Making France Great Again?

[Dill]

(04-23-2017, 07:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: As for the obvious pros, we have lots of national states and fought in two world wars taking ground on our surface, leaving the continent devastated. The EU, and one should not lose focus on that, is first and foremost a peace project. The return to national states might lay the groundwork for new conflict.
Also, the continent is rich and we can't really tell why. Apart from US backing, it's the economy, the trade structures, and first and foremost it's education. As for economy, bigger goals are only to be achieved by working together, not so much by having smaller states trying their own strategy. See: Alternative energy, where after the US pulling out we have the historic chance to set the technological standards for centuries to come. Which needs working together (not least policy-wise) in a concentrated effort.
Then there's the currency. Our national currencies were very vulnerable for Singaporian (or other places') financial speculation. The Euro, despite lots of problems, did quite well in giving us stability and security. Including the still existing national currencies that are dependent on the Euro.
Last not least, it's also about freedom. Which comes with disadvantages too, some regions do not benefit, some people don't, especially lower educated people. They are not wanted anywhere and got great competition by Eastern European EU citizens who do jobs better for way less money. My home town, a classical "worker" town, is a good example for that, people took huge pay cuts or lost their jobs. The city is shrinking although Slovakians and others are streaming in. That they're not the biggest EU fans is understandable. 
For people with education, though, the EU means opportunity, and having opportunities is a strong motor. What could a chemist (or whoever) do in Austria, not so much. Now the world is open for him to do what he wants in some other EU country.

So there were some cons mentioned, there are obvious winners and losers. Low educated Western workers are big losers, and no one cares too much, and the support for right-wing parties is too often attributed to their inherent xenophobia alone. But the xenophobia roots in some very real disadvantages caused by open borders and open trade.
Another con, we have many poor countries that need to be bailed out. And that sure is frustrating, Greece (or Spain, Portugal, Italy...) got in trouble due to many factors, amongst the biggest ones is inability and corruption. When the German EU secessionist says this is BS and why would we be obliged to bail Greece out, there's not much to answer.
Another con is a missing pro, the EU isn't really democratic. If you believe it's democratic for you read that on wikipedia, it's pretty much an illusion. We vote for an EU parliament (that's the only handle we have), but the politicians we send there are not our best. Second grade, old, washed up, praised away. That's what the European people can do, vote for these guys in EU elections that are still strongly shaped by national issues. Policies are not made in the parliament. The EU is at the very best indirectly democratic, and even there you shouldn't look with a magnifying glass.
And the power of EU policy making is limited. For many decisions we still need universal agreeement from all countries. Therefore big changes are hardly happening, would take years to get through and would then be full of compromises (GB wants some fishing rights, Greece wants higher bailouts, Poland always wants something disgusting and Hungary is descended into alt-right hell already...). So what is happening is not really politics, but economic unity and a bunch af administrative BS. Brussels is called a juggernaut caring about the bending of cucumbers, the saying goes. People are not wrong there.

So jackpot question, what if France pulls out. The EU would pretty much be dead. We can stomach GB leaving, they weren't very helpful to begin with. France is essential, though. So what would happen probably would be the forming of some middle European block (Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and France if they want). A "core Europe". Eastern Europe would be pretty much left out and left for Putin to influence. The gap between rich and poor countries would widen, which again would lead to conflicts. Many would feel that regaining power over the borders, the policies, the economy, the currency would make the countries great again. For Germany, this could be true. For France, it's a tossup. Spain, Greeece, Italy etc. would be the losers. Eastern European countries would try their luck with Putin, the slow process of becoming more democratic would stall, corruption and autocratic structures would be daily routine. The small continent would be divided, and in the long run that can't be helpful to compete in the world.

That is some "black hole" Hollo.  This is one of the best posts I seen in the forum this year.  The bolded points, the synthesis of the whole, put my understanding on a more secure footing.  An articulate person who has lived under EU policies for a long time has given us the kind of comprehensive run down we Americans rarely get online, at least all in one place.

You have given me a much more concrete image of what might happen if France pulls out. I don't think it is a given that Bulgaria or Poland would turn to Putin, but economic difficulties ease the path for authoritarian rule.  So does corruption (yes, I am looking at you Bulgaria!) But the break up of Europe's continental economy into even more rich and even more poor does not bode well for stability and peace.  A central European "Bund" might work well for Germany and whomever allies with her. But I am thinking that a return of barriers to trade with large states like Spain, Italy and France would certainly be felt by those countries.  

[*bfine32*]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/marine-le-pen-steps-down-as-head-of-frances-national-front-party/ar-BBAhnna?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Quote:French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen announced Monday she is temporarily stepping down as head of her National Front party with less than two weeks ago before the country chooses its leader in a runoff vote.
The move appears to be a way for Le Pen to embrace a wide range of potential voters ahead of the vote pitting her against Emmanuel Macron, the independent centrist who came in first in Sunday's first round, The Associated Press reported.

This will be interesting.

