Macron calls a national election

[vaud]

isaldiri said:

Well the idea has always been that germany and france act in concert (more or less) and they can impose their will on anyone else by whatever means necessary. Now if they have a serious split of opinion if say Le Pen does actually become president, that would indeed be quite instructive as to see what happens. And tbh just because 'rule of law' only applies to smaller countries and not germany or france, the UK most definitely never was in the tier of importance like the latter 2 as far as the european commission was concerned....

Quite agree, the UK was always treated as a distant cousin and detractor from the "European ideal" of hamonisation and integration.

Le Pen was open in the last elections that she would only apply the laws that were in favour of France and if the EU wanted to fine France than ok. She could slow down, hinder and block all manner of EU legislation without ever needing Frexit.

[Kermit power]

Vanden Saab said:

Oliver Hardy said:

Kermit power said:

Oliver Hardy said:

It doesn't I am an idiot, linked the wrong video.

Take 2!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZwmmIBBojA&ab...

To be honest, if it comes down to comparing a video without commentary from the Express Tribune in Pakistan with the complete lack of any reporting of riots on the websites of either Le Monde or Le Figaro, I'd have to say I'm not 100% certain that this happened!

Possibly?

There were definitely protests over Le pen's victory, not really reported and so maybe some disruption did happen?

But protests by the certain sectors don't get so much reporting as does other types of disruption.

I linked on here a skirmish where pro Iranian activists attacked some opponents, this was in London, it was hardly reported even though it left one guy paralysed, yet hardly any reporting, the police apparently didn't even take statements and PH mods deleted the post as they have regarding the policing of protests in London

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/politics/article/2024/06...


Happy now?

It's not really a case of being happy or unhappy!

I've just become much more cynical in recent years after seeing so many things fact-checked with results like "the video in this story purporting to show looting during ongoing civil unrest in Tanzania in which £45m of goods were stolen or damaged was actually taken 7 years ago after the Haribo ran out at a 6yr old's birthday party in Nuneaton. The damage caused was closer to £90m." that I tend to automatically assume something to be untrue unless I see it simultaneously validated by multiple trustworthy sources!

[ATG]

jshell said:

I didn't think it was a good idea, but I would NOT vote to go back under the current EU leadership. Von Den Leyen just made this speech regarding countries that step away from the 'party line':

EU chief von der Leyen: "We have means and possibilities in the EU to make sure that what is agreed at the European level is implemented. For example the infringement procedures and these are biting or we have the conditionality mechanism. For example member state does not abide to the rule of law, you might recall that we had to be very tough on Poland and held back 135 billions Euros because the former government did systematically destroy the rule of law in Poland. With the view on Hungary we have the same situation that there are steps that Hungary has to do to reinstall the rule of law if not the money stays frozen so we have the mean and these are biting means that we can apply. But of course we want the countries to come to a better path so if there is a change to the positive side then we can release the money, but the EU has the means to make sure that the law is implemented."

So, don't break the party line ('rule of law') or we will severly punish you. Maybe the concerns about Sovereignty were valid...

I'd be happy with a trading block, but not this form of authoritarianism. https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/180092930526797...

Edited by jshell on Thursday 13th June 09:59

If you sign up to an international obligation like "we'll allow the Press to be free" in order to get cash handouts from the other countries that signed up to the agreement ... and then you systematically fail to hold up your side of the bargain ... why on earth would you expect the others to ignore this and give you loads of their tax payers' cash??

Do you really think that is "authoritarian"??

[ATG]

isaldiri said:

vaud said:

The idea works with the smaller countries. Not sure the same applies to Germany or France.

Well the idea has always been that germany and france act in concert (more or less) and they can impose their will on anyone else by whatever means necessary. Now if they have a serious split of opinion if say Le Pen does actually become president, that would indeed be quite instructive as to see what happens. And tbh just because 'rule of law' only applies to smaller countries and not germany or france, the UK most definitely never was in the tier of importance like the latter 2 as far as the european commission was concerned....

This is true in part but the reality was that the UK was one of a load of countries in the EU that didn't want really close political integration and were outward-looking free-marketeers by instinct and we were perfectly capable of blocking moves towards closer integration. Frankly, we'd won the argument and all the integrationist-speak from the Commission was hot air. The Council of Ministers is where the power is at; i.e. with national governments. Fear of EU control was a spineless misunderstanding of reality.

