philosophy : modern Europe do not understand Russia's behavior (which is why it is picturing Putin as a Hitler like chracter).
But I completly agree with the second part of your post - which is just reason in my mind - that indeed states are self serving entities first and foremost (and this apply to every countries). Somehow, some journalists and commentators make it seems like european countries such as France or Germany are above that.
|
They aren't above that but I have literally zero animosity to Germany (or any country for that matter). Do we really live in an age where tensions between developed countries still exist?
Politically perhaps, but not between populations I'd say
|
On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business
If by "conducting business differently" you mean militarily annexing part of the territory of a neighboring state, then yes, Russia conducts business differently.
|
On August 01 2015 04:30 Incognoto wrote:
They aren't above that but I have literally zero animosity to Germany (or any country for that matter). Do we really live in an age where tensions between developed countries still exist?
Politically perhaps, but not between populations I'd say
We could hope so. Current europe is too old on average to wage war anyway. But I personally am a pessimist in this regard.
The XIXth century was, according to historian, pretty peaceful for european superpowers if you put aside the napoleonic war. The 1870 war between france and germany barely lasted and had very few casualties. But there were strong forces oppossing countries in the background - forces that eventually lead to collective suicide.
|
Yes it was pretty much only a peaceful century because Bismarck was a pretty smart guy and created a pretty cool system of alliances. Too bad nobody could handle it afterwards and everybody was dragged down the drain at the same time. There's a lot of nostalgia around for that kind of multi-polar system but it really just set the stage to violently implode at some point.
|
On August 01 2015 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah it was pretty much only a peaceful century because Bismarck was a pretty smart guy and created a pretty cool system of alliances. Too bad nobody could handle it afterwards and everybody was dragged down the drain at the same time. There's a lot of nostalgia around for that kind of multi-polar system but it really just set the stage to violently implode at some point.
It really wasn't that hard of a system to maintain. The whole key is that Germany knows that Russia and France don't really like it so they had to have Britain as an ally. The Kaiser didn't really understand this, so he antagonized them by building a fleet. When you consider they were up against the other 3 major European powers, the Germany army's performance in WW1 was ridiculous.
|
On August 01 2015 05:09 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah it was pretty much only a peaceful century because Bismarck was a pretty smart guy and created a pretty cool system of alliances. Too bad nobody could handle it afterwards and everybody was dragged down the drain at the same time. There's a lot of nostalgia around for that kind of multi-polar system but it really just set the stage to violently implode at some point. It really wasn't that hard of a system to maintain. The whole key is that Germany knows that Russia and France don't really like it so they had to have Britain as an ally. The Kaiser didn't really understand this, so he antagonized them by building a fleet. When you consider they were up against the other 3 major European powers, the Germany army's performance in WW1 was ridiculous.
That's not exactly right tho. The UK were stuck in a civil war and could not help a lot in the first year of WW1 (they sent only one division for the first year if I reckon). Russia's military is... Special to say the least, and they had their own internal problems (problems that eventually lead to the 1917 revolution).
The real amazing feat is the start of WW2 and France defeat - the strange defeat as Bloch wrote.
|
Yes the UK wasn't really important to Germany, especially Bismarck. He only cared about keeping Russia on Germany's side because it was France's largest potential ally, and admiration for the Prussian-Russian foreign policy is something that you'll here from German conservatives even today.
|
On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing.
Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing.
|
On August 01 2015 05:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing. Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing.
The problem is your talking to a Russian who has bought in to their media. They dont quite see the world the same way the rest of Europe does.
|
On August 01 2015 05:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 05:09 cLutZ wrote:On August 01 2015 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
Yeah it was pretty much only a peaceful century because Bismarck was a pretty smart guy and created a pretty cool system of alliances. Too bad nobody could handle it afterwards and everybody was dragged down the drain at the same time. There's a lot of nostalgia around for that kind of multi-polar system but it really just set the stage to violently implode at some point. It really wasn't that hard of a system to maintain. The whole key is that Germany knows that Russia and France don't really like it so they had to have Britain as an ally. The Kaiser didn't really understand this, so he antagonized them by building a fleet. When you consider they were up against the other 3 major European powers, the Germany army's performance in WW1 was ridiculous. That's not exactly right tho. The UK were stuck in a civil war and could not help a lot in the first year of WW1 (they sent only one division for the first year if I reckon). Russia's military is... Special to say the least, and they had their own internal problems (problems that eventually lead to the 1917 revolution). The real amazing feat is the start of WW2 and France defeat - the strange defeat as Bloch wrote.
For sure Britain's army wasn't key, but if they were at least neutral then Germany's citizens don't slowly starve because of the fleet. And British propaganda was key to getting the Americans on their side. IMO a Prussian-Russian long term alliance was always improbable.
Also yes, WW2 was quite an odd failure for the French army.
|
On August 01 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 05:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing. Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing. The problem is your talking to a Russian who has bought in to their media. They dont quite see the world the same way the rest of Europe does.
LegalLord has been a pretty balanced poster here in contrast to some others, I don't think that's a fair statement at all.
|
On August 01 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 05:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing. Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing. The problem is your talking to a Russian who has bought in to their media. They dont quite see the world the same way the rest of Europe does.
