|
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 March 18 2017 23:58 TheDwf wrote:So, the final list of candidates running for the presidency is known. There are 11 pretenders; 2 women, 9 men. At the left: • Nathalie Arthaud (LO): far-left, internationalist revolutionary communism (trotskyism). Got 0.56% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give her around 0.5%. • Philippe Poutou (NPA): far-left, neocommunism (trotskyist filiation). Got 1.15% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give him around 0.5%. + Show Spoiler +If you wonder why there are 2 trotskyist candidates… It's complicated, but let us say that LO considers the NPA as not orthodox enough for an alliance. The usual sectarian business in trotskyist organizations… • Jean-Luc Mélenchon (La France insoumise): radical left (though he doesn't present himself that way), former member of the left wing of the PS which he left in 2008 because of its drift towards the centre. Has the (critical) support of the PCF (“communist” party) and various other forces of the radical left, but runs independently of parties for his own movement, La France insoumise [The Unsubmissive France]. Wants to call a Constituent Assembly for a VIth Republic, leave the European treaties (he thinks the current EU is a disaster), runs on an ecosocialist and economically keynesian platform. Also advocates for protectionnism. Got 11.1% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give him around 12%. • Benoît Hamon (PS): left-wing of social-democracy, former minister of Hollande, left the government in 2014 in disagreement with the austerity. Winner of the primary of the PS and its allies. Has the support of most ecologists, with the EELV candidate withdrawing in its favor after a deal. The right-wing of the PS pretty much does not support him, with some flying to Macron. Seems to move towards eurofederalism (he wants a Parliament of the eurozone), though critical of how the EU currently works. Promoted the universal base income in the primary before changing a bit his project. Promotes various ecologist ideas. Currently polls give him around 13% [Hollande had scored 28% in 2012]. At the centre: • Emmanuel Macron (En Marche !): centre, pro-UE and economically liberal. Former minister of Hollande, and one of his close advisors before that. Left the government in 2016 to start his own political movement. Has support from various people from the center-left to the center-right, was endorsed by Bayrou (center-right candidate who had scored 17% in 2007). Wants to reduce public spending and public officials (120k), further deregulate labour market, etc. Supports free trade treaties. Is seen as the favorite for weeks. Currently polls give him around 25%. At some place: • Jacques Cheminade (Solidarité & Progrès): hard to classify... seems to be the leader of a political sect linked with some far-right conspirationnist US clown. This guy is just weird lol. Got 0.25% at the 2012 election (and 0.28% in 1995 before). Currently polls give him around 0.5%. • François Asselineau (UPR): sovereignist right (though claims to be “above the left-right division”). Comes from the RPR (the ancestor of the UMP/LR, mainstream right). Wants to leave the European Union, the euro and NATO. Presents himself as the “Frexit candidate”. Has legions of very annoying trolls online. Seems to see the hand of the USA a bit everywhere, borderline conspirationnist, thinks the EU rules everything and wants to restore France's sovereignty because “the European Commission decides our policies”. Wasn't tested in polls so far. At the right: • Jean Lassalle: center-right. Former member of Bayrou's center-right party. Don't really know his ideas, seems to be culturally/socially conservative. Defends rurality. Wasn't tested in polls so far. • Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (Debout la France): sovereignist right. Former member of the UMP, left it in 2007. Can be classified as “social gaullist” I guess. Eurosceptic, anti-immigration and critical of austerity. Rejects both the mainstream right and the FN. Got 1.79% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give him around 3%. • François Fillon (LR): mainstream right, economically liberal and culturally/socially conservative (represents the catholic right), winner of the primary of the right and centre, was Sarkozy's Prime minister during 5 years. Currently charged for embezzlement of public funds, misappropriation of corporate assets, etc. but remained candidate despite his own word that he would give up if he was charged. His image suffered a lot from the various scandals around him, but (part of) his electoral basis still seems to be here. He was seen as the favorite before, but is now distanced in polls for weeks. Wants to reduce public spending (100 billions) and public officials (500k), further deregulate labour market, initially wanted to privatize the Social security before the uproar forced him to abandon this. Currently polls give him at 18-20%. [Sarkozy had scored 27% in 2007.] • Marine Le Pen (FN): far-right, nationalist/national-conservatist. Also surrounded by various scandals but her electorate doesn't seem to care. Claims to represent the people against the “globalists”. Wants to constitutionalize the “national preference” and tax companies which hire foreign workers. Wants to leave the euro, though she's fairly discreet on that. Anti-EU, anti-immigration (which she links with unemployment, terrorism, excessive social spending, etc.), anti-globalization, anti-islam, critical of austerity, economically a moving and weird mixture of protectionnism, statism and liberalism. Got 17.9% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give her above 25%. So far, the 5 biggest candidates (Fillon, Hamon, Le Pen, Macron, Mélenchon) score more than 90% of the vote intentions. They have a debate in 2 days.
