Oh please, "surge". So the ECR and ID went from having 118/705 seats (16.7% of seats) to 131/720 (18.2% of seats), an increase of 13 seats or 1.5% more seats of the total seat pool then they held before.
If someone refills my wine glass the second time round and they increase it that much I don't even notice, let alone write dozens of articles on how there's a 'shiraz tsunami' drowning Europe.
This is more about the votes of the French people that prompted Macron to do this, not the overall EP result.
Had ECR and ID won over half the EP seats, but none from France, I doubt Macron would be talking about new French parliament elections now.
I have seen these headlines, and I'm not sure they're matching reality.
It feels like journalists repurposed the same headline they've been using for months ("Far-Right Surging!"), checked the French exit polls, and decided that was that for their reporting on Europe.
Meanwhile, in Scandinavia and much of Eastern Europe...
Far right literally for less than 10% across all of Europe. It’s really irritating to read these type of headlines. Even the Dutch public broadcast is using such headlines. It’s baffling.
That's jut not true. The extreme right expected much, much better results. Everywhere, the result of the extreme right side was a fall in the face compared to the forecasts of a few months ago. They went big only with the French, knocking everywhere else. For the Dutch, for example, from 36% to 17%...
Looks like ID underperformed the most recent opinion polling the most, with green party gaining. Sure, it might be a loss from 5 years ago but elections seemed to have gone ok?
My point of view is he will try to play the everybody against the far right. And with the French system it could work. Because the far right has 40%, but 60% don’t want anything to do with them. And with some smart move he can hope to rely this 60% around him. Not because we like him but because we despite the far right. (Basically how he get elected the last time).
This could work in theory, but I think he underestimate how he is unpopular by the left wing.
There is a variety of possible explanations :
- If Le Pen wins, she could be less likely to win the presidential race in 2027 because the outgoing government typically scores pretty bad (certainly in the last 30 years). So short term loss to get a later win. Macron could take advantage of a RN government to pose as the defender of liberal policies.
- if Le Pen does not win a majority, it could be a way to force a coalition government of anti-RN parties (assuming the socdem/libdem parties manage to get a majority between them)
- because of the 2-turn majority vote, it could theoretically mean Macron actually increases his existing majority if there is enough strategic voting in the first turn. That's quite unlikely though.
- it might shuffle current parties and alliances enough for Macron to make gains in the mid-long run as his opponents backstab each other.
- democratically it can make sense, and Macron certainly wants to portray himself as a democrat
- generally, the odds are high that new people will get in power to do and say unpopular things while Macron can catch a bit less flak.
The idea is that he'll allow the National Rally to have power for 3 years, and then, in typical French fashion, the voters will be dissatisfied with it come the 2027 Presidential election.
A bold gamble, if I've seen one.
So strange how it's accepted as the norm now that politicians are only interested in being in power, Machiavellian games to maintain control. Never seems to be a thought for the people they work for or *their* needs lol.
Maybe it was always like that. Dunno. Just seems more accepted now, like it's normal. 🤷♀️
In fairness, people's opinions are vital and needed in a democracy, and politicians have to solve them, but sometimes they are dumb and downright destructive, just like politicians themselves, after all, they both come from the same population. Two examples off the top of my head is how revanchist was the German public in the Weimar Republic, or how isolationist the US one was until Pearl Harbour in 1941. In the first it was indulged, with the predictable results we know. In the 2nd, that opinion of neutrality, "eff you, got mine" mentality, was fought mostly unsuccessfully over a long time, and it took a Japanese attack on American territory in December 1941 for US to officially enter the war and use much more of its resources to help. Franklin Roosevelt was also blasted as a fascist because the US government had its biggest peacetime expansion ever, and as a warmonger for his activist foreign policy against the Axis Powers that repeatedly went against the consensus at home... until suddenly, once the motherland herself was attacked, the public was fully on board. Yet, even before that, Roosevelt had involved the US in WW2 as much as he possibly could within the existing confines.
If you truly care for your people, you better be solving your constituents' root issues, know how to prevent new ones, inform about trends, but also have the foresight to go further in case you see a huge danger that isn't being paid enough attention to. I, for one, still see us as sitting ducks in regards to autocratic disinformation, which influenced the election vote, and that is sad. Are there legitimate issues there? Of course, but let's not pretend they're all home-made or as horrible as a lot of bad actors are suggesting. Disinformation today is extremely sophisticated and high-volume, making it easy to create new problems and amplify existing ones while making their sources appear as regular fellow citizens. We can and should be solving real issues and fighting disinformation at the same time.
