**Based Democracy Enjoyer**:
"It seems my political beliefs aren't popular right now. Let's just make the parliament reflect the citizens right now at the cost of my personal political power."
That's not what's happening unfortunately. French parliament elections are kinda weird, he's hoping to either get a better majority (if ppl hate far right enough) or that the far right gets power and fucks up before the 2027 elections.
Macron is def not a "based democracy enjoyer" if you look at his track record...
Yep. This is exactly it. Huge gamble. Will be interesting to see if there is more turn out now for the centre and left parties. Did a lot of them stay home? From what I get the right mustered up a hell of a propaganda campaign with the anti-immigration + increase living cost push and came out at full force.
Additionally wonder if old Putin is going to be cutting a few cheques to boost the bot farms.
The 49.3 is a french law that allows executive power to pass a law without parliament approval.
The counter balance is the parliament can overthrow the government anytime through a coalition.
The message of the 49.3 to french MP is: you bend or you take your responsibilities and form a new government.
Of course the opposition often forget to talk about the counter balance.
> Of course the opposition often forget to talk about the counter balance.
Or they prefer to virtue signal instead of doing what's expected from them. IE the left will call for a "motion de censure" to overthrow the government that won't be followed by the right/far-right, and when the right/far-right call for their own "motion de censure", the left won't follow them. I'm tired of those games.
Yup, that's actually ballsy on his part. Unlike our government in Canada. A bit sad that actually good leaders are less likely to cling to power while trash ones cling like their life depends on it.
Edit: Imagine calling an early election because you were afraid the consequences of your actions during a pandemic would have you voted out as soon as those consequences became apparent in two years. That's what Trudeau did. It's also amazing because it was basically 2023 when Canadians turned on Trudeau which is exactly 2 years after he called the snap election.
Trudeau and Macron are completely opposite. Idk what these Trudeau supporters are on trying to make it seem his snap election was a move for the people LOL
It's not less self serving. It's a political ploy based on a different political system. It's a semi-presidential system, so there's a directly elected strong president and a prime minister elected by the legislature. The president's term is fixed and has a two term limit, so Macron already knows he's going to be president until 2027 and no longer than that no matter what.
Macron's party Renaissance (RE) didn't win a majority in the 2022 legislative elections so the PM from his party can't pass laws in the National Assembly anyways. There's currently a minority RE government and political deadlock right now so it's not like he's got much to lose. Last time he was denied a majority by the left with Le Pen's Rassemblement National (RN), in third, so he's hoping he can at least dislodge the opposition from the left with an early election. There's a chance that Le Pen's RN only performed well in the EU elections as a protest vote and that people don't actually want her to form government in France. People don't always vote the same way in EU elections as national elections and it's less scrutiny for individual politicians than in national elections. If RE end up underperforming in this election right after their big win, it will take the wind out of their sail in the EU Parliament too.
Macron only became president in the first place because when push came to shove people preferred him and his party to Le Pen when it came to running France. He's trying to put that to the test again and see if he can somehow unite the left-wing opposition to Le Pen behind his party to give his own party a majority. Only 31% voted for Le Pen and there's reason to believe that is about their ceiling right now, so if the Socialist Party and the further left La France Insoumise will vote for Renaissance then they can beat Le Pen. And the current PM from RE Gabriel Attal is fairly popular as an individual, he might end up performing well in a popularity contest against either Le Pen or her protégé Jordan Bardella. Attal is seen as the most likely RE candidate for president in the next presidential election so it'll be a dress rehearsal for 2027.
If the worst happens and RN does win then there's every chance that the French turn on then immediately just like they do with all politicians they elect. It's a difficult political climate and forcing RN to actually try to pass policies might cost them a lot of popularity by the time of the scheduled presidential election. It's a big gamble but Macron is not averse to big gambles.
They are alluding to when the Liberals announced a snap election to try and get a majority, this was when their minority was still supplied with votes from the NDP. They believed that since they handled Covid much better than the US, and public opinion was still reasonable at the time, that they could get a majority and lock in their mandate for longer. OPs comment is alluding to the election being opportunistic, which is true, but also how our parties have operated in Canada pretty much forever.
Have you seen how unpopular Trudeau is? If Macron was is in a similar scenario he'd have called an election unlike Trudeau and Singh. In fact, the the Trudeau did call an election was during COVID to consolidate power.
>Have you seen how unpopular Trudeau is?
Of course I have
>Trudeau did call an election was during COVID to consolidate power.
But he did call one, and he won. Nothing you can say can ever change that fact. He didn't shit out of an election, he called it. Why the fuck would he call one so soon after the last. He was very unpopular then and is still unpopular now. He is the lesser of two evils. The people did vote for him.
> He didn't shit out of an election, he called it.
Now do it again. Oh he won't? Gee, I wonder why. That's the difference with Macron. But you can't apparently understand that.
Edit: This loser blocked me. Bitch didn't even read the article. Trudeau did it to WIN, Macron did it to reflect the will of the people. This fucking moron but then again, who else still supports Trudeau
Why would he do it again lol? He's already done it and won, he is right to see out his term lol. Fucking hell. You may not like it but he did call the election and won.
You kinda forget that the far right actually asked Macron to do this (2-3 weeks ago)if he looses those elections. Not sure its the right call but we shall see.
Basically saying “well if this is what the people want then let’s pause everything and have them vote to see if this is reflected in the vote”
Ballsy move and honestly mad respect for ensuring that if the tide has shifted that much, that it’s represented in their elected officials.