[hollodero]

(04-24-2017, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/marine-le-pen-steps-down-as-head-of-frances-national-front-party/ar-BBAhnna?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp


This will be interesting.

I don't think it will. Even Jean-Marie Le Pen made the runoff once without standing a chance against Chirac in the second round. In the end, the majority of Western European voters still is very much opposed to the far right.

In my country the far right is the strongest, our right-wing presidential candidate got a whopping 35% in the first round and still couldn't pull off a win - twice. Against a green party candidate :) So there's that.

What I actually wanted to know - don't American voters envy France for having a real choice between more than just two people? More than just two parties?

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 10:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think it will. Even Jean-Marie Le Pen made the runoff once without standing a chance against Chirac in the second round. In the end, the majority of Western European voters still is very much opposed to the far right.

In my country the far right is the strongest, our right-wing presidential candidate got a whopping 35% in the first round and still couldn't pull off a win - twice. Against a green party candidate :) So there's that.

What I actually wanted to know - don't American voters envy France for having a real choice between more than just two people? More than just two parties?

As to the latter: yes

As to the former: We'll see, Brexit and Trump had no chance. 

[hollodero]

(04-24-2017, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the latter: yes

Thought so. Do something about it then!

(04-24-2017, 10:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the former: We'll see, Brexit and Trump had no chance. 

They had slim chances. Hardly anyone said it's impossible. I didn't.
Le Pen is impossible. I guarantee it :)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 11:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: They had slim chances. Hardly anyone said it's impossible. I didn't.
Le Pen is impossible. I guarantee it :)

I agree.  Every other political party will unite against her, people will vote against her rather than for her opponent.  The system in the US makes an underdog victory more likely, France's is designed to prevent that type of candidate.  I see merits in both systems. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2017, 11:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: 1) Thought so. Do something about it then!


2) They had slim chances. Hardly anyone said it's impossible. I didn't.
Le Pen is impossible. I guarantee it :)

1) Hey, I voted 3rd party in the GE

2) I had someone is this very forum make a similar guarantee before our election. Even got all condescending and told me I could "write it down". 

As I've said earlier in the thread: I'm no expert on French Politics; however, you've got to think the French people are ready for a change; perhaps a radical one.   

[hollodero]

(04-24-2017, 11:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) Hey, I voted 3rd party in the GE

McMullin, right?
I respect that man. But what really would change things would be overthinking the majority voting system.

(04-24-2017, 11:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2) I had someone is this very forum make a similar guarantee before our election. Even got all condescending and told me I could "write it down". 

As I've said earlier in the thread: I'm no expert on French Politics; however, you've got to think the French people are ready for a change; perhaps a radical one.   

Yeah well, that someone wasn't me. I thank you for pointing out the dangers in making bold predictions about the future. I see the danger, but I laugh right in its face. Hohoho. LePen won't be the next French president. Write it down! :)

Regarding change, Macron isn't exactly political establishment, has no traditional party behind him, he looks like change already. The French waved the Socialist party good bye (in quite an unprecedented manner), I guess that was the change they were ready for.

[Rotobeast]

(04-24-2017, 10:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: What I actually wanted to know - don't American voters envy France for having a real choice between more than just two people? More than just two parties?

You're damn right, we are (at least me and many I personally know) !

(04-24-2017, 11:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Thought so. Do something about it then!

I most certainly am.
The debate in Montana was a big step for all 3rd parties.
I'm not stopping and THAT can be written down !

[Belsnickel]

(04-24-2017, 11:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: Thought so. Do something about it then!

There are some states where they are changing that, but the problem is that unless the people rally to demand it in numbers far beyond what they typically rally together to do, it isn't going to happen. And we won't get those numbers because most people in this country don't understand what would really need to happen in order to foster the growth of a true multi-party system. And politicians aren't going to do it because it takes power from them.

This is why I advocate for a new constitution, or at least an amendment, that completely changes the way Congress is set up in our country. For one, we need many more members in the House. The cap has been in place for far too long. When countries less than half our size (land and population) have more than twice as many representatives in their federal parliament, there is a problem here. For two, we need to get rid of districts and move to proportional representation with ranked-choice voting. This will allow us to get rid of the idea of "wasted votes." This will, over time, allow parties beyond the two major parties to grow and prosper. It's Duverger's law that is working against us.

[Dill]

(05-01-2017, 09:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: . For two, we need to get rid of districts and move to proportional representation with ranked-choice voting. This will allow us to get rid of the idea of "wasted votes." This will, over time, allow parties beyond the two major parties to grow and prosper. It's Duverger's law that is working against us.

Yes!

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Did the riots over her advancing stop? Or are they still throwing molotov cocktails at police and breaking/burning shit?

"Anti" fascists, indeed.

[hollodero]

(05-01-2017, 09:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are some states where they are changing that, but the problem is that unless the people rally to demand it in numbers far beyond what they typically rally together to do, it isn't going to happen.

That's my stance, that's what would need to happen. People would need to demand change, and at some point, even if it stays too small a movement for now, it has to start. If given a choice between Hillary and Donald isn't an initial spark, I don't know what is.