So the top five are all shades of critical of the EU? Interesting development.
|
Interesting? It's how it's been for a while. Fuck shit up and blame the EU for it.
|
On March 19 2017 09:40 RvB wrote:
Interesting? It's how it's been for a while. Fuck shit up and blame the EU for it.
Let's not pretend that EU doesn't fuck up plenty all on its own.
|
The EU as a whole isn't actually that powerful. Given the strength of the commission all decisions coming out are basically already palletable for most parties involved. That a large number of people gets overruled is prevented by the institutions. Directives often give leeway that respects specific national interest.
When the EU fucks up it's usually a clash of of national interest that the EU by design cannot resolve. Until there is a framework in place that gives the EU actual power I think we should stop pointing fingers at it.
|
On March 19 2017 11:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The EU as a whole isn't actually that powerful. Given the strength of the commission all decisions coming out are basically already palletable for most parties involved. That a large number of people gets overruled is prevented by the institutions. Directives often give leeway that respects specific national interest.
When the EU fucks up it's usually a clash of of national interest that the EU by design cannot resolve. Until there is a framework in place that gives the EU actual power I think we should stop pointing fingers at it.
Until the EU courts stop being activist I think we should continue to point fingers. Until EU stops their mission creep I think we should continue to point fingers. Until EU realizes that people are citizens of their respective countries first and secondly if at all) EU citizens I think we should continue to point fingers.
To be quite blunt, if you were actually right that EU held little power and allowed for sufficient leeway to respect specific national interests then Brexit would not have happened, the discontent with EU across Europe wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
EDIT: Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't be allowed to critique EU? I know they just passed regulation allowing them to strike out any speech (both live and from archives) the president deems inappropriate and to be honest that was dumb enough on it's own - but there is no need to try and one-up them.
|
Perception of the EU doesn't equal actual scope of the EU. If this were the case we'd be living in an absolutist empire ruled by empress Merkel. Just because tabloids in the UK ran a smear campaign against the EU institutions doesn't mean that this is factual and I'm saying that exactly this shifting of blame needs to stop.
The EU simply does not have the legal power to do what it is often accused of. For years now countries have attributed success to their own nations or even parties while they delegated every failure to the Union. We've pulled stuff like arguing for environmental protection on the national level while Gabriel was busy weakening legislation in Brussels. This two faced politics is what gives the EU a bad rep.
|
I agree shifting of blame shouldn't happen (I never argued it should). Refusing to acknowledge the deeply seated issues with EU and the tone-deafness over the past decade shouldn't happen either though - which was my point.
EDIT: Also, for all your attempts to downplay the EUs power, EU does hold significant influence - and not only within EU, but effectively globally (which is after all part of the "modern" EU goal)
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Generally the cited solution to any problems with the "Europe project" among Europhiles is that there's not enough Europe to properly deal with the problem and that we should add sufficient Europe in order to properly deal with it.