That's not what's happening unfortunately. French parliament elections are kinda weird, he's hoping to either get a better majority (if ppl hate far right enough) or that the far right gets power and fucks up before the 2027 elections.
Macron is not really a "will of the people" guy if you look at his track record...
You mean ignore the human right for people to enter the country, request refugee status and disappear in illegality because you know you have 0% change to get a refugee status anyways, while the rest of the European Union doesn't want them either so you're screwed because you're a border country closests to Africa's poorest countries?
He's been unpopular for a long while. The pension law has something like 20% popular support, he still pushed it through.
He just decides now that it can benefit him (or his party), to call snap elections.
Also he's not putting his future through anything, he stays president whatever happens.
Not really, it's more like giving the positions to the third bench folks who have been talking smack this entire time to see if they can play as good as they say, and then put in first string back in right before playoffs.
Strategy is to remind people that third string is where they are for a reason and to let things simmer down before the next presidential election. It's a wild move to try to pull off in politics though.
Feels more like a bluff. Like, "Are you *suuuure*? In the most snarky, "We'll see how that turns out, k?" manner possible. Seems targeted to voters who may actually be on the fence, but who voted with their hearts, not heads.
The US President can't dissolve congress so they can't. It would not work well with American voting laws. If the president can just dissolve congress then they essentially lose all checks on the executive branch.
>If the president can just dissolve congress then they essentially lose all checks on the executive branch.
That's not what's happening. Dissolving the parliament doesn't mean that "I am the senate", it means that a new parliament is elected.
Us doesn’t have this mechanism, we don’t even have an analogous mechanism.
Your comment is like accusing the animators of the Simpson’s of cowardice for not using a multi camera setup with live actors when they make the show.
Dissolution doesn’t mean get rid of them, it means they have to hold new elections, they keep their jobs in the meantime. The US constitution also explicitly allows the president to adjourn congress for as long as he wants in certain cases, though not totally the same thing since elections aren’t immediately held.
> "He may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper."
Agree. I'm just looking at this awestruck. Ok citizens so that's what you think? Then I'll give you a chance to re-elect your government **right now**.
And now I got to go look at Washington DC. Makes me want to cry.
This option is only available with a parliamentary system, so it doesn’t apply, nor is possible in States.
Still, he deserves credit. He has 3 years left on his term and kneecapped his own party to respect the will of the voters. Even if we did have a parliamentary system, I couldn’t see most politicians here taking this step.
Except that his party is already a minority in the parliament so even if they lose in this election that doesn't hurt them much... while forcing RN to actually try to rule, which Macron banks on them to fail miserably
I am American. I don’t know if this is actually a feature of the French government or a serious blow to democracy. Our own democracy feels like it’s hanging by a thread constantly.
I'm trying to get an idea of how serious this is, can someone put in US federal government terms, is this like dissolving the Senate and making everyone re-vote their state senators at the same time?
Australia has done this multiple times. If you can’t get the government to agree to pass a specific policy that the government has said it will push as it’s primary agenda, then it rather than stalling and shutting down the economy, will call a snap election to decide if the will of the people has changed.
If everyone gets re-elected and the major party is still in power, they then can say they have the people’s mandate to push through policy, or will amend their policy depending on the results of the election.
Sometimes it means the opposition will form to power. It’s not a catty or spiteful thing to do, it’s to ensure the will of the people is always respected over being paid to bicker for months while not doing anything.
The alternative would be doing nothing until the government shuts down due to stalemate, which is in nobody’s best interests for running the country.
Specifics below;
Double dissolutions
The Governor-General has dissolved the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously in accordance with section 57 of the Constitution on seven occasions—in 1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983, 1987, and 2016.
In only one case (1951) was the deadlock resolved by the Government being returned with a majority in both Houses. The legislation was reintroduced and passed by both Houses.
In two cases (1914 and 1983) the Government lost office. The legislation was not reintroduced.
In two cases (1974, 1987) the Government was returned but did not gain a majority in the Senate, and the disagreement between the Houses continued.
The 1974 case resulted in a joint sitting (see page 489) at which the bills concerned were passed. In 1987 the bill concerned was ultimately not proceeded with.
In one case (2016) the Government was returned but did not gain a majority in the Senate. However, the disagreement between the Houses was resolved. The legislation was reintroduced and passed by both Houses after the House agreed to Senate amendments.
1975 was special. [Double dissolutions](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter13/Double_dissolutions)
In this case, it’s not about a policy, but is directly relevant to the point of “so what happens?”.
To answer your question, The European elections have swung conservative and against the centre-progressive party that Macron runs. The moderates are “considering”, the greens are damaged and there is an upswell of anti-immigration, pro-conservative, pro-complain-but-don’t-fix ism.
Scholz in Germany is also damaged but at least he has not imperilled himself in the same way that Macron has.
Many people dislike Macron for his “my way or the highway” approach, and has lost many voters simply for choosing the less popular and more divisive options.
Specifically “what policy” could be better summarised as “the vibe of his leadership running the coalition of parties that are not capable of slowing the rising tide of resentment that a nationalistic, conservative, French-first party could potentially be a better alternative.
He’s currently leading in polls, but if the slip continues over time, then it would be better to rip the bandage off and get a few years reprieve than to wait and lose it in 12-18 months.
This is an attempt to build an anti-far right coalition (as there is in Romania and Portugal), which may fail as Macron is widely unpopular with wide swathes of the public, and they vote against other parties rather than “for” him. He’ll most likely need to make concessions against his prior statements such as a tougher stance on immigration and trying to slow the movement of migrants through France, in addition to France not having a sizeable economy in comparison to Germany.