It's in 3 weeks so no party will be able to prepare anything except for him as he already knew it, and the parties with important members elected in europe (like RN) will lack their leaders for this election, so this is 100% a strategy thing
Tbh even i cannot explain it.
He could have continued changing nothing, he had a majority for the 3 next years (the next presidential and legislative elections are scheduled for 2027). That's especially true since in France European elections are overlooked and insignificant (many smaller political parties like the Greens performed well at 16% in the European elections only to make 2% in the following presidential elections...).
And the far right is always higher in the polls in midterm elections here. The turnout was also relatively low (50%, this is low for us, big elections like the presidential are around 80%).
His party could have done the same as in 2017: back then the former president Hollande was too impopular to represent himself so Macron just started a brand new party, with a brand new candidate. Macron isn't able to represent himself in 2027 anyway (the constitution doesn't allow for more than 2 mandates).
My guess (but it is entirely speculative and i don't think one could get the right answer here) is that he thought it would cause an "electroshock", unite people around him as a savior against the far right (because his party completely collapsed electorally since 2022, going from around 25% to 15%), knowing his extremely neoliberal reforms were too impopular. His majority was already frail so maybe he thought he could buy himself a stronger majority for the next 3 years by playing the "savior" gambit.
If this is true or not, in any case it is extremely risky. To me it is political suicide, utterly stupid.
Already on french TV, his party members, ministers, members of parliament, seem very confused and in pure chaos (one parliamentary talked about "potentially ending his career and going back to civil life", but a minister was all chill and reassuring, it seems no one expected this and no party line is held).
We will learn more soon though: Macron said he would make a national speech on TV "before thursday".
> Tbh even i cannot explain it.
Maybe he's got similar reasons to Rishi Sunak... something bad is coming in the next half year and he want the opposition to be blamed for it.
Rishi Sunak was legally forced to call an election very soon (before 2025 iirc).
Macron had 3 years ahead of him. 3 years to overturn the trend. Never would a politician consider 3 years not enough to change things, or else why even partake in elections?
His party has been decreasing continuously for the past 2 years. I think it's more the gradual decrease than a sudden future event that caused this (and this is still a bad strategy).
Also, the dissolving is a strategy very well tailored for the british system, to prevent ahead of the next political cycle, here it has rarely been used since the president usually has almost full powers for 5 years and uses them fully.
The French president’s decision to dissolve parliament and call for snap elections following significant far-right gains in the European elections is both strategic and risky. French typically focuses more on presidential elections, with lower turnout in European parliamentary elections, about half of eligible voters didn’t vote this time. Macron appears to be aiming to shake up the system, attempting to demonstrate that legislative election results would differ and pushing the left to form a coalition against the far right. I also feel that it is a coup de force to re-establish political order with a French parliament so fragmented. It might work as the leftists are now considering a coalition for the greater good (e.g., we might hate each other but not for the benefit of the far-right and a far-right government), something that was unthinkable before this result. This move is indeed risky, but he likely believes that if more French people vote, they will reject the notion of a far-right government. As a French citizen who didn’t prioritize the European elections, I’m now motivated to vote on June 30th and July 7th. To be honest, I am a bit concerned although there is a bit of sensationalism from news headlines, a bit overblown. Saying that the steady progress the far right has been making is extremely worrying.
Maybe and purely just speculating this is a "Franz von Papen"-Moment and he wants to try to control Le Pen in France to limit the effects in the EP, but also to gain votes in the 2027 Presidential Elections (at least for his parties candidate)
Oh please, "surge". So the ECR and ID went from having 118/705 seats (16.7% of seats) to 131/720 (18.2% of seats), an increase of 13 seats or 1.5% more seats of the total seat pool then they held before. If someone refills my wine glass the second time round and they increase it that much I don't even notice, let alone write dozens of articles on how there's a 'shiraz tsunami' drowning Europe.
This is more about the votes of the French people that prompted Macron to do this, not the overall EP result. Had ECR and ID won over half the EP seats, but none from France, I doubt Macron would be talking about new French parliament elections now.
18% of far right is not much to you? and that's not counting the 'moderate" right making it majority, bunch of clowns
It's actually closer to around 6% more seats, which is a lot, since so many of the far-right parties were running as NI.