[soupdragon1]

ATG said:

jshell said:

I didn't think it was a good idea, but I would NOT vote to go back under the current EU leadership. Von Den Leyen just made this speech regarding countries that step away from the 'party line':

EU chief von der Leyen: "We have means and possibilities in the EU to make sure that what is agreed at the European level is implemented. For example the infringement procedures and these are biting or we have the conditionality mechanism. For example member state does not abide to the rule of law, you might recall that we had to be very tough on Poland and held back 135 billions Euros because the former government did systematically destroy the rule of law in Poland. With the view on Hungary we have the same situation that there are steps that Hungary has to do to reinstall the rule of law if not the money stays frozen so we have the mean and these are biting means that we can apply. But of course we want the countries to come to a better path so if there is a change to the positive side then we can release the money, but the EU has the means to make sure that the law is implemented."

So, don't break the party line ('rule of law') or we will severly punish you. Maybe the concerns about Sovereignty were valid...

I'd be happy with a trading block, but not this form of authoritarianism. https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/180092930526797...

Edited by jshell on Thursday 13th June 09:59

If you sign up to an international obligation like "we'll allow the Press to be free" in order to get cash handouts from the other countries that signed up to the agreement ... and then you systematically fail to hold up your side of the bargain ... why on earth would you expect the others to ignore this and give you loads of their tax payers' cash??

Do you really think that is "authoritarian"??

I reckon if jshell signed up to Gym membership with opening hrs of 8am to 10pm he would be straight onto Google to leave a 1 star review for not being open at 7am and subsequently being charged damages for breaking the door locks. Thats the level of debate we're at here.

[Ian Geary]

tangerine_sedge said:

768 said:

tangerine_sedge said:

People don't get labelled far right for talking about immigration and benefits. They get called far right by demonising immigrants/benefit recipients, using them as scapegoats and 'othering' them.

Who talks about a reduction in immigration that hasn't been labelled as far right?

Pretty much all the parties apart from the Greens (talking about truly open borders!) are talking about controlling and reducing the numbers. That includes the Labour party with that well known far-right activist Yvette Cooper talking about implementing measures to reduce net migration.

Link to Migration Observatory (pretty much the first googled link) comparing Labour and Conservative views on immigration for this very election : https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/about/

Indeed. Even that well known bastion of hard right politics Plaid Cymru want to control migration

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ggw27403lo

article said:

Plaid called for Wales to have “greater powers over migration”, including Wales-specific visa schemes

In other words, maybe it's time to end the nonsense of labelling everyone who wants to talk about migration as hard right or fascist? (Which happens routinely on here and in the press/media.)

Ps migration and immigration are the same thing - unless Plaid Cymru want to stop people leaving Wales?!?

[isaldiri]

ATG said:

isaldiri said:

vaud said:

The idea works with the smaller countries. Not sure the same applies to Germany or France.

Well the idea has always been that germany and france act in concert (more or less) and they can impose their will on anyone else by whatever means necessary. Now if they have a serious split of opinion if say Le Pen does actually become president, that would indeed be quite instructive as to see what happens. And tbh just because 'rule of law' only applies to smaller countries and not germany or france, the UK most definitely never was in the tier of importance like the latter 2 as far as the european commission was concerned....

This is true in part but the reality was that the UK was one of a load of countries in the EU that didn't want really close political integration and were outward-looking free-marketeers by instinct and we were perfectly capable of blocking moves towards closer integration. Frankly, we'd won the argument and all the integrationist-speak from the Commission was hot air. The Council of Ministers is where the power is at; i.e. with national governments. Fear of EU control was a spineless misunderstanding of reality.

The UK couldn't stop a 'qualified majority' vote and the direction of travel was quite clearly towards more decisions being decided that way. Given that, it would have been impossible to have always then been certain that further integration related steps would always require unanimity. Also, I don't quite agree that it is as simple as saying the European Council is where the power is at - it has veto powers, similar to the European parliament for example but no one is or has ever said the european parliament holds power over the EU.

The Commission is the one that is able to be proposing legislation and the budget and all that good stuff after all which the other 2 institutions can then try to influence/reject/amend so there is a very significant amount of power that the commission wields. Juncker might not have been able to essentially outshine Tusk in always ensuring he was the publbic face of the EU but von der Leyen certainly has done so over Charles Michel.

[768]

tangerine_sedge said:

768 said:

tangerine_sedge said:

People don't get labelled far right for talking about immigration and benefits. They get called far right by demonising immigrants/benefit recipients, using them as scapegoats and 'othering' them.