And, as I've argued in the past, I think that that's an idea that's DOA. Maybe it's not obvious but it is.
|
On March 19 2017 16:19 LegalLord wrote:
Generally the cited solution to any problems with the "Europe project" among Europhiles is that there's not enough Europe to properly deal with the problem and that we should add sufficient Europe in order to properly deal with it.
And, as I've argued in the past, I think that that's an idea that's DOA. Maybe it's not obvious but it is.
Well, I mean the monetary issue is basically a problem that there's a common currency without a common fiscal policy. There are in fact two ways of handling that: get rid of the currency, or develop a common fiscal policy. Either would, in principle, work. Question is whether Europe decides it enjoyed the last while of being on the same page, or would like to go back to how things were before when "national sovereignty" was jealously guarded. I personally think there's enough blood that speaks to my side's argument, but opinions vary.
|
On March 19 2017 17:11 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2017 16:19 LegalLord wrote:
Generally the cited solution to any problems with the "Europe project" among Europhiles is that there's not enough Europe to properly deal with the problem and that we should add sufficient Europe in order to properly deal with it.
And, as I've argued in the past, I think that that's an idea that's DOA. Maybe it's not obvious but it is. Well, I mean the monetary issue is basically a problem that there's a common currency without a common fiscal policy. There are in fact two ways of handling that: get rid of the currency, or develop a common fiscal policy. Either would, in principle, work. Question is whether Europe decides it enjoyed the last while of being on the same page, or would like to go back to how things were before when "national sovereignty" was jealously guarded. I personally think there's enough blood that speaks to my side's argument, but opinions vary.
1) The monetary issue is a Euro area issue - not an EU issue.
2) There is a quite the grey-zone between "being on the same page" and ""national sovereignty" being jealously guarded" despite what you are trying to make it seem.
EDIT: removed unnecessary snark.
|
On March 19 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2017 11:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The EU as a whole isn't actually that powerful. Given the strength of the commission all decisions coming out are basically already palletable for most parties involved. That a large number of people gets overruled is prevented by the institutions. Directives often give leeway that respects specific national interest.
When the EU fucks up it's usually a clash of of national interest that the EU by design cannot resolve. Until there is a framework in place that gives the EU actual power I think we should stop pointing fingers at it. Until the EU courts stop being activist I think we should continue to point fingers. Until EU stops their mission creep I think we should continue to point fingers. Until EU realizes that people are citizens of their respective countries first and secondly if at all) EU citizens I think we should continue to point fingers. To be quite blunt, if you were actually right that EU held little power and allowed for sufficient leeway to respect specific national interests then Brexit would not have happened, the discontent with EU across Europe wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.EDIT: Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't be allowed to critique EU? I know they just passed regulation allowing them to strike out any speech (both live and from archives) the president deems inappropriate and to be honest that was dumb enough on it's own - but there is no need to try and one-up them.
I stongly disagree with the bolded part. Anti-EU feelings mean that people think that the EU is responsible for their condition, not that the EU is responsible. To put it bluntly, that'd be like saying in 1938 (forgive me for the highly inelegant comparison, but it's the clearest one that came to me) :
If you were actually right that the Jews held little power and allowed for sufficient leeway to respect specific national interest then Hitler wouldn't have been elected, the discontent with the World Jewry across Europe wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place
People perceiving something as a problem doesn't mean it is a problem (or at least, not to the same extent), especially when a good chunk of politicians and medias are reinforcing that negative perception over and over.
|
On March 19 2017 17:22 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2017 12:33 Ghostcom wrote:On March 19 2017 11:18 Nyxisto wrote:
The EU as a whole isn't actually that powerful. Given the strength of the commission all decisions coming out are basically already palletable for most parties involved. That a large number of people gets overruled is prevented by the institutions. Directives often give leeway that respects specific national interest.