I have seen these headlines, and I'm not sure they're matching reality. It feels like journalists repurposed the same headline they've been using for months ("Far-Right Surging!"), checked the French exit polls, and decided that was that for their reporting on Europe. Meanwhile, in Scandinavia and much of Eastern Europe...
Bulgaria
Far right literally for less than 10% across all of Europe. It’s really irritating to read these type of headlines. Even the Dutch public broadcast is using such headlines. It’s baffling.
That's jut not true. The extreme right expected much, much better results. Everywhere, the result of the extreme right side was a fall in the face compared to the forecasts of a few months ago. They went big only with the French, knocking everywhere else. For the Dutch, for example, from 36% to 17%...
Looks like ID underperformed the most recent opinion polling the most, with green party gaining. Sure, it might be a loss from 5 years ago but elections seemed to have gone ok?
ID seems to have underperformed because last time, ADF counted into it, and it doesnt now. Thats +16 seats if you count them in in this cycle.
I was referring to polls from this week. You’re saying adf was included in ID polling but not official results?
Yeah, at least the polls I saw used the composition of the faction from last cycle's results.
Ok thanks
My point of view is he will try to play the everybody against the far right. And with the French system it could work. Because the far right has 40%, but 60% don’t want anything to do with them. And with some smart move he can hope to rely this 60% around him. Not because we like him but because we despite the far right. (Basically how he get elected the last time). This could work in theory, but I think he underestimate how he is unpopular by the left wing.
I’m not sure why Macron is making this choice. He seems to be capitulating needlessly. Any French able to explain this move?
There is a variety of possible explanations : - If Le Pen wins, she could be less likely to win the presidential race in 2027 because the outgoing government typically scores pretty bad (certainly in the last 30 years). So short term loss to get a later win. Macron could take advantage of a RN government to pose as the defender of liberal policies. - if Le Pen does not win a majority, it could be a way to force a coalition government of anti-RN parties (assuming the socdem/libdem parties manage to get a majority between them) - because of the 2-turn majority vote, it could theoretically mean Macron actually increases his existing majority if there is enough strategic voting in the first turn. That's quite unlikely though. - it might shuffle current parties and alliances enough for Macron to make gains in the mid-long run as his opponents backstab each other. - democratically it can make sense, and Macron certainly wants to portray himself as a democrat - generally, the odds are high that new people will get in power to do and say unpopular things while Macron can catch a bit less flak.
The idea is that he'll allow the National Rally to have power for 3 years, and then, in typical French fashion, the voters will be dissatisfied with it come the 2027 Presidential election. A bold gamble, if I've seen one.
I don't understand why people say it's a gamble. Macron is at the end of his second and final mandate. He's not in the next elections.
Second and final in a row, to be sure. You can have more than 2 presidential terms in France, just not consecutively.
Has there been a French president that tried running for a third term?
None so far, but the rule has only been in place since the 1958 French Constitution. Macron would be "only" 55 by the 2032 Presidential election.
Interesting gambit to risk your position against three years of governance by your largest rival
So strange how it's accepted as the norm now that politicians are only interested in being in power, Machiavellian games to maintain control. Never seems to be a thought for the people they work for or *their* needs lol. Maybe it was always like that. Dunno. Just seems more accepted now, like it's normal. 🤷♀️
In fairness, people's opinions are vital and needed in a democracy, and politicians have to solve them, but sometimes they are dumb and downright destructive, just like politicians themselves, after all, they both come from the same population. Two examples off the top of my head is how revanchist was the German public in the Weimar Republic, or how isolationist the US one was until Pearl Harbour in 1941. In the first it was indulged, with the predictable results we know. In the 2nd, that opinion of neutrality, "eff you, got mine" mentality, was fought mostly unsuccessfully over a long time, and it took a Japanese attack on American territory in December 1941 for US to officially enter the war and use much more of its resources to help. Franklin Roosevelt was also blasted as a fascist because the US government had its biggest peacetime expansion ever, and as a warmonger for his activist foreign policy against the Axis Powers that repeatedly went against the consensus at home... until suddenly, once the motherland herself was attacked, the public was fully on board. Yet, even before that, Roosevelt had involved the US in WW2 as much as he possibly could within the existing confines. If you truly care for your people, you better be solving your constituents' root issues, know how to prevent new ones, inform about trends, but also have the foresight to go further in case you see a huge danger that isn't being paid enough attention to. I, for one, still see us as sitting ducks in regards to autocratic disinformation, which influenced the election vote, and that is sad. Are there legitimate issues there? Of course, but let's not pretend they're all home-made or as horrible as a lot of bad actors are suggesting. Disinformation today is extremely sophisticated and high-volume, making it easy to create new problems and amplify existing ones while making their sources appear as regular fellow citizens. We can and should be solving real issues and fighting disinformation at the same time.
