"Emmanuel Macron, the French president, has announced that he is dissolving the national assembly, and calling for legislative elections on June 30 and July 7.
The French president said that he can’t pretend nothing has happened, that the outcome of the EU election is not good for his government and that the rise of nationalists is a danger for France and Europe."
I am from the U.S. so I don’t really understand how this works, or what the significance is. Can anyone EILI5?
Macron’s party got disastrous results and got trounced by the far right in the European elections.
He had been selling himself as the shield that protected France from the rise of the local far right party. With these results, he has lost his credibility, and therefore his government did as well.
Therefore he’s calling out-of-schedule French parliamentary elections that – I assume – he hopes will reelect his party and allies ahead of the far right. It might work: the far right party polls strong at around 30%, but has few allies, and may not be able to form a coalition government. If Macron himself can, that will strengthen his legitimacy.
Needless to say, this is a risky gamble.
He acknowledge he lost his credibility and therefore he dissolves the parliament? He just gain my appreciation
Because delaying mean’s momentum against him will continue to grow
You wait it out if you think there’s no chance for you or you hope it fades
Still a very bold move imo
Rock and a hard place.
*fronce and a hard place
It’s the correct move. It’s democracy, you gotta accept the will of the people… even when they’re being idiots.
unfortunately they are being manipulated into being idiots
The euro election seems to be a low turnout election, so this could absolutely be a wakeup call to apathetic voters as well.
It’s a gamble but it’s a calculated one.
That’s be cause what u/balinares forgot to mention is that Macron has been steadily giving the far right his (barely disguized) support by leading policies that are very well aligned with far right ideas, and he has continuously portrayed lefists as crazy. Oh and he also kept setting up debates between his party and the far right leaders, putting them in some sort of ‘legitimate’ position (like there’s been a debate between our prime minister and the head of the far right list for these election, there was absolutely no reason to do it, but hey who give a crap about fairplay uh?). Oh and also we now have our own fox news (cnews here), broadcasting on a public network, but not respecting there duty to remain neutral. But no wonders why, since these media are owned by a far right billionaire.
TLDR: Macron carefully set the conditions for the far right to win these election by portraying them as the only opposition, and now he’s all whiny that surprise surprise, the far right is aslo far ahead.
Oh… Unfortunately, that makes more sense :(
I know right, we’d been waiting for the UK Tory party to realise that since 2022.
*2016
We’ve had two elections since then.
While I hoped the Tories weren’t popular in 2016, unfortunately for all of us, Boris (and Corbyn proving about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit) kept them relevant.
Maybe French elections are different to American ones…but isn’t this essentially “I didn’t win, therefore I invalidate the election”?
If the people voted, and this is what they want, even if you don’t like it, isn’t that what the people want?
Sorry, I should have been clearer: his party scored badly in the EU elections, so he lost credibility in France and is calling snap elections in France. I’ll edit my comment above to clarify.
So the EU vote includes offer countries then right? So like, “I’m not as popular among the other countries, do you still want me around France?”
People vote for EU members from their own countries (so France in this case). Macron’s party underperformed in those elections, so he’s hoping to get ahead of any further decline, maybe with the hope that the EU vote was more of a protest vote, rather than a sincere desire for the far-right to be in power.
No, it isn’t. His party “lost” in the EU parliamentary elections, not those of the national parliament. It’s a very bold and bizarre strategy.
It’s bold but not bizarre. It’s all about confidence in the next election. Better to have an election when you think you can still win than when you think you wont
if you equate USA with Europe …
then France will be one of the states …
and Macron would be the governor of his state who would decides to call state election because on the federal level his party lost (while there was not yet elections at the state level)
Also : this election called by Macron calls for a possible change of his government but his own seat as president is not challenge until the next election in 2027.
So you’re saying the election he’s in hasn’t even happened, but a bigger election DID happen, but a bigger election his party lost. So this is more like a preemptive surprise election?
I don’t support the far right, but I also don’t support these tactics. I’m sure if I looked into it I’d find tactics I don’t support on the far right. But you can’t lower yourself to that level if you’re trying to shield your people from those types of tactics.
You can’t be the savior of the people by being the poster boy of what the people are afraid of.