When the EU fucks up it's usually a clash of of national interest that the EU by design cannot resolve. Until there is a framework in place that gives the EU actual power I think we should stop pointing fingers at it. Until the EU courts stop being activist I think we should continue to point fingers. Until EU stops their mission creep I think we should continue to point fingers. Until EU realizes that people are citizens of their respective countries first and secondly if at all) EU citizens I think we should continue to point fingers. To be quite blunt, if you were actually right that EU held little power and allowed for sufficient leeway to respect specific national interests then Brexit would not have happened, the discontent with EU across Europe wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.EDIT: Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't be allowed to critique EU? I know they just passed regulation allowing them to strike out any speech (both live and from archives) the president deems inappropriate and to be honest that was dumb enough on it's own - but there is no need to try and one-up them. I stongly disagree with the bolded part. Anti-EU feelings mean that people think that the EU is responsible for their condition, not that the EU is responsible. To put it bluntly, that'd be like saying in 1938 (forgive me for the highly inelegant comparison, but it's the clearest one that came to me) : Show nested quote +
If you were actually right that the Jews held little power and allowed for sufficient leeway to respect specific national interest then Hitler wouldn't have been elected, the discontent with the World Jewry across Europe wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place
People perceiving something as a problem doesn't mean it is a problem (or at least, not to the same extent), especially when a good chunk of politicians and medias are reinforcing that negative perception over and over.
I agree that public perception is not necessarily correct or gauges the magnitude of the issue correct (see how I managed to neatly sum up what you said without having to resort to comparing anyone to a nazi? It's odd how easy that is when you treat those your argue with as actual thinking human beings - please take notes so we can avoid such idiocy in the future and I shall try to let this be my only snarky comment of the post, though frankly you didn't deserve a response).
However, the argument wasn't whether or not EU was deserving of the entirety of the public perception, but rather whether or not:
1) EU fucks up on it's own or if it is all just a smear campaign as EU doesn't really hold any power and include sufficient leeway for national interests (despite numerous rulings by the EU courts overruling national laws)
2) EU should be absolved from any critique
EDIT: Also, do you truly think that the current pan-european sentiment of EU exhibiting too much mission-creep and the courts being too activist is merely a smear campaign? Or could there be a fire where there is smoke? Even Hitler in your example never managed more that 37% of votes in an election (and his cabinet wrote the book on modern era propaganda) - for comparison Brexit got 52%.
|
The EU does fuck up on its own, but the perception of those fuck-ups and their consequences is way overblown. I do believe that 99% of the issues that led British people to vote for Brexit could be solved without leaving the EU (and conversely, probably won't be solved despite leaving the EU), because they're mostly national issues [e : to be more precise, they're issues found in many Western countries, but that can be solved at a national level, EU or not EU]. I also believe that while the EU shows too much zeal in some areas, it is also lacking power in other areas where it would be legitimate : diplomacy, military, financiary, etc.
As for your point #2, I believe that no one argued that the EU should be absolved from any critique ; Nyxisto just said that we, as citizens and voters, should maybe get informed about what the EU can and cannot do before blaming it as the sole cause of our issues.