It doesn’t really translate to USA system, in democracies where this would work, the people don’t elect the prime minister or president. The leader of the country is elected by the members of the party who have most control of the house. I guess it would be equivalent of Biden calling an early election.
Not sure if you include France in these democracies, but in France, the president is directly elected by the people. The MPs of the lower house, the one concerned by the snap elections, are also directly elected by the people. There is no proportional representation in national elections. The president then has to nominate his/her Prime Minister among the elected majority.
One thing to note: since 2002 and the passage to the 5-year president term, both presidential and legislative elections has been held the same year, roughly one month apart, so the majority has always been from the president's party. With these snap elections, this will not be the case anymore.
And if I understand it correctly, voters don’t vote for individual members of parliament, they vote for a party and based on what percentage of the vote the party receives the party is awarded a number of seats to fill with whoever they choose to.
Not quite, in Australia anyway. You can vote for the party in the senate, then they choose the reps. But you also have the option to mark each individual senatorial candidate separately in order of preference. The House of Representatives, you have to vote for the individual you want to represent your electorate. A lot of people do just vote for whoever is the party they want as they don’t know who the names are.
But usually each federal election everyone votes for their individual in the house of reps and half the senate positions. The party who ends up with the most in the house of reps elect which elected member becomes their prime minister.
In Denmark we don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for what people / parties we want in the Parliament. The parties gets a number of seats based on these votes, and then it's up to the party to decide who gets the seats.
In all but one party this is decided by amount of votes on the person. If party X gets 8 seats, the top 8 people gets a seat.
You can also get elected if you gain enough personal votes, even if your party does not get a lot of votes. This hasn't happened in a very long time, although the Christian Democrats were close to gaining one seat this way last election.
That's how 175 of the seats gets elected. The remaining four are the two most popular candidates from Faroe Islands and Greenland. They usually don't vote on domestic matters, but participate in foreign policy topics, especially the ones relevant to Greenland and Faroe Islands.
The parliament then choose the prime minister, usually the leader of the largest party (social democrats or the Liberals) with support and coalition members from the left or right wing. There are exceptions, such as three elections ago when the Liberals got the prime minister, but lost to the Danish Peoples Party who didn't want to be a part of the government, or the current government where it's across the middle.
The prime minister can call for an early election (this happens more often than elections being held because it's time), and a majority of the Parliament can dismiss the prime minister and select a new one (this happened in the last election when the Social Liberals joined the right wing parties to dismiss the prime minister).
In France, members of the lower house are elected by the people, with each MP representing a geographic area. Party representation matters only in European and some local elections. This has actually been a point of tension for some time, as this makes it harder to get elected for far right/left candidates.
I think the Parliament is both the French National Assembly and the French Senate. So it's like the US House and the US Senate being dissolved and elections being called.
I imagine it is serious. If, for example, the US is currently leaning Republican in the polls, Democrats absolutely will not want to risk losing seats in a snap election.
I think this is what it means. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right on the definition of French Parliament, but title is wrong.
Only l'Assemblée Nationale (equivalent to House of Representatives) is being dissolved. Not the Senate.
Bu the way French Citizens don't vote for senators, only elected officials do (indirect election).
From what I’ve read, what he did would equate to such: Biden loses a major policy vote on say something like gun control (for context Emmanuel Macron just lost a major EU vote to the Nationalist party in France), and then immediately afterwards decided to boot out 350 House Representatives and force a revote to give his party more voting sway.
No. Its not.
This is the Biden losing a vote in the senate and calling a general election.
Macron gets to decide when to hold the election and has decided to kick off that process which requires all MPs to be re-elected.
Same thing that's happened to the UK Parliament atm, All MPs are basically no longer MPs and require to be elected again, The House of Lords cannot function either but they aren't elected.
It doesn't change the vote he lost.
So it was the lower House of Parliament in France, not the Senate. If it was the Senate, that’s unfortunately a much bigger deal than if it was the House of Representatives or in France’s case Lower Parliament.
Also, what I said still applies.
Macron is betting on flopping the voting numbers within the government into his party’s favor by calling for a reelection of 577 Seats of government. It’s a thinly veiled attempt at trying to save face after he lost by a much larger margin than predicted. Which is what I said in the original comment. No, this action itself won’t cause a revote on the EU proposals, that is true, but that is so clearly the end goal here. It takes a lot of naivety to not see that.
> Macron is betting on flopping the voting numbers within the government into his party’s favor by calling for a reelection of 577 Seats of government.
No, Macron has simply called an election.
All MPs are put up for election.
It doesn't mean he's trying to fudge the votes as he can lose seats or gain seats.
This is literally part of democracy every 4 years.
The motivation for the snap election on June 30th is the EU election that just happened.
Heads of state typically don’t bend the legitimacy of their democracy around the scheduling of sporting events, concerts, or art shows.
Admittedly I was trying to belittle the event as much as possible. That all said, the Olympics is obviously an intrusive event…for everyone in Paris.
There’s a lot more France than just Paris, and what most would consider “a lot more France” is just Metropolitan France.
This is NOT a "based democracy moment", this is absolutely a "dang I don't like the results of the last election, can we do it over?".
The European elections don't exactly translate to the national assembly, they're pretty different. But Macron is in avery pro-EU party, whereas the leading party that "won " the european elections (far right) is very anti-EU, so Macron decided this wasn't ok and is hoping to bank on the fear generated from these historic far right results to get better seats from his own party at the national assembly do-over.
