Refractory Gauls, or the French politics thread

[Valmy]

It kind of feels like the current French government is sort of like the Directory, doing its best to hold on to power while trying to defeat both the left and the right at the same time.

Fortunately for Macron there are no General Bonapartes around.

[Sheilbh]

It kind of feels like the current French government is sort of like the Directory, doing its best to hold on to power while trying to defeat both the left and the right at the same time.

Fortunately for Macron there are no General Bonapartes around.

I think Macron possibly thought he was the man of destiny - and in another time, perhaps he could have been. After all he is the guy who blew up the centre left and right.

By the by the one bit of caution I have on this case is that from what I've read from reporters who cover European politics - ie the parliament - what Le Pen did is incredibly common.

The European Parliament has very, very generous expenses and staffing allowances. So for hiring staff, MEPs have a monthly budget for salaries up to €25,000 - by way of contrast from a UK perspective, the average MP's annual office costs are about £25,000.

What this means in practice is that it's very common to use funding from the European Parliament for MEPs for other purposes. For example the Lib Dems would basically get the MEPs to max out their hiring allowance - one or two people would actually work for the MEP and the rest would work for the party, normally in their region (they'd do the odd bit of case work for plausible deniability).

In the UK - and my understanding is the rest of Europe - it's been really key in small parties breaking through. In the UK, UKIP and the Greens both hugely benefited from getting seats in the European Parliament because it gives them access to (for British politics) very high levels of funding - but my understanding is that that's very much not unique to the UK. It's a strategy for smaller parties across Europe and basically doing exactly what Le Pen did.

I wouldn't be surprised if the RN were investigating, for example, the staffing budgets of the MoDem MEPs over the years - I wouldn't be surprised if journalists start looking into it to. And if that happens I think this may backfire (not the right word but I can't think of the alternative) quite badly.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

By the by the one bit of caution I have on this case is that from what I've read from reporters who cover European politics - ie the parliament - what Le Pen did is incredibly common.

The European Parliament has very, very generous expenses and staffing allowances. So for hiring staff, MEPs have a monthly budget for salaries up to €25,000 - by way of contrast from a UK perspective, the average MP's annual office costs are about £25,000.

shenanigans like this, as well as the big allowances, exorbitant wages and fact that it doesn't really get taxed (at least not in Belgium) has been a black mark on the EU for years, if not decades. It's really a case of making sure selfservice is on for the 'nobility'.
Something that should have been fixed long ago

[Duque de Bragança]

It kind of feels like the current French government is sort of like the Directory, doing its best to hold on to power while trying to defeat both the left and the right at the same time.

Fortunately for Macron there are no General Bonapartes around.

So a banqueroute des 2/3 is still on the cards? 

[dist]

So as I say, I generally disagree on people being disqualified from running for office. My basic view is if you can vote you should be able to run for office and I really dislike the language around "felons" even if it's come in via Trump. Flipside is, that I support recall petitions and a health culture of resignation/shame. Basically I think ineligibility narrows the power of the people by restricting who they can vote for, recall expands it by letting them vote them out early.

I very much disagree. Politicians also need to respect norms and laws. I would even argue that they should be held at a higher standard than other members of society since they are (supposedly) responsible for the common good. If they cannot be trusted to not abuse the powers citizens give them, why should we entrust and keep entrusting these powers to them? That doesn't make sense.

I would perhaps reconsider my stance if the ineligibility was permanent, but these are usually rather short lived. Anyway, from what I read, she got an expedited appeal. It is scheduled for in 1 year rather than the expected 2.

[HVC]

Yeah, they're not being disqualified because of gender or race but because they've shown clear disregard for the rules and morals. I believe Hand waving that away is much more dangerous a reaction.

[Sheilbh]

I very much disagree. Politicians also need to respect norms and laws. I would even argue that they should be held at a higher standard than other members of society since they are (supposedly) responsible for the common good. If they cannot be trusted to not abuse the powers citizens give them, why should we entrust and keep entrusting these powers to them? That doesn't make sense.

Fundamentally because voters may want them as their representative - maybe there should be a different standard for president/head of state elections. That's why I strongly support a recall mechanism so if the people who elected a politician believe it has an impact on them or they've broken trust with them, they can dismiss them. I think it is more of a restriction on the rights of voters that needs to be justified. Why do they need to be protected from themselves?

