Hi,

Our news in the US isn't all that informative about elections in Europe, so I wondered if anyone could shed some light on the upcoming election in France.

The limited news we get here more or less is:

Macron
- Basically some kind of investment / banker type
- No clear policies except to help the banks

Le Pen
- Long family history of involvement, or attempted involvement in politics
- The news here is that she is sort of old school, traditional, Vive la France type
- Wants France to remain culturally "French".
- Talked about possibly moving back to Franc currency, but no one takes this seriously

Election assumptions
- France is like most countries, run by the bankers
- It follows that a banker will win

Completely missing over here - issues.  Are there no actual "issues"?

For example, while personalities play a big role in politics in the US, there were some very clear policy issues that were voted on with the US election:

- Trade deficit, especially with China
- Gun ownership rights - very clearly different between the candidates
- Expansion or move away from un regulated international trade
- Health insurance, tax reform, etc.

Are there issues like this being discussed as part of this election, or is it a pure fluff election?

Thanks

Harry

 

It's certainly not pure fluff.

I've personally not looked in to it too much but I guess being much closer has meant our news coverage has had a little more depth to it.

Macron formed a new party which is pitching itself as being in the centre. He is seen by some as being fresh and new to politics, even though he has worked for the current government at some point. I think labeling him as "for the banks" would be very unfair, I've looked at a few of his policies and they seem fairly sensible and in-line with what I would expect from a centre candidate.

Le Pen is anti-EU, and I don't care how she tries to represent herself and her party (which she has temporarily left in a PR move to distance herself from it) they are far-right with a history of nationalism and fascism. It's very interesting that you haven't mentioned that, either deliberately, or I'm hoping more likely that it hasn't been covered in the US media.

And on your other points from the US election
- Trade deficit, especially with China
- Gun ownership rights - very clearly different between the candidates
- Expansion or move away from un regulated international trade
- Health insurance, tax reform, etc.

I guess the trade bit tends to be covered with EU membership discussions, single market etc.
Gun ownership - generally no one gives a fuck about owning guns on this side of the Atlantic.
Again, probably covered by EU discussions since we're already in a generally unregulated trading bloc.
In Europe there tends to be a push to improve healthcare for people rather than take away cover for certain people and make the chance of people living/dying based on how rich they are. We're a bit more developed in that sense.

I suspect it's hard to arrive at any kind of comparison between European and US political systems other than structural comparisons, at least, not in the space available on teh forum. In a sense, although there are specific issues under discussion: the relationship between France and the EU, immigration policy and refugees, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Health Care and pensions and so on, the bigger issues are under the surface and here there probably are comparisons to be made. For example, large swathes of the population have not done well economically under the rule of any political party, whereas they see individuals accruing unbelievable wealth. Many are expressing their dissatisfaction in a willingness to consider alternatives, no matter how implausible. This is the background to a Presidential election where all the traditional parties have been knocked out and we see Macron and Le Pen facing each other.

Macron: although it's tempting to see him as a banker, rising to power from the financial sector, he actually spent more time as a Civil Servant and as a Political Party worker for Francois Hollande, the Socialist Party leader. He was a minister for the economy in Hollande's government. He was on the right of the Socialist Party and this is reflected in the policies of his all new En Marche Party, which are all about liberalising (read cutting) laws around worker protection, small government, lower taxes etc.

Le Pen: ah yes, an "old school, traditional, Vive la France type" much in the way that, say, David Duke stands for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Marine was born into the wealthy Le Pen family and is the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen, founder of the Front National, a straightforward Fascist Party. After becoming leader, Marine has attempted to distance herself and the party from her father on the grounds that he is a vicious piece of shit, and a Fascist Party rebranded as something less intolerant and authoritarian might be an easier sell. Her policies? Nationalism, anti-immigration, an anti-EU/anti-global stand largely centering on ethnicity. 

In case those are too long for anybody:

Macron: the status quo, more or less
Le Pen: racism and fascism

It should be a simple task then, but the world is pretty fucked up right now so who really knows? Unfortunately the status quo is increasingly unsatisfactory and for some reason that's driving people towards the likes of Le Pen instead of further away.

In the words of another turd stinking the world up right now, "Sad!"

All you need to know:

Macron - neoliberal

Le Pen - neofascist

As everyone knows, we had a pretty tough election in November and the country is still healing from the divisiveness and name calling (from all sides).  Many Americans, including myself, are trying very hard to avoid giving people harsh labels in an attempt to soften the tone of the discussions and get the country working again.

That is specifically why I was asking about issues and avoiding labels.  I also try hard to not pin people to the political or religious opinions of their parents and families.  Certainly it can follow that they think similarly, but I can tell you that my children and I don't share identical viewpoints on many things.  I view that as an accomplishment - they are independent thinkers.

Le Pen is certainly given a hard time in the press.  It is hard to tell how much of that is real vs rival generated, at least from here.  She is certainly a Nationalist which is somewhat what a person wants in their leaders, not sure about how far that goes beyond reasonable.

As far as Macron, all I can tell you is that in the financial press on this side of the ocean, the French Banks have been bragging for some time how they planned out the strategy to get Macron elected.  He is being presented here as something like a French Mario Draghi. 