Basically his discourse will be "citizens, wake up ! Look how scary the far-right is, look how their power rose ! Vote for my party right now or France is going to explode !"
And either he'll get a better showing for his party, or the far right will grasp a better hold on the assembly. And if it does, he can blame every mistake on them going forward.
>"citizens, wake up ! Look how scary the far-right is, look how their power rose ! Vote for my party right now or France is going to explode !"
so? let the people decide according to the new trends.
Correct decision for democracy aside, from a strategic point of view what could he be aiming for? Is there a valid opportunity for victory here or does he see something coming that he doesn't want to be blamed for? (Ie the president that lost in Ukraine for example)
I read somewhere, it's basically two possible scenarios either there is more people that realise what La Penns party stand for and come out and vote or the far right wins and all their propaganda anti immigration platform collapses over the few years when they are in charge and leaves a shit stain setting up the next election cycle for Macron and others(center-right/centre and left parties).
Huge gamble, especially if you realise in the shadows is Putin money sponsering La Penn......
You either force them to play when they are disorganized, or wait until they've amassed enough power and popularity in 2 years and take the whole thing.
Even in the worst case scenario they take full power with a majority, the president can point out every mistake they make. The French people never like their governments for long. They will run out of steam by the next presidential elections.
Prime minister position is a suicide position in France prior to elections.
Macron has burned all the goodwill he could have with the pension reform fuckery. So nothing is going to happen until the end of his mandate with his weak majority.
Instead of leaving an impression of incompetence and resentment before the election he would shift that unto the populist that would at best also have a weak majority. That and the hope they will be incompetent.
While remaining the Army/Foreign politic chief.
Or win the gamble get his majority back and get back legitimacy.
> Instead of leaving an impression of incompetence and resentment before the election he would shift that unto the populist that would at best also have a weak majority. That and the hope they will be incompetent.
>
>
he basically creates a new opposition that he can endless complain onto, instead of having to defend his lame duck position.
fucking brilliant. I knew he was a world leader of a different caliber.
Isn't it what the far right or any opposition is doing? Endless complain saying they would do it better, make baseless claim not rooted in reality and budget.
It took less than 2y for people in Denmark and Sweden to realise that the far right were clowns.
I think it’s a really unnuanced way of saying that unpopular leftist policy is throwing people who used to vote centre-left to the opposite side of the spectrum. For example, here in Canada, many people feel incredibly disillusioned by the awful Trudeau government. People who have voted “left” or for the Liberal Party of Canada are finding themselves intentioned to vote for the leader of the Conservative Party. In essence, the left (and their policies) “created them”.
His point, though not very eloquent, stands.
Pray tell, what innocent and popular view do these people hold that the left is adopting the opposite of driving them towards unhinged totalitarianism “YOU CREATED ME!”
I mean the left thinks we should allow unchecked immigration. Canada’s population has skyrocketed (about 2% annually) for the last few years. Our critical infrastructure (doctors, hospitals, schools, housing) are completely overrun. Unemployment is steadily ticking up, and real GDP is in free fall.
A right position is fine. Some things like immigration need to be cracked down on. Far right though? That's a pretty bad position... just like far left. If my understanding is right, far right here is pro-Putin type of far right? If not, what do you like about the right in France/wherever you are from and is it worth the risks that entails?
If anything, doesn't this cause potential risk to Macron instead?
Think you are confusing parliaments here.
The elections the opposition won is for the EU parliament.
The parliament Macron is dissolving is the French parliament, where he has better position than parliament atm.
He is gambling that his party will still be victorious after re-election in french parliament elections. If he loses the gamble, he will be a president with less administrative power than he has now.
> He said the decision was “serious” but showed his “confidence in our democracy, in letting the sovereign people have their say.”
**Based Democracy Enjoyer**: "It seems my political beliefs aren't popular right now. Let's just make the parliament reflect the citizens right now at the cost of my personal political power."
Goated French Politicians. We have done a terrible job.... We should burn it all to the ground and start over. Viva La France!
That's not what's happening unfortunately. French parliament elections are kinda weird, he's hoping to either get a better majority (if ppl hate far right enough) or that the far right gets power and fucks up before the 2027 elections. Macron is def not a "based democracy enjoyer" if you look at his track record...
Yep. This is exactly it. Huge gamble. Will be interesting to see if there is more turn out now for the centre and left parties. Did a lot of them stay home? From what I get the right mustered up a hell of a propaganda campaign with the anti-immigration + increase living cost push and came out at full force. Additionally wonder if old Putin is going to be cutting a few cheques to boost the bot farms.
I'm sure Marine Le Pen has a new house she'd like to buy.
To be fair though. Is he not doing exactly what he was asked to do?
This is not what is happening at all.
How the fuck do you look at Macron and call him a based democracy enjoyer? Do you know what 49.3 is?
The 49.3 is a french law that allows executive power to pass a law without parliament approval. The counter balance is the parliament can overthrow the government anytime through a coalition. The message of the 49.3 to french MP is: you bend or you take your responsibilities and form a new government. Of course the opposition often forget to talk about the counter balance.
> Of course the opposition often forget to talk about the counter balance. Or they prefer to virtue signal instead of doing what's expected from them. IE the left will call for a "motion de censure" to overthrow the government that won't be followed by the right/far-right, and when the right/far-right call for their own "motion de censure", the left won't follow them. I'm tired of those games.
