@RodionRomanovitch You haven’t got it straight. Macron, and the EU, are illiberal, and anti-democratic, in that they seek to impose the same policies on all member states, whether the elected governments of those states like it or not. It’s not nonsense, it’s a simple fact. Of course you may, like many people, support the EU in doing this. If so that’s fine.

@MartinII If you join a club you agree to abide by their rules. Poland and Hungary can always leave , just like the UK did.

Let's remember though that your original charge , and the point of the thread , was against Macron and not the EU.

@RodionRomanovitch Yes, your first point is entirely fair. Curiously, the Eu wouldn’t be verypleased if Poland or others did try to leave.

My original charge was against Macron because of his enthusiasm for the anti-democratic, though justifiable, stance of the EU.

@WintaTheAngle This 👆

@WintaTheAngle that is SOOO well put. Lol

@WintaTheAngle what a great description, but thankful that common sense won tne day over far right madness

@SunshineGirl It performed the function it was designed for, certainly. Always does.

@MartinII
[quote]
[b]Totalitarian[/b]
[i]adjective[/i]
[b]1.[/b] of or relating to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
[b]2.[/b] exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
[i]noun[/i]
[b]3.[/b] an adherent of totalitarianism. [/quote]

[b]SOURCE:[/b] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/totalitarian

[quote][b]Britannica Dictionary definition of TOTALITARIAN[/b]
: controlling the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed
a totalitarian regime/state[/quote]

[b]SOURCE:[/b] https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/totalitarian

Even if you use "Totalitarian" in an ideological sence, it woulds till mean that the ideology that is totalitarian influences EVERY ASPECT of those subjugated to that ideology. That means that the ideological presence (ussually a clique of ideological insipired people) pushes their ideology in every aspects of the subjugates human life. Meaning it's in the school, on the radio, on the television, ... non stop. It even invades the privacy of peoples home, by demanding that what ever it is the ideology propagates is present in the home. Either by hanging up pictures of leaders, inspiring figures or important events to the ideology [i](like crucifixes and other idols, or pictures of the great leader as is the case in North-Korea)[/i], or by giving away books and phamphlets that have to be cherished [i](like giving away "Mein Kampf" at someones marriage)[/i].

... Where do you find that in Europe? You tell me? If you think that saying that you come over as really stupid is an insult, then you haven't really grasped the reality of comparing the EU with a neo-totalitarian project.

The EU at the moment has 27 member states, all of these states have their own national sovereignity. That's why during the covid-pandemic, certain states started talking about "closing their borders" because national governements can choose to control their borders (because they weren't erased) when the treatie allows it. A treaty that all these countries stepped into WILLINGLY:

[quote]If there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security, a Schengen country may exceptionally temporarily reintroduce border control at its internal borders.[/quote]

[b]SOURCE:[/b] https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/schengen-area_en

Exactly because national governements only gave away a small part of their sovereignity in favor of all the benefits they were getting in return. When you look at European descision making, it becomes even more clear how much power individual countries have. Because this painstakingly long process of discussion, reitteration, proposing the law to the EU council - THEN if the EU council refuses, it goes back to the parliament for another reiteration, then it goes back to the EU Council. The EU Council can refuse 3 times, then the bill is automatically removed from the process, and if the EU council approves it will be adopted.

[b]SOURCE:[/b] https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process_en

These laws need to be approved unanimously, meaning that every executive-branch of every member state that sits in the council has a veto. Everyone of them. It's so painfully tedious at times, that the EU can't even throw out memberstates that whipe their asses with the founding principles that a state needs to adhere to to become a member. Because Poland and Hungary both secure eachothers position inside the EU even though they have abandoned liberal democracy which is a key aspect for becomming a new member.

The EU council and the EU parliament are all subjected to pluralism, they have factions and members going from the far left to the far right. So even there there is no strict adherence to a single totalitarian ideological project. Unless you want to claim that "Liberalism" is a strict totalitarian project... but again, you are mistaking. Because if there is one ideological position in the entire range of positions that is extremely diverse and plural, it's liberalism. If you want to read up on how chaotic liberalism really is, I just advice you to read: "Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction" by Michael Freeden. Who does a good enough job to explain all the liberal interpretations that are out there. If you don't want to read, just look at parliaments that are formed with a voting system that devides seats proportional. In the Belgian federal parliament alone you have:

NVA: Nationalist Conservative Liberal party
Open VLD: a coalition of classical liberals and some more social liberals
Groen: The green party that is a coalition of social liberals and ecologists

And on the fringes of that liberal center you still find those that swim in the grey area. Those that aren't liberal, but play the liberal ballgame because they have conceded (somewhere in time) that radical authoritarians are worst then the liberal experiment. Here you'll find:

SP.a: On the left you have the Social democrats, that are socialists but have abandoned radicalism in favor of a longer project and play within the liberal framework for as long as it is nescessary to accomplish that goal and avoid Soviet Union like situtations.

