EU France is on fire. Again.
- Thread starter DarthOne
- Start date
DarthOne
☦️
Someone apparently never told the Powers that Be in France what happened last time the common folk went hungry....
But that happened to bad royals,and they are ENLINGHTENED progressives ! common folk could not hurt ENLINGHTENED rulers,right ?
In 1870 France would have Monarchy if not for fact,that candidate was,well,too honorable.
Now? fifty fifty, i would say.You could toss a coin for that.
As a catholic i prefer monarchy,but...if we have republic i could see Macron head on pike hold by citizen singing "ca ira".
I am bad catholic.
gral
Well-known member
The Count of Chambord, you mean? I don't think it was honor. Rather, it was the fact that, after he died, the Orléans branch would inherit the throne. The same family that stabbed the Bourbons in the back twice, the first time with Philippe Egalité, the second time with Louis Philippe. There was no way in hell he would leave the throne to the Orléans.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
There's also the possibility that they may just be fed up with both systems, and decide to go with something else. Perhaps a demarchy; where all members of the government are chosen at random from amongst the citizenry.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
That'd go to shit impressively fast in its own right.
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
I don't know about the rest of you, but I think a monarchy would actually be better than that. If anything a strong, old institution such as a monarchy would be of tremendous benefit to a tumultuous country like France.
And he could be right.Orleans would probably lead France to another revolution.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
One could say the same thing about any attempt at constructing a system of government after a violent revolution, what with people being people. Personally, I think it could work; if it was designed and implemented properly. Of course even if it fails, at least it doesn't meet the definition of insanity; trying the same thing, over and over again, expecting different results.
What "strong, old institution"? Monarchism died a well-deserved, pathetic death a long time ago; there's nothing left of it to rebuild. Not that any sane person would want to, considering what always happened whenever France tried to bring it back before; the king started acting like a king, and the people took exception to that. Violently.
Besides; who the heck would you even trust to be king of France? More importantly; how would you get them into power, instead of someone more ambitious and ruthless?
Lord Sovereign
The resident Britbong
Oh ho ho, that is the arrogance of the 21st century bleeding through. Like it or not, monarchy has been the default method of governance for human beings since Sumer and Akkad, if not (likely) earlier. We could actually be a weird "blip" as far as our descendants are concerned.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Not so much arrogance, as a desire to avoid repeating the same deadly mistakes we've been repeating throughout most of human history.
Returning to monarchy would be like returning to sail power for combat operations.
Theoretically it can provide certain benefits compared to the current system, but the current system exists now because people got tired of hereditary monarchy's.
I guess theoretically we could do an 'elective monarchy', ala Naboo, but...it doesn't seem like that'd actually be meaningfully different from what we have now.
Bassoe
Well-known member
Option One: The rebels lose, the status quo cracks down on 'wrong' opinions. Still officially a democracy, but voting for anything but the status quo is criminalized and there's a lot more spying and miscellaneous authoritarianism.
Option Two: The rebels temporarily win but fail to seize the french nuclear arsenal and acquire MAD deterrence against being reconquered by the status quo, probably using american troops told they're fighting 'alt-rightists' or 'nazis' as cannon fodder. Essentially Option One, but the regime's enforcers are foreigners and the new french regime is imposed from abroad.
Option Three: The rebels win and seize the french nuclear arsenal for Mutually Assured Destruction deterrence defense against Liberation™. France is then blockaded and sanctioned by the status quo until declining quality of life for the average french plebeian caused by said blockades and sanctions motivate a revolt against the new french goverment in favor of a substitute under the status quo's control, so they can get their international goods back.
Option Four: The rebels win, seize the french nukes and are successfully able to establish trade deals with russia or possibly china* and enough other dissident states against the status quo that their economy isn't fucked. The resulting new axis of power completely reshapes geopolitics.
* China would profit greatly from being able to provide an alternative to the west/break the status quo's monopoly of trade, but on the other hand, they wouldn't want to support a nationalist western regime since such a regime could, if given half a chance, become a superpower and consequentially a threat to them.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Option five: the rumblings continue, the government coasts on.
DarthOne
☦️
Given what we know about France's military and generals, if a populist revolt does break out, I expect that a fair chunk of the military will either side with them or remain strictly neutral, at least as long as they can. I'd argue that something like that has to happen, otherwise, nothing will change. Either the movement fizzles out or gets crushed by government forces.
As for the USA or anyone else sending in troops...while I can see it happening, I think it would be very much a nuclear option that could backfire 'hilariously'. People don't like foreign soldiers showing up on their shores to help enforce the order of an unpopular government, and it could easily sway thousands who were previously neutral to supporting the revolt.
Never mind that it would not play out well in the USA; we just got our butts kicked out of Afghanistan, and another war/ intervention will not be received well. And given the nationalist movements in the USA, sending the troops into France might just kick off more militant action at home.
Plus, there would be, at least to my understanding, quite a risk of a substantial number of people quitting the military in response. Either because they sympathize with the French anti-Macron faction, or they don't want to get set into yet another war zone. It's one thing to fight against someone who attacked you first- it's another to prop up an unpopular government in a foreign land.
(Of course, I wouldn't put it past the Feds to arriange an 'incident' to 'justify' our intervention either...)
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
I guess I'll dump other French news here as well. France practised civic nationalism for a long time, but racial nationalism is raising its head, helped by USA.
A Racial Awakening in France, Where Race Is a Taboo Topic
A Racial Awakening in France, Where Race Is a Taboo Topic
That is a bad decision....dear god what the fuck is our embassy doing? No..just no, this is shit you do to your enemies not to neutral countries or nato allies. This is deliberately undermining a western nation with nukes one that we actually do business with.
This can actually fuck us right in the ass.
Good. The more damages are caused by minorities deciding to try and piss off the natives of european nations, the more likely the concepts of diversity and equality will be tainted beyond recovery.