I think it is perfectly legitimate for Northern Irish nationalist voters to elect a man in prison on a terrorism conviction - because that is the political point they are intending to make. Similarly I think it was fine for sitting MPs to be getting into legal trouble for refusing to pay the poll tax because many of their constituents were also refusing to pay and engaging in civil disobedience (one Liverpool MP was jailed over refusing to pay).

I don't think we can easily distinguish in a principled "legalist" way between "good" law-breaking (which, in my book would not include terrorism - but I get why nationalist voters in Northern Ireland might have a different view) and "bad" law-breaking. But voters can make that contextual judgement call in the way statute can't - or worst the law brings itself into disrepute by being applied unevenly. So, again with UK examples, voters have successfully recalled MPs for lying to the police about speeding, breaking covid rules, making false expense claims and being punished by the Commons for workplace bullying and sexually inappropriate behaviour (a very weird case). That stuff they clearly see as bad law-breaking.

Ultimately I think the power of who is or isn't a "suitable" legislator is one that should broadly rest with the people through elections and recall mechanisms, not the state through operation of law. Especially because the state has the power to change the law. Laws are not the same as morals or principles. They're not magic or sacred or entitled of respect simply because they're written on vellum. They're the exercise of power and coercion by the state - which is necessary but not always "right". And sometimes they're definitely wrong and the right thing to do is break them including for politicians - we can see this in Turkey (both now and in Erdogan's conviction which catapulted him to becoming a national figure). Democracy is a better prophylaxis than the legal system.

Although I fully admit voters may also still choose to return the charismatic mountebank with a string of corruption allegations (the mind turns, again, to Bernard Tapie or Robert Maxwell) - but I think that's their right too.

[HVC]

You won't let people kill themselves but you'll afford them the power to kill their democracy? Tsk tsk.

[Sheilbh]

People are welcome to kill themselves - just not get other people to do it for them

But to an extent

Ultimately I think it is on the people to keep a state democratic - in my view the way to achieve this is to "dare more democracy". It's popular sovereignty and if politics, political culture, political aspiration move away from democracy then I think it's difficult to save it. It's a possibility inherent within popular sovereignty. Everything else is downstream from that - it's part of why I find the US trajectory so worrying. On the other hand I feel like the deep democracy of states, local government, cities was most effective at fighting Trump and I think the route back for the Democrats is there as well - party building everywhere.

In my view there's no legal or constitutionalist way of protecting democratic government from voters that will remain democratic. It's a fantasy for people who like the idea of democracy but actually find the idea of politics a bit distasteful - just create the right guardrails, invest power in the right guardians and it's not on them as citizens to fight for democratic politics. And unlike the Fareed Zakarias of this world I think the democratic bit of liberal democracy matters a lot more than the liberal bit.

[HVC]

You can't force them to protect democracy, but you can guide them. My overlying belief is people, as a group, are dumb. You can't stop those determined to destroy democracy but you can diminish the impact of the stupid who do it by accident

[Sheilbh]

A well-storied view - I mean that's Socrates, it's larded through the Founders as well, right down to our very own Yi. Democracy as containing within it the threat of the mob which needs to be mitigated against by counter-democratic measures.

I mean, I think it's totally wrong but it's a strong view.

[HVC]

I don't know if I'd go so far as containing the mob, but aiding by trimming out bad actors seems sensible. Even sane. In this case it not even arbitrary, they broke clear and plain laws. You're advocating letting the wolf amongst the sheep by saying the sheep are asking for it

[Sheilbh]

A change from the normal ovine two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner

I think the sheep should be allowed to vote for whoever they want (for a start because I don't think the electorate are sheep ). That's kind of the point - they're the ones who decide who is or isn't suitable.

[HVC]

Your faith in the electorate is admirable. Trump, Putin, Orban, and Edrogan salute your pride in the civitas

[HVC]

To take it to reductio ad absurdum, because I'm in that mood , to me what you're saying is no different then someone saying we shouldn't have any laws and should just let juries decides things on their whim because "democracy"