(I mean, I can't even believe that debates around that point refers to "the EU" as a single, unified, monolithic thing, while in fact the EU is a complex set of institutions, with various powers and greatly different degrees of influence)
|
On March 19 2017 07:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2017 23:58 TheDwf wrote:So, the final list of candidates running for the presidency is known. There are 11 pretenders; 2 women, 9 men. At the left: • Nathalie Arthaud (LO): far-left, internationalist revolutionary communism (trotskyism). Got 0.56% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give her around 0.5%. • Philippe Poutou (NPA): far-left, neocommunism (trotskyist filiation). Got 1.15% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give him around 0.5%. + Show Spoiler +If you wonder why there are 2 trotskyist candidates… It's complicated, but let us say that LO considers the NPA as not orthodox enough for an alliance. The usual sectarian business in trotskyist organizations… • Jean-Luc Mélenchon (La France insoumise): radical left (though he doesn't present himself that way), former member of the left wing of the PS which he left in 2008 because of its drift towards the centre. Has the (critical) support of the PCF (“communist” party) and various other forces of the radical left, but runs independently of parties for his own movement, La France insoumise [The Unsubmissive France]. Wants to call a Constituent Assembly for a VIth Republic, leave the European treaties (he thinks the current EU is a disaster), runs on an ecosocialist and economically keynesian platform. Also advocates for protectionnism. Got 11.1% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give him around 12%. • Benoît Hamon (PS): left-wing of social-democracy, former minister of Hollande, left the government in 2014 in disagreement with the austerity. Winner of the primary of the PS and its allies. Has the support of most ecologists, with the EELV candidate withdrawing in its favor after a deal. The right-wing of the PS pretty much does not support him, with some flying to Macron. Seems to move towards eurofederalism (he wants a Parliament of the eurozone), though critical of how the EU currently works. Promoted the universal base income in the primary before changing a bit his project. Promotes various ecologist ideas. Currently polls give him around 13% [Hollande had scored 28% in 2012]. At the centre: • Emmanuel Macron (En Marche !): centre, pro-UE and economically liberal. Former minister of Hollande, and one of his close advisors before that. Left the government in 2016 to start his own political movement. Has support from various people from the center-left to the center-right, was endorsed by Bayrou (center-right candidate who had scored 17% in 2007). Wants to reduce public spending and public officials (120k), further deregulate labour market, etc. Supports free trade treaties. Is seen as the favorite for weeks. Currently polls give him around 25%. At some place: • Jacques Cheminade (Solidarité & Progrès): hard to classify... seems to be the leader of a political sect linked with some far-right conspirationnist US clown. This guy is just weird lol. Got 0.25% at the 2012 election (and 0.28% in 1995 before). Currently polls give him around 0.5%. • François Asselineau (UPR): sovereignist right (though claims to be “above the left-right division”). Comes from the RPR (the ancestor of the UMP/LR, mainstream right). Wants to leave the European Union, the euro and NATO. Presents himself as the “Frexit candidate”. Has legions of very annoying trolls online. Seems to see the hand of the USA a bit everywhere, borderline conspirationnist, thinks the EU rules everything and wants to restore France's sovereignty because “the European Commission decides our policies”. Wasn't tested in polls so far. At the right: • Jean Lassalle: center-right. Former member of Bayrou's center-right party. Don't really know his ideas, seems to be culturally/socially conservative. Defends rurality. Wasn't tested in polls so far. • Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (Debout la France): sovereignist right. Former member of the UMP, left it in 2007. Can be classified as “social gaullist” I guess. Eurosceptic, anti-immigration and critical of austerity. Rejects both the mainstream right and the FN. Got 1.79% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give him around 3%. • François Fillon (LR): mainstream right, economically liberal and culturally/socially conservative (represents the catholic right), winner of the primary of the right and centre, was Sarkozy's Prime minister during 5 years. Currently charged for embezzlement of public funds, misappropriation of corporate assets, etc. but remained candidate despite his own word that he would give up if he was charged. His image suffered a lot from the various scandals around him, but (part of) his electoral basis still seems to be here. He was seen as the favorite before, but is now distanced in polls for weeks. Wants to reduce public spending (100 billions) and public officials (500k), further deregulate labour market, initially wanted to privatize the Social security before the uproar forced him to abandon this. Currently polls give him at 18-20%. [Sarkozy had scored 27% in 2007.] • Marine Le Pen (FN): far-right, nationalist/national-conservatist. Also surrounded by various scandals but her electorate doesn't seem to care. Claims to represent the people against the “globalists”. Wants to constitutionalize the “national preference” and tax companies which hire foreign workers. Wants to leave the euro, though she's fairly discreet on that. Anti-EU, anti-immigration (which she links with unemployment, terrorism, excessive social spending, etc.), anti-globalization, anti-islam, critical of austerity, economically a moving and weird mixture of protectionnism, statism and liberalism. Got 17.9% at the 2012 election. Currently polls give her above 25%. So far, the 5 biggest candidates (Fillon, Hamon, Le Pen, Macron, Mélenchon) score more than 90% of the vote intentions. They have a debate in 2 days. So the top five are all shades of critical of the EU? Interesting development.