Who talks about a reduction in immigration that hasn't been labelled as far right?

Pretty much all the parties apart from the Greens (talking about truly open borders!) are talking about controlling and reducing the numbers. That includes the Labour party with that well known far-right activist Yvette Cooper talking about implementing measures to reduce net migration.

Link to Migration Observatory (pretty much the first googled link) comparing Labour and Conservative views on immigration for this very election : https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/about/

The Conservatives have had Patel and Braverman talking about it, both tagged as far right. To be fair, I haven't seen Cleverly get the same treatment yet, but he's been less publicly vocal about it so far. Has Cooper actually talked about how they're going to reduce net migration? I know they're going to "smash the gangs", say please to the EU and not do Rwanda, but that sounds pretty empty to me, I'm not surprised she's not getting any flack when she's just wishing it down rather than providing anything concrete to attack.

[jshell]

soupdragon1 said:

ATG said:

jshell said:

I didn't think it was a good idea, but I would NOT vote to go back under the current EU leadership. Von Den Leyen just made this speech regarding countries that step away from the 'party line':

EU chief von der Leyen: "We have means and possibilities in the EU to make sure that what is agreed at the European level is implemented. For example the infringement procedures and these are biting or we have the conditionality mechanism. For example member state does not abide to the rule of law, you might recall that we had to be very tough on Poland and held back 135 billions Euros because the former government did systematically destroy the rule of law in Poland. With the view on Hungary we have the same situation that there are steps that Hungary has to do to reinstall the rule of law if not the money stays frozen so we have the mean and these are biting means that we can apply. But of course we want the countries to come to a better path so if there is a change to the positive side then we can release the money, but the EU has the means to make sure that the law is implemented."

So, don't break the party line ('rule of law') or we will severly punish you. Maybe the concerns about Sovereignty were valid...

I'd be happy with a trading block, but not this form of authoritarianism. https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/180092930526797...

Edited by jshell on Thursday 13th June 09:59

If you sign up to an international obligation like "we'll allow the Press to be free" in order to get cash handouts from the other countries that signed up to the agreement ... and then you systematically fail to hold up your side of the bargain ... why on earth would you expect the others to ignore this and give you loads of their tax payers' cash??

Do you really think that is "authoritarian"??

I reckon if jshell signed up to Gym membership with opening hrs of 8am to 10pm he would be straight onto Google to leave a 1 star review for not being open at 7am and subsequently being charged damages for breaking the door locks. Thats the level of debate we're at here.

Funny. No, I just wanted to know why she was giving that speech. However, it has now become clear that it was either groundwork or support for the huge fines just levied on Hungary for refusing to take illegals.

[ATG]

isaldiri said:

The UK couldn't stop a 'qualified majority' vote and the direction of travel was quite clearly towards more decisions being decided that way. Given that, it would have been impossible to have always then been certain that further integration related steps would always require unanimity. Also, I don't quite agree that it is as simple as saying the European Council is where the power is at - it has veto powers, similar to the European parliament for example but no one is or has ever said the european parliament holds power over the EU.

The Commission is the one that is able to be proposing legislation and the budget and all that good stuff after all which the other 2 institutions can then try to influence/reject/amend so there is a very significant amount of power that the commission wields. Juncker might not have been able to essentially outshine Tusk in always ensuring he was the publbic face of the EU but von der Leyen certainly has done so over Charles Michel.

Having too much stuff requiring unanimity was crippling, so moving to qualified majority for a lot of topics makes perfect sense, but picking and choosing which bits move to qualified majority decisions requires unanimity, so we were free to veto whatever we didn't want to change.

If you look at how the EU actually functions the reality is that it is a collection of sovereign states who come together as sovereign states, decide what's going to get done, then the Commission gets on with it and the Parliament is like a day care centre for a bunch of kids. It has the trappings of being an "EU govt" and the Commission and others try to big themselves up as if it were an EU govt, but the reality is that the spending that member states pool and execute collectively through the EU is tiny compared to what each govt spends within its own borders and the member states govts call all the real shots taken at EU level. It talks like a duck, but it eats, walks and poops like a chicken.

[crankedup5]

jshell said:

Wills2 said:

Kermit power said:

Vasco said:

It's always interesting when people raise the issue of Brexit over and over again.
For the ordinary guy in the street I never hear any regret about the decision that was made. In many parts of the UK it was a foregone conclusion that European laws weren't going to work here. For some businesses it was a nightmare but, even so, I also don't recall anybody suggesting that the vote was blatantly left or right.