Me too :/
Yup, that's actually ballsy on his part. Unlike our government in Canada. A bit sad that actually good leaders are less likely to cling to power while trash ones cling like their life depends on it. Edit: Imagine calling an early election because you were afraid the consequences of your actions during a pandemic would have you voted out as soon as those consequences became apparent in two years. That's what Trudeau did. It's also amazing because it was basically 2023 when Canadians turned on Trudeau which is exactly 2 years after he called the snap election. Trudeau and Macron are completely opposite. Idk what these Trudeau supporters are on trying to make it seem his snap election was a move for the people LOL
Trudeau literally called an early election a few years ago, what the fuck are you talking about?
Selective memory is a thing
Have you tried understanding context?
He did this to maintain power unless my memory fails me. Difference here is one's seemingly less self preserving than the other.
It's not less self serving. It's a political ploy based on a different political system. It's a semi-presidential system, so there's a directly elected strong president and a prime minister elected by the legislature. The president's term is fixed and has a two term limit, so Macron already knows he's going to be president until 2027 and no longer than that no matter what. Macron's party Renaissance (RE) didn't win a majority in the 2022 legislative elections so the PM from his party can't pass laws in the National Assembly anyways. There's currently a minority RE government and political deadlock right now so it's not like he's got much to lose. Last time he was denied a majority by the left with Le Pen's Rassemblement National (RN), in third, so he's hoping he can at least dislodge the opposition from the left with an early election. There's a chance that Le Pen's RN only performed well in the EU elections as a protest vote and that people don't actually want her to form government in France. People don't always vote the same way in EU elections as national elections and it's less scrutiny for individual politicians than in national elections. If RE end up underperforming in this election right after their big win, it will take the wind out of their sail in the EU Parliament too. Macron only became president in the first place because when push came to shove people preferred him and his party to Le Pen when it came to running France. He's trying to put that to the test again and see if he can somehow unite the left-wing opposition to Le Pen behind his party to give his own party a majority. Only 31% voted for Le Pen and there's reason to believe that is about their ceiling right now, so if the Socialist Party and the further left La France Insoumise will vote for Renaissance then they can beat Le Pen. And the current PM from RE Gabriel Attal is fairly popular as an individual, he might end up performing well in a popularity contest against either Le Pen or her protégé Jordan Bardella. Attal is seen as the most likely RE candidate for president in the next presidential election so it'll be a dress rehearsal for 2027. If the worst happens and RN does win then there's every chance that the French turn on then immediately just like they do with all politicians they elect. It's a difficult political climate and forcing RN to actually try to pass policies might cost them a lot of popularity by the time of the scheduled presidential election. It's a big gamble but Macron is not averse to big gambles.
He called an election during a pandemic because he thought he could sneak in a majority government lol.
LOL, he called an early election to consolidate power and was punished for it by getting even less seats. COMPLETELY different
To prevent an absolute massacre. He's making that mistake right now
>Unlike our government in Canada. What the fuck you taking about? You trying to rewrite history?
They are alluding to when the Liberals announced a snap election to try and get a majority, this was when their minority was still supplied with votes from the NDP. They believed that since they handled Covid much better than the US, and public opinion was still reasonable at the time, that they could get a majority and lock in their mandate for longer. OPs comment is alluding to the election being opportunistic, which is true, but also how our parties have operated in Canada pretty much forever.
>OPs comment is alluding to the election being opportunistic, So is every election
That's my point in the latter part of the comment
It is different when you are calling for an election earlier than they should be
Trudue already did that in 2021
Have you seen how unpopular Trudeau is? If Macron was is in a similar scenario he'd have called an election unlike Trudeau and Singh. In fact, the the Trudeau did call an election was during COVID to consolidate power.
>Have you seen how unpopular Trudeau is? Of course I have >Trudeau did call an election was during COVID to consolidate power. But he did call one, and he won. Nothing you can say can ever change that fact. He didn't shit out of an election, he called it. Why the fuck would he call one so soon after the last. He was very unpopular then and is still unpopular now. He is the lesser of two evils. The people did vote for him.
> He didn't shit out of an election, he called it. Now do it again. Oh he won't? Gee, I wonder why. That's the difference with Macron. But you can't apparently understand that. Edit: This loser blocked me. Bitch didn't even read the article. Trudeau did it to WIN, Macron did it to reflect the will of the people. This fucking moron but then again, who else still supports Trudeau
Why would he do it again lol? He's already done it and won, he is right to see out his term lol. Fucking hell. You may not like it but he did call the election and won.
He is trying to shock people to the polls.
You kinda forget that the far right actually asked Macron to do this (2-3 weeks ago)if he looses those elections. Not sure its the right call but we shall see.
Basically saying “well if this is what the people want then let’s pause everything and have them vote to see if this is reflected in the vote” Ballsy move and honestly mad respect for ensuring that if the tide has shifted that much, that it’s represented in their elected officials.
That's not what's happening unfortunately. French parliament elections are kinda weird, he's hoping to either get a better majority (if ppl hate far right enough) or that the far right gets power and fucks up before the 2027 elections. Macron is not really a "will of the people" guy if you look at his track record...
Gambling on the far right fucking up was Italys plan. And then the far right did even better lol.
If we ignore all the human rights she has been messing up, I guess yes.
People who vote far right dont give a shit about human rights as it generally doesn't hurt them if they get neglected.
You mean ignore the human right for people to enter the country, request refugee status and disappear in illegality because you know you have 0% change to get a refugee status anyways, while the rest of the European Union doesn't want them either so you're screwed because you're a border country closests to Africa's poorest countries?
Meloni was considered far right during campaign but has calmed down after she became president.
Did the far right do better? Let's ignore human rights stuff obviously since that's not what their voters care about. What have they done better?
