Excellence in Shitlording
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
Bigking321
Well-known member
That's certainly possible. I never really paid much attention to him back then but that wouldn't surprise me.
Robovski
Well-known member
You can now assume that when we are not being told he isn't pooping himself that he is.
Oh France Again.
I can't believe this is the same country that George Washington helped liberate from the British King back in the French Revolution.
I can't believe this is the same country that George Washington helped liberate from the British King back in the French Revolution.
mrttao
Well-known member
did he actually do this or is this a meme?
Skitzyfrenic
Well-known member
He actually did it.
Macron dissolved the National Assembly, the lower chamber of the French Parliament (as far as my understanding goes).
But the vote his party lost was the French EU vote I think. He/his party didn't lose the French France elections.
But that's just from a quick looksee and not anything in depth.
Macron dissolved the National Assembly, the lower chamber of the French Parliament (as far as my understanding goes).
But the vote his party lost was the French EU vote I think. He/his party didn't lose the French France elections.
But that's just from a quick looksee and not anything in depth.
Ixian
Professional Gatekeeper
Nothing saves #Democracy more than dissolving your democratic governmental body upon disliking the outcome of an election.
A close runner up would be "fortifying" your elections beforehand to ensure only #Democracy approved candidates win.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Skallagrim
Well-known member
What are you guys talking about here? Is this some kind of elaborate joke where you pretend to go along with the retard narrative, or do you actually think that Macron is somehow suspending democracy?
To explain what's actually happening: "dissolving parliament" is what you do to trigger elections. There must constitutionally always be a parliament, so dissolving this one forces the election of a new one. In this case, there will be elections in France within a month (July 7th).
Macron is actually being surprisingly decent here. His party lost hard, every indication is that Le Pen's nationalist party will win an upcoming election, but instead of clinging to power for another year (which he could do), Macron has dissolved parliament immediately-- triggering an election which he expects his party to lose, because he admits they've lost the supprt of the populace.
To explain what's actually happening: "dissolving parliament" is what you do to trigger elections. There must constitutionally always be a parliament, so dissolving this one forces the election of a new one. In this case, there will be elections in France within a month (July 7th).
Macron is actually being surprisingly decent here. His party lost hard, every indication is that Le Pen's nationalist party will win an upcoming election, but instead of clinging to power for another year (which he could do), Macron has dissolved parliament immediately-- triggering an election which he expects his party to lose, because he admits they've lost the supprt of the populace.
One of the most haunting things about looking at the 21st century Western political class is realising “Oh God, Macron is the adult in the room.”
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
Somehow? this is a very common thing that happened countless times in history.
It would not at all be a surprise if it happened yet again.
Thanks for explaining. well, this is some very misleading terminology there.
about what you could expect from the french.
That said, a few things remain confusing.
how is this a "gamble that can save democracy?"
they literally just had an election where his party lost with less than half as many votes as the conservative party. do they think having another election 1 month after losing the last election will give different results?
also, is this a stalling tactics where, not liking the result of an election, they just force it to be redone?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The thinking is that by immediately calling for an election, Macron looks like a good sport, which might minimise his party's losses.
If he waited instead, it'd be like the Conservatives in Britain, who didn't call for an election after Boris Johnson cleared out, and instead put forth Truss (a complete failure) and then Sunak... with the result that they are set to get pretty much obliterated in the upcoming elections. Macron is trying to avert that by calling for elections at once, now that it's clear he's lost.
(His own term as President -- separately elected -- will continue anyway. But since his party will almost certainly lose, he'll become a lame duck, and all his plans for reform will be scrapped. Those barely skirted a majority in parliament before, and will no get a majority after July 7th.)
In short: this is no grand diabolical plan. It's basically the only thing he can do to minimise his losses. The long-term hope, I expect, is that Rassemblement National (Le Pen's party) will be unable to deliver on their promises after they win, so people lose faith in them, and return to the Renaissance Party (Macron's party) in a couple of years.
mrttao
Well-known member
does he have veto power or some other way to ensure they are unable to get things done with him as the president?
Skallagrim
Well-known member
Sure, most presidents do. Although I gather it'll depend on how badly his party loses (i.e. can the oppositen overrule any veto). The issue is that this would further damage his own and his party's standing (nothing having electorally harmed him so much as his attempt to force through constitutional reform over clear parliamentary opposition). So that would run counter to the strategy of 'minimising losses', which is what he's going for in the first place.
Keep in mind: Macron isn't going to be president again, anyway. He wants to be popular, and to look like a statesman who's "above the parties". He has to think about his future (international) career, after all. His time as governing leader of the majority seems to be ending, so he's laying the groundwork for a new role as "elder statesman".
Mark Rutte did the same in the Netherlands (including suddenly triggering elections, knowing that delaying would only weaken his party further), and he is doing his utmost to become the next Secretary-General of NATO right now (only three countries remain to be bought off
). That's pretty much the blueprint for Macron's desired type of career trajectory.keep in mind most americans are used to a completely different electoral system were not a parlamentary country.
Different system different rules. we hear that The senate is dissolved and think
in a parliamentary system it actually is a smart move sometimes. it is a chance to either reaffirm that you have a mandate or pass the buck to a different government with a mandate to either solve the problem or fuck it up.
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
It's an internet circlejerk. Always assume the dumber option.
At any rate, feels like a slam dunk. The right will come to power, get haplessly hamstrung by competing interests like Meloni was, fail to accomplish anything, and then get voted out in short order.
It will take time and preparation, plus a little luck, to make Europe sane again. At present, all they have are Putin's stooges. Not one of them has institutional power with the media, the bureaucracy, or Big Business. They're more or less doomed to be the controlled opposition.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
That's probably always true.
That being said--
--you don't actually appear very well-informed on European politics, either.
Or rather, I'm left with the impression that your own views colour your perception. To start with: your cited example goes off the rails immediately, since Meloni has been in power for a while, and her party just came out on top in the EU election, too. Evidently, "the right fails and then loses in short order" cannot then be true across the board.
It has some merit in France, where all of established politics has been geared towads keeping FN (now RN) out of power for decades. They're losing that battle, but the insititutions are primed to undermine Le Pen if she ever gains a majority. (The same is true, to an even greater degree, with the Flemish nationalist VB in Belgium.)
In most European countries, however, the populist right is generally making gains, and when actually in power as part of a coalition, typically books moderate successes. Most votes like what they do, and want more of it. That's broadly speaking, of course, because this "movement" is disparate and has many national iterations that diverge starkly on certain matters. Dismissing it as "Putin's stooges" is such a low-level frame that discussing it seriously isn't even merited. Suffice to say: the current populism has been growing for decades, and would be there with or without Putin.
The movement is ascendant because for decades, politicians have been doing... well, what you more-or-less seem to want. And it has caused problems (as everything does, one way or another). Those problems have been unaddressed, in no small part because the established parties have wrongly dismissed the discontented voters as being "stooges" or "not sane". The resulting line of thought is that since the populist opposition is inherently "bad" and illegitimate, their grievances must also be thus. And the result of that is that the grievances are ignored. That the problems are left to fester.
This is why the populists have been booking successes, not just in Europe, but across the West. The problems are real. And they have been ignored. As long as that remains the case, the populists will continue to achieve successes. The solution to this will probably not be what you consider to be "making Europe sane again".
SoliFortissimi
Well-known member
But she basically turned into a typical succ politician for it, so is she even right wing anymore? What happened to reducing or reversing immigration? Hell, it increased under her.
What they need is a Reagan, not a Bush Jr.