I wouldn't say that Macron is critical of the EU, he does acknowledge some malfunctions but he's the most pro-European candidate for sure. He and Fillon want further economic integration and have no problem with austerity. Hamon also wants further integration, but without the austerity part. Le Pen wants to opt out from various things (she wants national sovereignty restored on currency, laws, borders, economy) and will hold a referendum on whether France remains or not in the EU. Mélenchon wants to renegotiate the European treaties (he wants social/fiscal harmonization) and change the status of the central bank, and will hold a referendum on whether France accepts or not the new conditions.
|
On March 19 2017 19:27 OtherWorld wrote:
The EU does fuck up on its own, but the perception of those fuck-ups and their consequences is way overblown. I do believe that 99% of the issues that led British people to vote for Brexit could be solved without leaving the EU (and conversely, probably won't be solved despite leaving the EU), because they're mostly national issues [e : to be more precise, they're issues found in many Western countries, but that can be solved at a national level, EU or not EU]. I also believe that while the EU shows too much zeal in some areas, it is also lacking power in other areas where it would be legitimate : diplomacy, military, financiary, etc.
As for your point #2, I believe that no one argued that the EU should be absolved from any critique ; Nyxisto just said that we, as citizens and voters, should maybe get informed about what the EU can and cannot do before blaming it as the sole cause of our issues.
(I mean, I can't even believe that debates around that point refers to "the EU" as a single, unified, monolithic thing, while in fact the EU is a complex set of institutions, with various powers and greatly different degrees of influence)
But the bananas were straight I tell you! Straight!
|
On March 19 2017 19:27 OtherWorld wrote:
The EU does fuck up on its own, but the perception of those fuck-ups and their consequences is way overblown. I do believe that 99% of the issues that led British people to vote for Brexit could be solved without leaving the EU (and conversely, probably won't be solved despite leaving the EU), because they're mostly national issues [e : to be more precise, they're issues found in many Western countries, but that can be solved at a national level, EU or not EU]. I also believe that while the EU shows too much zeal in some areas, it is also lacking power in other areas where it would be legitimate : diplomacy, military, financiary, etc.
As for your point #2, I believe that no one argued that the EU should be absolved from any critique ; Nyxisto just said that we, as citizens and voters, should maybe get informed about what the EU can and cannot do before blaming it as the sole cause of our issues.
(I mean, I can't even believe that debates around that point refers to "the EU" as a single, unified, monolithic thing, while in fact the EU is a complex set of institutions, with various powers and greatly different degrees of influence)
Maybe we could have a serious debate about the EU and the euro(zone) if the ruling parties/politicians hadn't done their best to dodge it every time, and decide whatever pleased them despite their own engagements. Sarkozy, the PS and the UMP trampled the 2005 French “no” and Hollande lied about renegotiating the TSCG. Severe failures exist in the EU and the eurozone, and they cannot eternally be cast aside because some far-right parties use the EU as a universal scapegoat.
|
It's fashionable to say that the EU is deeply flawed but I don't remember anyone here making a clear, substantiated argument for that being the case.
|
|
|
I did it for fun and got Pitou followed by macron and Melenchon. I am very ignorant of French political issues so I kind of transposed some from the US like public spending and size of legislature
Interestingly for the German one Markel's party is second lowest for my score. I want an Ireland one since their going to have an election at some point.
|
Uhh... go Macron!
Don't know anything about French healthcare and civil service so I left questions related to these unanswered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