How often do you actually talk politics with "the ordinary guy in the street" though?

I don't know anyone who thinks it was a good decision, all pain no gain.

I didn't think it was a good idea, but I would NOT vote to go back under the current EU leadership. Von Den Leyen just made this speech regarding countries that step away from the 'party line':

EU chief von der Leyen: "We have means and possibilities in the EU to make sure that what is agreed at the European level is implemented. For example the infringement procedures and these are biting or we have the conditionality mechanism. For example member state does not abide to the rule of law, you might recall that we had to be very tough on Poland and held back 135 billions Euros because the former government did systematically destroy the rule of law in Poland. With the view on Hungary we have the same situation that there are steps that Hungary has to do to reinstall the rule of law if not the money stays frozen so we have the mean and these are biting means that we can apply. But of course we want the countries to come to a better path so if there is a change to the positive side then we can release the money, but the EU has the means to make sure that the law is implemented."

So, don't break the party line ('rule of law') or we will severly punish you. Maybe the concerns about Sovereignty were valid...

I'd be happy with a trading block, but not this form of authoritarianism. https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/180092930526797...

Edited by jshell on Thursday 13th June 09:59

VDL expresses facts that endorse one of my principal reasons for voting to leave the EU.

[isaldiri]

ATG said:

isaldiri said:

The UK couldn't stop a 'qualified majority' vote and the direction of travel was quite clearly towards more decisions being decided that way. Given that, it would have been impossible to have always then been certain that further integration related steps would always require unanimity. Also, I don't quite agree that it is as simple as saying the European Council is where the power is at - it has veto powers, similar to the European parliament for example but no one is or has ever said the european parliament holds power over the EU.

The Commission is the one that is able to be proposing legislation and the budget and all that good stuff after all which the other 2 institutions can then try to influence/reject/amend so there is a very significant amount of power that the commission wields. Juncker might not have been able to essentially outshine Tusk in always ensuring he was the public face of the EU but von der Leyen certainly has done so over Charles Michel.

Having too much stuff requiring unanimity was crippling, so moving to qualified majority for a lot of topics makes perfect sense, but picking and choosing which bits move to qualified majority decisions requires unanimity, so we were free to veto whatever we didn't want to change.

If you look at how the EU actually functions the reality is that it is a collection of sovereign states who come together as sovereign states, decide what's going to get done, then the Commission gets on with it and the Parliament is like a day care centre for a bunch of kids. It has the trappings of being an "EU govt" and the Commission and others try to big themselves up as if it were an EU govt, but the reality is that the spending that member states pool and execute collectively through the EU is tiny compared to what each govt spends within its own borders and the member states govts call all the real shots taken at EU level. It talks like a duck, but it eats, walks and poops like a chicken.

While I don't disagree most of the 'major' decisions are going to be Council led (and specifically Germany/France given they typically foot the bill as it inevitably tends to be required), it also very much seems that what becomes 'qualified majority' is essentially never able to move back to requiring unanimity should a future government decide it wasn't actually something they were happy to be giving up.

And while I don't disagree that the overall EU spending thing is somewhat of a red herring as it's a small part of the overall combined individual government's spending, you are somewhat underplaying the impact of the Commission given their ability to bring forward and enforce legislation that has pretty far reaching impacts (given it's the commission that will enforce that 'rule of law' issue as per above posts that was discussing whether germany/france would as easily be able to ignore any rulings).

[jshell]

crankedup5 said:

jshell said:

Wills2 said:

Kermit power said:

Vasco said:

It's always interesting when people raise the issue of Brexit over and over again.
For the ordinary guy in the street I never hear any regret about the decision that was made. In many parts of the UK it was a foregone conclusion that European laws weren't going to work here. For some businesses it was a nightmare but, even so, I also don't recall anybody suggesting that the vote was blatantly left or right.

How often do you actually talk politics with "the ordinary guy in the street" though?

I don't know anyone who thinks it was a good decision, all pain no gain.

I didn't think it was a good idea, but I would NOT vote to go back under the current EU leadership. Von Den Leyen just made this speech regarding countries that step away from the 'party line':

EU chief von der Leyen: "We have means and possibilities in the EU to make sure that what is agreed at the European level is implemented. For example the infringement procedures and these are biting or we have the conditionality mechanism. For example member state does not abide to the rule of law, you might recall that we had to be very tough on Poland and held back 135 billions Euros because the former government did systematically destroy the rule of law in Poland. With the view on Hungary we have the same situation that there are steps that Hungary has to do to reinstall the rule of law if not the money stays frozen so we have the mean and these are biting means that we can apply. But of course we want the countries to come to a better path so if there is a change to the positive side then we can release the money, but the EU has the means to make sure that the law is implemented."