You’re completely misunderstanding the situation. Macron is basically saying “you voted for the far right in the EU election so I’m calling for French national elections now to see if I still have your support to lead this country”.
That is a ballsy move then. Maybe even a little dumb, if the far right just won the EU elections.
Most of the time the far right gains power is because people don’t show up. The best moment to win in such an scenario is the moment the results are in. Because anti far right people will freak out and will hopefully show up. If they let this fester the right will just gain more votes.
Right it is ballsy but it also has metits. The eu election that macrons party did poorly in is bigger in that it involves all of europe, but it has almost no direct power in france(someone please correct me if its flat out wrong to say that) but its not insignificant.
The leader of france or any country has long term planning to do and he just got shown his opponents CAN best him.
But this election isnt the most important one for france so a lot of people dont take things as seriously. They vote in ways they wouldnt in more important elections.
By admitting his weak position it rallys people to actually turn out and vote for realzies this time.
The way the world is Macron likely thinks if he waits and has to run an election later its going be bad. But also he will risk needless opposition at home making his job significantly harder domestically. If its harder to manage france its much harder to be a good helpful member of the un and the right is gaining power.
Could easily backfire, but he wouldnt do if he himself didnt think it was his best chance. And if he gets the boot he can become the oppostion focusing all his efforts on JUST fighting against the right which he may see as the most important thing right now
No, it isnt anything like that. The EU elections are different than the national ones and they arent explicitly connected in any way.
But they are implicitly connected. His party just did very badly in the EU elections. He could technically continue to govern till the next national elections or he could go to early national elections and ask the voters “hey, you didnt vote for me in the EU elections, do you still want me to rule this country or not? Please confirm that you still continue to support me”.
Basically Macron is saying “You just saw how fucked things are, with the far right getting over 30% of the votes in the EU elections. Vote for me or the fascists will win”. It is a move intended to rally the voters to his party but he also risks losing the elections(resulting in a fascist government).
As a general rule, in many countries the governing party does worse in the EU elections, because the EU elections are often used as an opportunity to vote for small/minor political parties or protest vote. The EU parliament isnt as legislatively relevant. They dont make laws, they just approve/reject laws proposed by the EU Commision.
The EU Commision isnt directly elected by the voters. The european country governments appoint EU Commission members(one from each country) and the EU parliament votes for the EU Commission leader. This is a point of contention.
Technically it is “democratic” because eventually everything comes down to either national european governments(who are democratically elected) or the EU parliament(which is also democratically elected). But many people think it is weird to have the most powerful EU institution appointed instead of directly elected. The procedure isnt as transparent as people would like and it involves a lot of backdoor “politicking”.
PS On the other hand, directly electing the EU Commission would give its members a lot more political power, basically on par or higher with the elected country leaders. Being directly elected greatly increases your political power.
This is somewhat analogous to the way midterm elections are treated in the US, and a decent comparison would be when Mitch McConnell blocked Obama from appointing a Supreme Court Justice towards the end of his second term.
The Democrats lost seats in Congress during that midterm season, which the Republicans used to claim that the American people had no faith in the Democrats and therefore no faith in Obama. They then used this claim as an excuse to block the Democrats ability to govern.
In this case, the people of France have voted for another party to represent their interests internationally to the EU parliament.
Macron will now face claims within the French government that the people voting against them in the EU elections indicates that they have no faith in his party’s leadership and that will make it difficult for him to govern.
With this move, calling an election early, they will have a clear indication of who the French people wish to lead them internally and, if they reelect Macron’s party, can dismiss the claims from opposition parties that the people don’t trust them.
It’s worth mentioning that many governments around the world don’t have fixed election cycles the way you do in the US. Instead many countries have an end date by which the election must occur, but a new election can be called at any time before that date if the government thinks it’s necessary. A similar thing is currently happening in the UK where the Conservative Party has called an election for early July, even though the election didn’t have to take place until late January 2025.