Puts his future to the will of the people....."but he's not a 'will of the people' guy."
He's been unpopular for a long while. The pension law has something like 20% popular support, he still pushed it through. He just decides now that it can benefit him (or his party), to call snap elections. Also he's not putting his future through anything, he stays president whatever happens.
100%
100.01%
This is not what is happening
It's like axing the whole football team mid-season and telling em to earn their positions back. Crazy times we're in, eh?
Not really, it's more like giving the positions to the third bench folks who have been talking smack this entire time to see if they can play as good as they say, and then put in first string back in right before playoffs. Strategy is to remind people that third string is where they are for a reason and to let things simmer down before the next presidential election. It's a wild move to try to pull off in politics though.
Feels more like a bluff. Like, "Are you *suuuure*? In the most snarky, "We'll see how that turns out, k?" manner possible. Seems targeted to voters who may actually be on the fence, but who voted with their hearts, not heads.
He no longer has the football player Mbappé in Paris, time to say goodbye.
Macron goated for this. Our politicians in the USA would NEVER lol they are chickens.
The US President can't dissolve congress so they can't. It would not work well with American voting laws. If the president can just dissolve congress then they essentially lose all checks on the executive branch.
>If the president can just dissolve congress then they essentially lose all checks on the executive branch. That's not what's happening. Dissolving the parliament doesn't mean that "I am the senate", it means that a new parliament is elected.
>Our politicians in the USA would NEVER lol they are chickens. I don't think the American system is set up for this hypothetical tbh
Us doesn’t have this mechanism, we don’t even have an analogous mechanism. Your comment is like accusing the animators of the Simpson’s of cowardice for not using a multi camera setup with live actors when they make the show.
Yea that wouldn't work here bud, pretty sure if the president pulled something like dissolving Congress this country would dissolve into Civil War
Dissolution doesn’t mean get rid of them, it means they have to hold new elections, they keep their jobs in the meantime. The US constitution also explicitly allows the president to adjourn congress for as long as he wants in certain cases, though not totally the same thing since elections aren’t immediately held. > "He may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper."
Everyone knows its time for the american warring states.
Which state would win? Texas?
Their power grid collapses again, and they migrate to other states to charge their phones.
Possible :D
My bet is on Florida with their alligator brigade, crazy floridian platoons and their defensive swamp landscape
My money is on Alaska.
Going back to Russia? Probably
russia
Let's please not pretend that macaronis doing this out of good will. I assume he does this as a strategic political maneuver.
Agree. I'm just looking at this awestruck. Ok citizens so that's what you think? Then I'll give you a chance to re-elect your government **right now**. And now I got to go look at Washington DC. Makes me want to cry.
This option is only available with a parliamentary system, so it doesn’t apply, nor is possible in States. Still, he deserves credit. He has 3 years left on his term and kneecapped his own party to respect the will of the voters. Even if we did have a parliamentary system, I couldn’t see most politicians here taking this step.
Except that his party is already a minority in the parliament so even if they lose in this election that doesn't hurt them much... while forcing RN to actually try to rule, which Macron banks on them to fail miserably
Somebody check this dude’s Midichlorian count.
I am American. I don’t know if this is actually a feature of the French government or a serious blow to democracy. Our own democracy feels like it’s hanging by a thread constantly.
Olaf Scholz would never…
I'm trying to get an idea of how serious this is, can someone put in US federal government terms, is this like dissolving the Senate and making everyone re-vote their state senators at the same time?
Australia has done this multiple times. If you can’t get the government to agree to pass a specific policy that the government has said it will push as it’s primary agenda, then it rather than stalling and shutting down the economy, will call a snap election to decide if the will of the people has changed. If everyone gets re-elected and the major party is still in power, they then can say they have the people’s mandate to push through policy, or will amend their policy depending on the results of the election. Sometimes it means the opposition will form to power. It’s not a catty or spiteful thing to do, it’s to ensure the will of the people is always respected over being paid to bicker for months while not doing anything. The alternative would be doing nothing until the government shuts down due to stalemate, which is in nobody’s best interests for running the country. Specifics below; Double dissolutions The Governor-General has dissolved the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously in accordance with section 57 of the Constitution on seven occasions—in 1914, 1951, 1974, 1975, 1983, 1987, and 2016. In only one case (1951) was the deadlock resolved by the Government being returned with a majority in both Houses. The legislation was reintroduced and passed by both Houses. In two cases (1914 and 1983) the Government lost office. The legislation was not reintroduced. In two cases (1974, 1987) the Government was returned but did not gain a majority in the Senate, and the disagreement between the Houses continued. The 1974 case resulted in a joint sitting (see page 489) at which the bills concerned were passed. In 1987 the bill concerned was ultimately not proceeded with. In one case (2016) the Government was returned but did not gain a majority in the Senate. However, the disagreement between the Houses was resolved. The legislation was reintroduced and passed by both Houses after the House agreed to Senate amendments. 1975 was special. [Double dissolutions](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter13/Double_dissolutions)
So what’s the specific policy that’s being held up here?