So, don't break the party line ('rule of law') or we will severly punish you. Maybe the concerns about Sovereignty were valid...

I'd be happy with a trading block, but not this form of authoritarianism. https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/180092930526797...

Edited by jshell on Thursday 13th June 09:59

VDL expresses facts that endorse one of my principal reasons for voting to leave the EU.

And why I wouldn't want to rejoin that authoritarian, controlling, internet censoring, warmongering blok.

[tangerine_sedge]

jshell said:

Crippo said:

tangerine_sedge said:

768 said:

tangerine_sedge said:

People don't get labelled far right for talking about immigration and benefits. They get called far right by demonising immigrants/benefit recipients, using them as scapegoats and 'othering' them.

Who talks about a reduction in immigration that hasn't been labelled as far right?

Pretty much all the parties apart from the Greens (talking about truly open borders!) are talking about controlling and reducing the numbers. That includes the Labour party with that well known far-right activist Yvette Cooper talking about implementing measures to reduce net migration.

Link to Migration Observatory (pretty much the first googled link) comparing Labour and Conservative views on immigration for this very election : https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/about/

They aren’t talking about reducing net immigration in any believable way. Talk is cheap and the only Party that I actually believe wants to reduce it is Reform….talk is cheap, motivation and action is all, that matters.

The 'talk' is a complete smoke screen. The Tories focus in reducing legal migrants as a smoke screen for their inability, deliberate or not, to reduce numbers of illegal migrants.

They're talking about it, and not being labelled far right. Feel free to continue in your ignorance if the facts don't suit your agenda...

[ATG]

isaldiri said:

While I don't disagree most of the 'major' decisions are going to be Council led (and specifically Germany/France given they typically foot the bill as it inevitably tends to be required), it also very much seems that what becomes 'qualified majority' is essentially never able to move back to requiring unanimity should a future government decide it wasn't actually something they were happy to be giving up.

And while I don't disagree that the overall EU spending thing is somewhat of a red herring as it's a small part of the overall combined individual government's spending, you are somewhat underplaying the impact of the Commission given their ability to bring forward and enforce legislation that has pretty far reaching impacts (given it's the commission that will enforce that 'rule of law' issue as per above posts that was discussing whether germany/france would as easily be able to ignore any rulings).

I don't think policing governments' commitments to each other is the same sort of thing as originating new policy. They're two very different types of power, very much like police and courts compared to government. So I'm entirely comfortable with them being the EU fun police, and equally comfortable that their de facto ability to set the political agenda in Europe is as close to bugger all as makes no difference. We shouldn't overlook how useful it can be in a constructive way for a member state's government to be able to say to it's own population "oh well, we have to reform special tax breaks for accountants because the EU require it", rather than say the more honest and blunt message "we have to get rid of these daft tax breaks we've accumulated over the years because we're naturally corrupt as a nation and it just has to stop".

[President Merkin]

jshell said:

crankedup5 said:

jshell said:

Wills2 said:

Kermit power said:

Vasco said:

It's always interesting when people raise the issue of Brexit over and over again.
For the ordinary guy in the street I never hear any regret about the decision that was made. In many parts of the UK it was a foregone conclusion that European laws weren't going to work here. For some businesses it was a nightmare but, even so, I also don't recall anybody suggesting that the vote was blatantly left or right.

How often do you actually talk politics with "the ordinary guy in the street" though?

I don't know anyone who thinks it was a good decision, all pain no gain.

I didn't think it was a good idea, but I would NOT vote to go back under the current EU leadership. Von Den Leyen just made this speech regarding countries that step away from the 'party line':

EU chief von der Leyen: "We have means and possibilities in the EU to make sure that what is agreed at the European level is implemented. For example the infringement procedures and these are biting or we have the conditionality mechanism. For example member state does not abide to the rule of law, you might recall that we had to be very tough on Poland and held back 135 billions Euros because the former government did systematically destroy the rule of law in Poland. With the view on Hungary we have the same situation that there are steps that Hungary has to do to reinstall the rule of law if not the money stays frozen so we have the mean and these are biting means that we can apply. But of course we want the countries to come to a better path so if there is a change to the positive side then we can release the money, but the EU has the means to make sure that the law is implemented."