“dissolving parliament” means they’ve announced a general election. Parliament won’t meet any more, and all the existing members of parliament will go home and begin campaigning
The UK is going through the same thing. The Prime Minister dissolved Parliament about two weeks ago, and elections are going to be held of July 4th. (An odd choice, but apparently elections are always on a Thursday in the UK.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snap_election#France
Sure. A lot of people voted for bullies who can talk themselves out of consequences.
The Far Right movement is gaining momentum because many of their own people are getting tired of the “immigrants are more important” mindset their country is creating. Many of France’s own people are getting ignored, so that the political parties in charge can focus on helping poor immigrants from other countries. Well, France’s own citizens are getting tired of this, and have started to vote in more people who have a “French People First” mentality (similar to what Trump wanted to do, and everyone called him a racist for being “America First”). So, the party RN (National Rally) wins and now their going to get rid of all the current members in Parliament, and have a new vote to get people in. I think that’s what it means?
These takes are always so dumb. “It’s immigration”. Then why do these parties also want to get rid of public access television and radio? Why are they trying to limit investigative journalism? Why are they limiting independent research at universities? Why are the against public welfare systems? Social institutions? Juridicial safety? Democratic protections? It’s almost like it is something more…
There’s a difference between what the right-wing voters are wanting and what the right-wing politicians are doing. You run into the same problems with left-wing voters and politicians too. Not to say that they’re “both the same”, just that you can’t treat them all as one big hive mind.
There is a difference. But what you are saying is not true, bacause it was tested in Sweden. All parties in parliament, except three parties at like 18% votes in total, said the far-right party have always been correct when it comes to immigration (“always” including when they were an explicit nazi party), and switched to their line. If the voters understood and did not want all that other shit, they should have switched. They did not.
But there is a difference. The people who run the party today, who joined it when it was an explicit nazi party, probably have a certain goal in their mind where they need all these steps. The voters, in general, are just rationalizing why they vote for the steps.
I’m saying that the voters and the politicians they vote for are not one big hive mind. You’re saying that they are one big hive mind? And your example is that voters didn’t switch their support when their parties changed the positions? I’m not sure you’ve interpreted what I said correctly.
What are you talking about? I just agreed that there is a difference between voters and politicians, and then I elaborated on one such difference. In the same comment I also tried to highlight that this still means that it is not the “immigration” question they are voting for.
Ah. The problem is that you told me “But what you are saying is not true” and then basically agreed with what I’d said.
You may be right. I should probably have said, “what is implied by your reply in the context of the thread is not true” instead, and then perhaps elaborated on the implication some more.
I don’t think the average person gives a toss about any of those things or sees them as adding any value to their lives. They believe that journalists are lying propagandists, universities are elitist and out of touch, welfare serves lazy immigrants and social and democratic systems have failed them. Noone really beleives in society anymore, the right would like to create a new one where they fit in.
@mumblerfish @ZK686
Not sure if people voting far-right parties want dictatorships policy. Maybe they want only more order and protection as citizens of that nation, with rights before the immigrants
Sorry, several things here.
“Rights before immigrants”, so “just” a higher standing than people of different origins? I’m sure we have a word for this.
And this is what I’m saying. Yes, they do not only want “no immigration”. There must be “order” too. There is no “order” if we do not give police the means to achieve it. There is no “order” if you allow scientists to tell you that these are not effective ways to achieve order. There is no “order” if the people trying to achieve the “order” are being critiqued.
Then in many cases it is not about “want”. “Want”? What does it matter? “I voted for the totally-not-nazis-anymore-party, because I read their pamphlet and they just wrote good things there. I’m a good guy and thought they were best. Oh, these guys on the telly says that one of the things I thought was a good thing was really fucked up. That makes me feel bad and stupid. But I’m a good guy. Did I do something wrong? The totally-not-a-nazi-anymore-guy says it is not fucked up, but good actually. That makes me feel comfortable. I’ll adopt that view instead. I’m a good guy.” Lucky us! This guy did not “want” free speech to be forbidden in universities, or which ever.
It’s right wing governments pushing immigration to keep wages low, housing costs high, and replacing boomers in the workforce
Left wingers just want to make life better for their citizens
Yup, but people are dumb. We already have an example of what happens with no immigration, it’s Japan. It’s been economical stagnant for thirty years, and has lost even more quality of life than most countries.