(Voting for a third-party candidate is sweet too. But won't change anything as long as the thing stays monstrously rigged in the two parties' favor.)

(05-01-2017, 09:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And we won't get those numbers because most people in this country don't understand what would really need to happen in order to foster the growth of a true multi-party system. And politicians aren't going to do it because it takes power from them.

This is why I advocate for a new constitution, or at least an amendment, that completely changes the way Congress is set up in our country. For one, we need many more members in the House. The cap has been in place for far too long. When countries less than half our size (land and population) have more than twice as many representatives in their federal parliament, there is a problem here. For two, we need to get rid of districts and move to proportional representation with ranked-choice voting. This will allow us to get rid of the idea of "wasted votes." This will, over time, allow parties beyond the two major parties to grow and prosper. It's Duverger's law that is working against us.

I don't really get or care for your "for one" part, more House members make things even more complicated and I would not really see the benefit. Apart from that, exactly what I think.

[hollodero]

(05-01-2017, 02:48 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Did the riots over her advancing stop? Or are they still throwing molotov cocktails at police and breaking/burning shit?

"Anti" fascists, indeed.

These are indeed idiots. The violence alone is repelling, additionally I really don't get the plan here. What does this achieve?

[Belsnickel]

(05-01-2017, 05:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't really get or care for your "for one" part, more House members make things even more complicated and I would not really see the benefit. Apart from that, exactly what I think.

Our current House size was set in 1911, and has been at 435 since 1912. Since 1912 we've added two states and more than tripled our population. Just seems like there is some inadequate representation there.

[hollodero]

(05-01-2017, 08:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Our current House size was set in 1911, and has been at 435 since 1912. Since 1912 we've added two states and more than tripled our population. Just seems like there is some inadequate representation there.

Well, that's a point. I answer quite more less factual: If you see those 435 people, do you believe people really think - Gosh I wish there were many more of them, I fully support that idea. 

And it would get even more confusing. I'd say letting more people be represented by a single house member then in former times is the more practical way to go. Or in other words, of all the probably important reform ideas this one seems of less importance to me. 

I mean, the Dakotas have four senators and California has two. Without searching for the exact population numbers, representation-wise that does seem way more unfair then the few number of house members. Let's use the France election thread to discuss this :)

[Dill]

(05-01-2017, 10:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that's a point. I answer quite more less factual: If you see those 435 people, do you believe people really think - Gosh I wish there were many more of them, I fully support that idea. 

And it would get even more confusing. I'd say letting more people be represented by a single house member then in former times is the more practical way to go. Or in other words, of all the probably important reform ideas this one seems of less importance to me. 

I mean, the Dakotas have four senators and California has two. Without searching for the exact population numbers, representation-wise that does seem way more unfair then the few number of house members. Let's use the France election thread to discuss this :)

On the other hand, Montana, the best state, has two senators and only one representative.

[Rotobeast]

(05-01-2017, 09:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There are some states where they are changing that, but the problem is that unless the people rally to demand it in numbers far beyond what they typically rally together to do, it isn't going to happen. And we won't get those numbers because most people in this country don't understand what would really need to happen in order to foster the growth of a true multi-party system. And politicians aren't going to do it because it takes power from them.

This is why I advocate for a new constitution, or at least an amendment, that completely changes the way Congress is set up in our country. For one, we need many more members in the House. The cap has been in place for far too long. When countries less than half our size (land and population) have more than twice as many representatives in their federal parliament, there is a problem here. For two, we need to get rid of districts and move to proportional representation with ranked-choice voting. This will allow us to get rid of the idea of "wasted votes." This will, over time, allow parties beyond the two major parties to grow and prosper. It's Duverger's law that is working against us.

You have my backing.
I think an amendment would be enough.
People would never go for a totally new constitution.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Dec 29th, 2016: "Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-announces-measures-to-punish-russia-for-2016-election-interference/2016/12/29/311db9d6-cdde-11e6-a87f-b917067331bb_story.html?utm_term=.130dbebcc6b4

May 4th, 2017: "Obama endorses Macron in French election, taking a side in Europe again"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/04/obama-endorses-macron-in-french-election-taking-a-side-in-europe-again/?utm_term=.dbeca3063ce8

[*bfine32*]

(05-04-2017, 09:49 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Dec 29th, 2016: "Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-administration-announces-measures-to-punish-russia-for-2016-election-interference/2016/12/29/311db9d6-cdde-11e6-a87f-b917067331bb_story.html?utm_term=.130dbebcc6b4

May 4th, 2017: "Obama endorses Macron in French election, taking a side in Europe again"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/05/04/obama-endorses-macron-in-french-election-taking-a-side-in-europe-again/?utm_term=.dbeca3063ce8

I will say as a now private citizen; I have no issue with Obama picking a side. Hell, I really wouldn't care if he had done so as President. It is disrespectful to the other candidate IMO, but if that's how he wants to roll.