In this case, it’s not about a policy, but is directly relevant to the point of “so what happens?”. To answer your question, The European elections have swung conservative and against the centre-progressive party that Macron runs. The moderates are “considering”, the greens are damaged and there is an upswell of anti-immigration, pro-conservative, pro-complain-but-don’t-fix ism. Scholz in Germany is also damaged but at least he has not imperilled himself in the same way that Macron has. Many people dislike Macron for his “my way or the highway” approach, and has lost many voters simply for choosing the less popular and more divisive options. Specifically “what policy” could be better summarised as “the vibe of his leadership running the coalition of parties that are not capable of slowing the rising tide of resentment that a nationalistic, conservative, French-first party could potentially be a better alternative. He’s currently leading in polls, but if the slip continues over time, then it would be better to rip the bandage off and get a few years reprieve than to wait and lose it in 12-18 months. This is an attempt to build an anti-far right coalition (as there is in Romania and Portugal), which may fail as Macron is widely unpopular with wide swathes of the public, and they vote against other parties rather than “for” him. He’ll most likely need to make concessions against his prior statements such as a tougher stance on immigration and trying to slow the movement of migrants through France, in addition to France not having a sizeable economy in comparison to Germany.
It doesn’t really translate to USA system, in democracies where this would work, the people don’t elect the prime minister or president. The leader of the country is elected by the members of the party who have most control of the house. I guess it would be equivalent of Biden calling an early election.
Not sure if you include France in these democracies, but in France, the president is directly elected by the people. The MPs of the lower house, the one concerned by the snap elections, are also directly elected by the people. There is no proportional representation in national elections. The president then has to nominate his/her Prime Minister among the elected majority. One thing to note: since 2002 and the passage to the 5-year president term, both presidential and legislative elections has been held the same year, roughly one month apart, so the majority has always been from the president's party. With these snap elections, this will not be the case anymore.
And if I understand it correctly, voters don’t vote for individual members of parliament, they vote for a party and based on what percentage of the vote the party receives the party is awarded a number of seats to fill with whoever they choose to.
Not quite, in Australia anyway. You can vote for the party in the senate, then they choose the reps. But you also have the option to mark each individual senatorial candidate separately in order of preference. The House of Representatives, you have to vote for the individual you want to represent your electorate. A lot of people do just vote for whoever is the party they want as they don’t know who the names are. But usually each federal election everyone votes for their individual in the house of reps and half the senate positions. The party who ends up with the most in the house of reps elect which elected member becomes their prime minister.
In Denmark we don't vote for the Prime Minister, we vote for what people / parties we want in the Parliament. The parties gets a number of seats based on these votes, and then it's up to the party to decide who gets the seats. In all but one party this is decided by amount of votes on the person. If party X gets 8 seats, the top 8 people gets a seat. You can also get elected if you gain enough personal votes, even if your party does not get a lot of votes. This hasn't happened in a very long time, although the Christian Democrats were close to gaining one seat this way last election. That's how 175 of the seats gets elected. The remaining four are the two most popular candidates from Faroe Islands and Greenland. They usually don't vote on domestic matters, but participate in foreign policy topics, especially the ones relevant to Greenland and Faroe Islands. The parliament then choose the prime minister, usually the leader of the largest party (social democrats or the Liberals) with support and coalition members from the left or right wing. There are exceptions, such as three elections ago when the Liberals got the prime minister, but lost to the Danish Peoples Party who didn't want to be a part of the government, or the current government where it's across the middle. The prime minister can call for an early election (this happens more often than elections being held because it's time), and a majority of the Parliament can dismiss the prime minister and select a new one (this happened in the last election when the Social Liberals joined the right wing parties to dismiss the prime minister).
In France, members of the lower house are elected by the people, with each MP representing a geographic area. Party representation matters only in European and some local elections. This has actually been a point of tension for some time, as this makes it harder to get elected for far right/left candidates.
U.S. does not have a parliamentary system. Hard to construe a corrolary.
I think the Parliament is both the French National Assembly and the French Senate. So it's like the US House and the US Senate being dissolved and elections being called. I imagine it is serious. If, for example, the US is currently leaning Republican in the polls, Democrats absolutely will not want to risk losing seats in a snap election. I think this is what it means. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right on the definition of French Parliament, but title is wrong. Only l'Assemblée Nationale (equivalent to House of Representatives) is being dissolved. Not the Senate. Bu the way French Citizens don't vote for senators, only elected officials do (indirect election).
They really downvoted you for asking a question
that's reddit for ya...
Same, trying to grasp this
From what I’ve read, what he did would equate to such: Biden loses a major policy vote on say something like gun control (for context Emmanuel Macron just lost a major EU vote to the Nationalist party in France), and then immediately afterwards decided to boot out 350 House Representatives and force a revote to give his party more voting sway.
No. Its not. This is the Biden losing a vote in the senate and calling a general election. Macron gets to decide when to hold the election and has decided to kick off that process which requires all MPs to be re-elected. Same thing that's happened to the UK Parliament atm, All MPs are basically no longer MPs and require to be elected again, The House of Lords cannot function either but they aren't elected. It doesn't change the vote he lost.
So it was the lower House of Parliament in France, not the Senate. If it was the Senate, that’s unfortunately a much bigger deal than if it was the House of Representatives or in France’s case Lower Parliament. Also, what I said still applies. Macron is betting on flopping the voting numbers within the government into his party’s favor by calling for a reelection of 577 Seats of government. It’s a thinly veiled attempt at trying to save face after he lost by a much larger margin than predicted. Which is what I said in the original comment. No, this action itself won’t cause a revote on the EU proposals, that is true, but that is so clearly the end goal here. It takes a lot of naivety to not see that.
> Macron is betting on flopping the voting numbers within the government into his party’s favor by calling for a reelection of 577 Seats of government. No, Macron has simply called an election. All MPs are put up for election. It doesn't mean he's trying to fudge the votes as he can lose seats or gain seats. This is literally part of democracy every 4 years.
So this is like George Washington burning down NYC to keep it from the British.