So, don't break the party line ('rule of law') or we will severly punish you. Maybe the concerns about Sovereignty were valid...

I'd be happy with a trading block, but not this form of authoritarianism. https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/180092930526797...

Edited by jshell on Thursday 13th June 09:59

VDL expresses facts that endorse one of my principal reasons for voting to leave the EU.

And why I wouldn't want to rejoin that authoritarian, controlling, internet censoring, warmongering blok.

Twice now you've punted that without context for clout. And you can't spell bloc either.

[isaldiri]

ATG said:

I don't think policing governments' commitments to each other is the same sort of thing as originating new policy. They're two very different types of power, very much like police and courts compared to government. So I'm entirely comfortable with them being the EU fun police, and equally comfortable that their de facto ability to set the political agenda in Europe is as close to bugger all as makes no difference. We shouldn't overlook how useful it can be in a constructive way for a member state's government to be able to say to it's own population "oh well, we have to reform special tax breaks for accountants because the EU require it", rather than say the more honest and blunt message "we have to get rid of these daft tax breaks we've accumulated over the years because we're naturally corrupt as a nation and it just has to stop".

Hold on - isn't that slightly conflating things above?

The european council gets to determine the broad direction of policy and overall budgets that the EU should be taking and most of the emergency meeting decisions that have to made with 'extra' money being made available when required while the Commission gets to determine the final details by proposing legislation that has to be adopted by each country as a result.

The process of being fed down does effectively allow for 'new policy' to be determined at Commission level, especially as with enough horse-trading and buggering around, if enough is wrapped up into the odd 'extra' detail that the Commission insists on as a matter of principle, usually the council isn't going to bother to scrap the whole thing. A bit like how pork barrel politics works in the US I supose. Also, it's the commission rules and regulations that finds it's way downstream to be affecting individuals so as such, it's not a surprise that the Commission is probably more perceived as the 'face' of the EU even if the main decision making level is at the council level.

And as a separate point, the whole decision making structure of the EU is a rather convoluted mess with 2 'Presidents' plus a country that takes presidency of the council plus another president of the parliament.....it's layers of politicians for no real purpose other than to add.... politicians.

[hidetheelephants]

President Merkin said:

Anyway, back on topic, the right here may be imploding but in comparison to what's going on in France, it's all gone a bit hold my beer.

https://x.com/Mij_Europe/status/180112168944022373...

That's some proper People's Front of Judea action.

[glazbagun]

Crippo said:

They aren’t talking about reducing net immigration in any believable way. Talk is cheap and the only Party that I actually believe wants to reduce it is Reform….talk is cheap, motivation and action is all, that matters.

Believing Farage in 2024? No wonder we ended up with Truss as PM!

[DeejRC]

This thread does a very good job of highlighting who *doesnt* live in France, I know that much! Nor understand much about French politics
Le Pen has had a largeish, local level power base for quite a while now and has been building her message over a number of yrs. In each of which she largely tones her message down again yr on yr.
Macron almost has the opposite problem, he created a crash bang wallop movement from nothing, he occupied the desire from French metropolitan society for a centre orientated “do something” party as the traditionalists around Hollande and Mr Bruni buggered about. When he “hasn’t” then managed to do anything he set out to whilst also pissing off those who didn’t want him in the first place…well, he has no strong organised base to fall back on. This has left him where he is.
The worrying take away from this shouldn’t be the strength of Le Pen, it should be the continued lack of any rebound for the traditional left n righties. They are utterly empty.
As to Le Pen and Europe and her ignore the EU stance, it’s largely absolutely similar to the domestic message delivered by every French politician since my family has been in France. French politicians at EVERY level in France all use the message of do what is best for France ONLY and ignore anything and everything else. And they mean it!!
The bottom line is that Marine poses v little threat to France or the EU because she will still have to grapple with the same problems in actually governing France as Macron did. It’s the same with Meloni in Italy. For quite a while before her election, I was quite vocal on her about that loony, I really did worry what she would do with Italy. The answer is: absolutely bugger all because she has been lumbered with trying to govern a semi ungovernable country. It’s left no room for her to be a loony because she has to spend so much time doing the nuts n bolts.
Le Pen will have the same problem and yeah, as Kermit says, she will suffer the reality of governing. Just wait till the banlieues do their first riot on her watch, her same lack of ability to do much about it, the Press on her back, Marseilles doing its thing and her same lack of ability to police the place.