The rest of europe as the same kind of media too - biased and stupid I mean.
|
On August 01 2015 06:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:On August 01 2015 05:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing. Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing. The problem is your talking to a Russian who has bought in to their media. They dont quite see the world the same way the rest of Europe does. LegalLord has been a pretty balanced poster here in contrast to some others, I don't think that's a fair statement at all.
Its been a while since the Ukraine thread so I might be remembering him wrong in which case I am sorry but lets not pretend like Russia is in any way acting like Europe or that their recent actions in Ukraine haven't heavily strained relations.
We didn't sanction them for lolz.
|
You don't need crazy media to get crazy posters. I guess the reverse is possible as well.
In fact, I would say in my country a lot of people are populist and extremist 'like Russians', especially online, when the media is very nuanced and civilized in their biased ways(Dutch media might be no.1 in sophistication in this part, but then again we are know for our media innovations, like Big Brother reality).
|
On August 01 2015 05:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing. Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing.
You take a controversial statement as fact, and assuming that you do live in Canada, I wouldn't really be surprised about that. US/Canada media tends to make rather extreme statements about Russia stated as fact, and since there's been a good 70 years since the start of the Cold War, their place in public opinion has become pretty ubiquitous, even if they are entirely wrong. For example, the idea that Russia wants to wage war (or economic war) on Europe is quite laughable, from the perspective of anyone who is actually decently informed on Russian geopolitics.
On August 01 2015 05:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 05:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing. Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing. The problem is your talking to a Russian who has bought in to their media. They dont quite see the world the same way the rest of Europe does.
Yeah, that was uncalled for. FWIW, I currently live in the United States (and follow news in both countries), and I'd say that in the matter of international politics, Russian news is more fair than US news (though both are more flawed than what I've seen in Europe). Propaganda is everywhere, and most people are willing to eat it up as long as said propaganda paints their political beliefs in a favorable light. That's true in the US, in Russia, and most certainly in every European country.
And let's leave it at that, since anything more would only be very tangentially related to European politics.
|
That's because the US have so much stake in everything as they have an empire to manage, their media can't freely report on things not about themselves; there's always a US stake or a party the US backs or opposes.
For Russian media, a lot of areas are just a clear field and they can do actual journalism. Their backyard nowadays is extremely small, basically just Ukraine and a tiny part of Georgia and the only real dictator left in Europe; Lukashenko of Belarus.
Doesn't mean Putin isn't dangerous. If he loses power, his successor will assassinate/execute him and the people associated with him. Therefore, he will do everything to stay in power. If that means waging war, small or big, he will. Putin gets a flu, and the whole country is in fear of complete chaos.
Every action Putin makes can actually be linked to this fear.
|
On August 01 2015 07:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 05:34 Evil_Sheep wrote:On July 31 2015 23:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2015 14:21 Evil_Sheep wrote:
This is not like, say, Putin, who is much harder to deal with because his intentions are bad and 100% self-serving. All the actors here are allies and partners, everyone's trying to work towards the same goal, which is trying to fix Europe and end this crisis, the only disagreement is on the best way to do it. Well that was not only wrong but also uncalled for. Russia may not be the same as the EU in how it conducts business, but it's a far cry from making a loaded statement like this. No one was really saying any such thing before 2014, and no one will say anything like this (in non-Baltic non-Poland Europe - not sure about US/Canada) in another 3-4 years. The EU and Russia aren't really enemies - more like uneasy neighbors. US and Russia, not so much, and I'd say that Canada is directly within US's sphere of influence so it will do as the US does. Germany and France have made significant efforts to try to restore friendly relations, so it's clear that they have different goals in mind. Oh, and all nations are self-serving entities, first and foremost. Any "charity" is at the cost of your own nation's well-being, so there's obviously a secondary motive in any aid given. It will never be something for nothing. Well I never expected that this statement of all the ones I wrote would be a point of controversy. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone now what Putin is up to, so it's only a question of whether you support it or not. Putin's not finished yet either so Europe had better get its shit together because the Greek crisis is easymode compared to the other problems they are facing. You take a controversial statement as fact, and assuming that you do live in Canada, I wouldn't really be surprised about that. US/Canada media tends to make rather extreme statements about Russia stated as fact, and since there's been a good 70 years since the start of the Cold War, their place in public opinion has become pretty ubiquitous, even if they are entirely wrong.
You don't need any interpretation from the media to figure out what's going on. He's attacked in three different places in the last 7 years each time resulting in successful territorial conquests. He has made clear his grievance with the post-Cold War order in Europe and his intentions to destabilize it. Putin's actions speak for themselves.
For example, the idea that Russia wants to wage war (or economic war) on Europe is quite laughable, from the perspective of anyone who is actually decently informed on Russian geopolitics.
Russia is engaged in an economic and military war with Ukraine at this moment. I suppose that is laughable, if you believe like Putin that Ukraine is part of Russia, and Russia is not part of Europe.
|
So, WhiteDog, corumjhaelen, Saumure, Incognoto, Furikawari and other French folk, I wanted to ask for your opinions and analysis.