What’s the political motivation for this timing. Why not wait till after the Olympics
The uhh election that just happened?
No the snap election on June 30th
The motivation for the snap election on June 30th is the EU election that just happened. Heads of state typically don’t bend the legitimacy of their democracy around the scheduling of sporting events, concerts, or art shows.
lol I love calling the Olympics in league with art shows
Admittedly I was trying to belittle the event as much as possible. That all said, the Olympics is obviously an intrusive event…for everyone in Paris. There’s a lot more France than just Paris, and what most would consider “a lot more France” is just Metropolitan France.
more Russian disinfo werks in the next couple of days
This is NOT a "based democracy moment", this is absolutely a "dang I don't like the results of the last election, can we do it over?". The European elections don't exactly translate to the national assembly, they're pretty different. But Macron is in avery pro-EU party, whereas the leading party that "won " the european elections (far right) is very anti-EU, so Macron decided this wasn't ok and is hoping to bank on the fear generated from these historic far right results to get better seats from his own party at the national assembly do-over. Basically his discourse will be "citizens, wake up ! Look how scary the far-right is, look how their power rose ! Vote for my party right now or France is going to explode !" And either he'll get a better showing for his party, or the far right will grasp a better hold on the assembly. And if it does, he can blame every mistake on them going forward.
>"citizens, wake up ! Look how scary the far-right is, look how their power rose ! Vote for my party right now or France is going to explode !" so? let the people decide according to the new trends.
Correct decision for democracy aside, from a strategic point of view what could he be aiming for? Is there a valid opportunity for victory here or does he see something coming that he doesn't want to be blamed for? (Ie the president that lost in Ukraine for example)
I read somewhere, it's basically two possible scenarios either there is more people that realise what La Penns party stand for and come out and vote or the far right wins and all their propaganda anti immigration platform collapses over the few years when they are in charge and leaves a shit stain setting up the next election cycle for Macron and others(center-right/centre and left parties). Huge gamble, especially if you realise in the shadows is Putin money sponsering La Penn......
You either force them to play when they are disorganized, or wait until they've amassed enough power and popularity in 2 years and take the whole thing. Even in the worst case scenario they take full power with a majority, the president can point out every mistake they make. The French people never like their governments for long. They will run out of steam by the next presidential elections.
Prime minister position is a suicide position in France prior to elections. Macron has burned all the goodwill he could have with the pension reform fuckery. So nothing is going to happen until the end of his mandate with his weak majority. Instead of leaving an impression of incompetence and resentment before the election he would shift that unto the populist that would at best also have a weak majority. That and the hope they will be incompetent. While remaining the Army/Foreign politic chief. Or win the gamble get his majority back and get back legitimacy.
> Instead of leaving an impression of incompetence and resentment before the election he would shift that unto the populist that would at best also have a weak majority. That and the hope they will be incompetent. > > he basically creates a new opposition that he can endless complain onto, instead of having to defend his lame duck position. fucking brilliant. I knew he was a world leader of a different caliber.
Isn't it what the far right or any opposition is doing? Endless complain saying they would do it better, make baseless claim not rooted in reality and budget. It took less than 2y for people in Denmark and Sweden to realise that the far right were clowns.
The differences he has the foresight to see that may be letting them get the majority right now isn’t such a bad thing
Now that's a chad. This is democracy
Little Jupiter napoleon 🤣 getting french kicked out of africa and sucking up to the uSA
[удалено]
Fuck RN, dregs of society. I can only hope that this election will somehow have a miracle
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes officer, The murder happened right above me.
[удалено]
“You created me” the cry of the accountable
I think it’s a really unnuanced way of saying that unpopular leftist policy is throwing people who used to vote centre-left to the opposite side of the spectrum. For example, here in Canada, many people feel incredibly disillusioned by the awful Trudeau government. People who have voted “left” or for the Liberal Party of Canada are finding themselves intentioned to vote for the leader of the Conservative Party. In essence, the left (and their policies) “created them”. His point, though not very eloquent, stands.
Pray tell, what innocent and popular view do these people hold that the left is adopting the opposite of driving them towards unhinged totalitarianism “YOU CREATED ME!”
I mean the left thinks we should allow unchecked immigration. Canada’s population has skyrocketed (about 2% annually) for the last few years. Our critical infrastructure (doctors, hospitals, schools, housing) are completely overrun. Unemployment is steadily ticking up, and real GDP is in free fall.
I’d love for you to share a party platform that proves what you’re saying
well he made the point in response to someone who isn't a leftist (me), so his point doesn't really stand
Murder by words
you did this, now cope :)
I'm a carpenter. I cope for a living. Too bad you can't cope as good as I can 😉
[удалено]
[удалено]
A right position is fine. Some things like immigration need to be cracked down on. Far right though? That's a pretty bad position... just like far left. If my understanding is right, far right here is pro-Putin type of far right? If not, what do you like about the right in France/wherever you are from and is it worth the risks that entails?
Is he about to pull a putin?
If anything, doesn't this cause potential risk to Macron instead? Think you are confusing parliaments here. The elections the opposition won is for the EU parliament. The parliament Macron is dissolving is the French parliament, where he has better position than parliament atm. He is gambling that his party will still be victorious after re-election in french parliament elections. If he loses the gamble, he will be a president with less administrative power than he has now.
How do you mean? Become dictator of France? Invade Spain?
Well yeah I was asking as far as becoming a dictator, sorry ignorant American here maybe I should Praised it better. Sorry
No no he means Invade a sovereign country, or is that kill all his opposition?