As you know, Drahgi was a former Goldman Sacks guy and "slightly biased" toward bankers needs.  That is either good or bad, depending on your viewpoint.  I don't necessarily subscribe that being "pro bank" is the same as "pro business".

I find it fascinating that the same strategy of "a third way" somehow seems to work on people.  In recent memory, both Obama and Trump used the same strategies to win.

 

Fair enough, but I'm tired of "fair-mindedness" being used as a vehicle for the normalisation of people like Le Pen and Trump. What it's bringing to the world is clear enough to me and I'd rather call it by its name, label and all. I hope your tone-softening efforts work out, still, but I fear they lead down a dark path.

I guess the third way thing is what I was alluding to earlier, the status quo is only good for an ever-decreasing amount of people lately. I just find it completely depressing that people could see Trump (currently filling his staff with the sort of people he was pledging to drain the swamp of, quelle surprise, ensuring a few tens of thousands of people will die for lack of healthcare, etc etc etc) or Le Pen as a good way to change that. And those people will say things like "Macron is just another banker!" And it's true so that's not great either but somehow France got themselves an either/or situation like this instead of a choice including positive change. Just like the USA, just like the UK. I think it's already past the point of no return for decades yet.

Here's a point in Macron's favour:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/macron-greece-french-left-marine-le-pen-yanis-varoufakis

"When my country was being bullied by Europe’s pro-austerity establishment, Macron was a rare ally."

Macron appears to have a sizeable lead in early returns...

And now has been declared the winner. Very low turnout (~25%).

And Le Pen just threw the FN under the bus...

A year or two ago, I'd be a bit disappointed at another neoliberal win I think, presumably hoping for somebody along Melanchon's lines (disclaimer, haven't really followed the French politics closely enough to be sure) but now it just feels like a massive relief. Which I guess is that there Overton window sliding rightwards, but nevermind for now. Fuck off, Le Pen and FN! 

It's hard to get excited by the likes of Clinton and Macron, but this felt like it could have been a global tipping point (disintegration of the EU). Very relieved that at least did not come to pass. For now. Not out of the woods yet.

"Hooray, only 35% Nazis in France!"

 :-O

From across the ocean, it doesn't actually appear to matter all that much who is elected in France.  Our news indicates that all real decisions are made in Brussels by non elected representatives.   The individual national governments appear to be just rubber stamps, pretending to matter by arguing before voting yes.

Similar to the US, probably 3 or 4 layers of government could be eliminated with no loss of effectiveness.

I am not singling out France, great country, it's just that when I look at it all:
- Democracy
- Republic
- Oligarchy

We all seem to be somewhere between Republic and Oligarchy, rather than in between Democracy and Republic like our "representatives" try to pretend.

Le Pen is more or less correct on a point she made, no matter who was elected, France would be run by a woman.  She was thinking A. Merkel, but really it seems to be C. Legarde.

"all real decisions are made in Brussels by non elected representatives"

The European Parliament, for instance?

I am not an expert on EU law.  That appears to be one of many EU agencies that wield power over what laws are initiated and passed.

I guess the main point is - if the EU is deciding on the laws, and the national governments have little choice but to implement them, then what is the point of National governments?

Similarly in the US, our President will go to a G-7  meeting, decisions are made there, and the laws get passed both nationally and at a state level.  Why do we need these "representatives"  if they are are just "taking decisions".

 

Can't be, those people get elected too. Hmm. Hmmmmmmm. Quite a few Brexiteers seem to struggle with this part, even now. Can't expect it to be any better in California.

I also wonder what qualifies a decision as "real". And if it's still a bad thing given that these countries in the EU have elected people that get to contribute to that decision... probably that's less handy for the likes of Greece. It ain't perfect that's for sure.

What Smithy said.

It's a myth that we're ruled by Brussels, but it's nice propaganda for the anti-EU folks.

All these people in positions of power are elected by the public, or by the people we elect. If we're really not happy about who is representing us we can stand ourselves, we can join a party and campaign for selection. We have these opportunities. And I believe in the UK it is much much less dependent on money than in the US.

Also, with a direct presidential election, like in France, there's more of a chance of an outsider having a genuine chance of winning. What with not requiring electoral college votes, or constituency MPs (not that we have a president).

It depends on the decision though, surely? If you want in the EU then you have to abide by its (for example) environmental laws, and human rights, and so on. You get to have an input on what those things actually are. If you don't want to, you get out, but then you don't have the same trading privileges. It's not like you just turn up and whoever's got the rotating presidency gets to call the shots. (That's still Germany, France, UKohwaitnotanymore and Spain, right?)
 

As others have said, the idea that "all real decisions are made in Brussels by non elected representatives" is not true.

In the UK, around 5% of our laws (at present) are EU laws. These mainly cover areas of trade, human rights, etc. The other 95% are purely the responsibility of Britain and our politicians here, similar to in France (although not completely the same as we do have some additional devolved powers in Britain).

Even then, the EU parliament consists of elected politicians from all nations, that's why countries vote for MEPs (Member of the European Parliament). Finally, there are vetoes where countries can reject the implementation of legislation if they disagree with it.

I am simplifying things here a lot, but the idea that rules are forced onto countries without any control is not true. Also, the whole "unelected representatives in Brussels" is the line often trotted out by the anti-EU brigade, but it is simply not true.