I don't know a lot about the policies that this "Socialist" government has enacted. I thought there was the introduction of a massive 70% income tax for the highest earners, though I don't know if any actual wealth taxes were planned and if so, whether they went through and I know a lot of european countries keep taxes for health and sometimes unemployment completely separated from the normal income tax, so the 70% might not even account for all the taxes they would pay?
WhiteDog has touched on the current incarnation of the Socialist party under François Hollande being incompetent and not at all doing what they were elected to do (did they start and then turn 180°?).
Manuel Valls was one of other people singled out.
What sort of policies were the voters EXPECTING of them, what have they enacted that betrays that voter base and could you give some examples of their incompetence?
Also, WhiteDog linked French opinion polls relating to Greece, showing that Left Front leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon is seen as most sympathetic to the Greeks.
I think the majority of the left voters (who from what I calculated were somewhere in the 42-47% range of the pooling sample, if memory serves correctly).
What is it about his platform that deters most "left" french voters?
I only know what I've read on wikipedia and The Guardian about him because most articles and videos I find are in French.
"Too far" to the left? If so, why are they afraid to vote that way if the Socialist Party are just left populist in speeches and sell-outs in government? (i.e. not actively pursuing the "left" values they preach)
I'm interested in your personal views as well as what you believe to be public opinion, by the way.
|
On August 03 2015 11:07 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
So, WhiteDog, corumjhaelen, Saumure, Incognoto, Furikawari and other French folk, I wanted to ask for your opinions and analysis.
I don't know a lot about the policies that this "Socialist" government has enacted. I thought there was the introduction of a massive 70% income tax for the highest earners, though I don't know if any actual wealth taxes were planned and if so, whether they went through and I know a lot of european countries keep taxes for health and sometimes unemployment completely separated from the normal income tax, so the 70% might not even account for all the taxes they would pay?
WhiteDog has touched on the current incarnation of the Socialist party under François Hollande being incompetent and not at all doing what they were elected to do (did they start and then turn 180°?).
Manuel Valls was one of other people singled out.
What sort of policies were the voters EXPECTING of them, what have they enacted that betrays that voter base and could you give some examples of their incompetence?
Also, WhiteDog linked French opinion polls relating to Greece, showing that Left Front leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon is seen as most sympathetic to the Greeks.
I think the majority of the left voters (who from what I calculated were somewhere in the 42-47% range of the pooling sample, if memory serves correctly).
What is it about his platform that deters most "left" french voters?
I only know what I've read on wikipedia and The Guardian about him because most articles and videos I find are in French.
"Too far" to the left? If so, why are they afraid to vote that way if the Socialist Party are just left populist in speeches and sell-outs in government? (i.e. not actively pursuing the "left" values they preach)
I'm interested in your personal views as well as what you believe to be public opinion, by the way.
1) the income tax at 75 % of all income above 1 millions was not implemented (it was ruled unconstitutionnal by our highest court for some background problem) and then changed (it's now a taxation on firms who pay wages higher than 1 million, which is a really bad thing but whatever) ;
2) it's difficult to make everyone agree on what was Hollande real program. Basically he had a set of "engagements" (60 engagements all divided in sub-engagements) and many journalists (Lemonde.fr or Mediapart) already pointed out that he basically respected a little more than half of those. But, of course, those engagements goes all over the place. He is basically implementing the easiest - like "promoting the biological agriculture" whatever that mean when you don't invest public money in it - and not the one that people were really looking for (changing our tax system or changing France's stance in Europe - he had the idea of a european budget in his program already in 2012). He had also very tough measures like ending stock options and reglementing bonus that were never talked about after the election (and famously said in a speech that finance was "his ennemy"). Most notably, he was unable to fix our unemployment.
Meanwhile, he did a lot of things that were not in his program, like the law "Macron" (liberalisation of everything possible, from the bus driving to the possibility to work on sundays, like it's actually a problem for our economy) or the various "shocks" and "pacts"(like the "pact of responsability") that basically revolve around supressing cotisations and making our social security unsustainable with no or almost no effect on employment (so in effect he massively - we're talking about 35 billions euros just for the responsability pact - redistributed money from the society to private firms). And in every possible law he oftentime added things that were not supposed to be there (the macron law is a joke in itself... what is the coherence between sunday working, bus line, drugstores, the justice and the nuclear ?).
Finally, he had many scandals, with some of its minister or soon to be minister doing tax evasion (one of his PS deputee soon to be elected as a minister said he had an "administrative phobia" to justify the fact that he didn't pay his taxes for the last five or so years). Reinforcing the idea that the "socialists" have too much money.
3) the PS is not too far to the left it's the opposite basically. The FN has a saying for that : the UMPS, contraction of the UMP and the PS, that means that they are basically the same. Of course it's not completly true for everything except for their economic policies, which is I believe the core of the problem. I think at core France is not a liberal country. French are not liberal in maojrity - and it is understandable if you look at our economic history, we basically developped under huge state monopoles - but all our elites are, and the PS is no exception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