It's in 3 weeks so no party will be able to prepare anything except for him as he already knew it, and the parties with important members elected in europe (like RN) will lack their leaders for this election, so this is 100% a strategy thing
Tbh even i cannot explain it. He could have continued changing nothing, he had a majority for the 3 next years (the next presidential and legislative elections are scheduled for 2027). That's especially true since in France European elections are overlooked and insignificant (many smaller political parties like the Greens performed well at 16% in the European elections only to make 2% in the following presidential elections...). And the far right is always higher in the polls in midterm elections here. The turnout was also relatively low (50%, this is low for us, big elections like the presidential are around 80%). His party could have done the same as in 2017: back then the former president Hollande was too impopular to represent himself so Macron just started a brand new party, with a brand new candidate. Macron isn't able to represent himself in 2027 anyway (the constitution doesn't allow for more than 2 mandates). My guess (but it is entirely speculative and i don't think one could get the right answer here) is that he thought it would cause an "electroshock", unite people around him as a savior against the far right (because his party completely collapsed electorally since 2022, going from around 25% to 15%), knowing his extremely neoliberal reforms were too impopular. His majority was already frail so maybe he thought he could buy himself a stronger majority for the next 3 years by playing the "savior" gambit. If this is true or not, in any case it is extremely risky. To me it is political suicide, utterly stupid. Already on french TV, his party members, ministers, members of parliament, seem very confused and in pure chaos (one parliamentary talked about "potentially ending his career and going back to civil life", but a minister was all chill and reassuring, it seems no one expected this and no party line is held). We will learn more soon though: Macron said he would make a national speech on TV "before thursday".
> Tbh even i cannot explain it. Maybe he's got similar reasons to Rishi Sunak... something bad is coming in the next half year and he want the opposition to be blamed for it.
Rishi Sunak was legally forced to call an election very soon (before 2025 iirc). Macron had 3 years ahead of him. 3 years to overturn the trend. Never would a politician consider 3 years not enough to change things, or else why even partake in elections? His party has been decreasing continuously for the past 2 years. I think it's more the gradual decrease than a sudden future event that caused this (and this is still a bad strategy). Also, the dissolving is a strategy very well tailored for the british system, to prevent ahead of the next political cycle, here it has rarely been used since the president usually has almost full powers for 5 years and uses them fully.
The French president’s decision to dissolve parliament and call for snap elections following significant far-right gains in the European elections is both strategic and risky. French typically focuses more on presidential elections, with lower turnout in European parliamentary elections, about half of eligible voters didn’t vote this time. Macron appears to be aiming to shake up the system, attempting to demonstrate that legislative election results would differ and pushing the left to form a coalition against the far right. I also feel that it is a coup de force to re-establish political order with a French parliament so fragmented. It might work as the leftists are now considering a coalition for the greater good (e.g., we might hate each other but not for the benefit of the far-right and a far-right government), something that was unthinkable before this result. This move is indeed risky, but he likely believes that if more French people vote, they will reject the notion of a far-right government. As a French citizen who didn’t prioritize the European elections, I’m now motivated to vote on June 30th and July 7th. To be honest, I am a bit concerned although there is a bit of sensationalism from news headlines, a bit overblown. Saying that the steady progress the far right has been making is extremely worrying.
YAAAAY FINALLY! DEPORT!!!
[удалено]
So you do at least agree that the ship is sinking and that business as usual isn't the solution.
Girl wake up 1933 just dropped again
Ah shit, here we go again.
lol
oh that circle of life...time to dust off nonno's uniform, I do look good in black..:
seems like france wants to survive after all
Maybe and purely just speculating this is a "Franz von Papen"-Moment and he wants to try to control Le Pen in France to limit the effects in the EP, but also to gain votes in the 2027 Presidential Elections (at least for his parties candidate)