CD&V: Christian Democrats, who at some point were way more authoritarian, but kinda learned their lesson in the 1930s and have embraced another type of Christian Democracy that was already being discussed at the end of the 19th century that is less authoritarian but still strives to have Christian values as part of the liberal framework. Something that conservative liberals often also agree on, altough both parts accept the border between church and state.


In all this pluralism, that is all part of all the sovereign nations of the EU. Where every country has a veto power that rests in the current executive branch... you claim that the EU is a neo-totalitarian project? That's stupid, if you don't recognise it's stupid, you better have a good argument for me. But it's extremely stupid. And that's not an insult, it's just what it is.

@MartinII It was largely due to the fear of competition with workers from the newly integrated member states. Policies have evolved on this subject, although it is still a potentially hot issue, and unemployment has gone down in France. Another main factor was that the then-president, Chirac, had been elected with a whopping 81% thanks to leftist voters, but then didn't seem to take these voters into account. It was a referendum against the leader, as is often the case, rather than over the E.U.

@EarthlingWise It was a referendum about what was on the ballot paper!

@MartinII
[quote]@EarthlingWise I have never understood why “populist” is so often used as a term of abuse. [b]I take it to mean doing what the people want[/b], which, broadly speaking, is what all democratic politicians should try to do[/quote]

You confusion is caused because you don't understand the word. Populists aren't just about "what people want".

A Populist does 3 things:

1. A populist creates/imagines a homogenous group that is moral, pure and virtues [i](good)[/i]. They are above criticism because they are moral through and through. This perceived group gets the label: "The People", in the populists narrative that he will sell to his electorate. An electorate that becomes moral in this fantasy, without ever having anything to do for it. This is a glorification of a group. They are just great people because they are who they are as long as they go along with this piece of populist fiction.

2. A populist creates/imagines a homogenous group that is immoral and corrupt [i](evil)[/i]. These are represented by the label "the elites". They excist out of all the other people in society, those that are placed outside "the people". This is a demonisation of a group because this group, it's all bad here no matter what these people do as long as they are placed here they are irredeemable.

3. The populist presents him/herself as the voice of the people. They embrace the concept of "the general will" [i](volonté generale)[/i] that J.J. Rousseau played with in his book about the social contract. In this narrative, the populist is the only person that knows what the people want, he speaks for "the people" and they know what is best.

This model is a conflict model, it's "good" against "evil". It's extremely simplistic. And populist leaders when voted into a position will never represent those people that don't support them. Meaning that they won't make compromises, which is really problematic in democracies like ours. Also, in a democracy like ours, your executive branch is the executive branch of ALL the people. That means those that voted for that person and also those that didn't, because a governement should be a governement for all it's citizens. But populists don't play that game, they will always represent a part of the citizens and demonise the other part. That's why populism is a problem.

@Pfuzylogic I think the reason many right-wingers embrace Putin is white supremacy / white nationalism. White supremacist leader Richard Spencer hailed Russia as the “sole white power in the world” and Le Pen seems to feel the same way.

@Burnley123 @ElwoodBlues
I watch the Russian army attack the Ukraine and I can’t even believe that they are human. The Russians act like Orcs pillaging murdering and raping everywhere they go. When I served the U.S. for my lifetime service we had ethical standards defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It kept us from acting medieval and have pride in our service to our country.
trump never understood the sacrifice the military make, actually he does and he ran from his service.

@ElwoodBlues His regime has also literally funded far right groups throughout Europe, including Le Pen's party.

@LeopoldBloom that almost 18% is misleading. Macron is one of the most hated politicians in France. If it was Jean Mélenchon instead of Pen in 2nd round, Macron would have been floored. This was an election b/w Right(centre) vs far right..

@SW-User I would support Jean-luc Melenchon but I don't think he would have beaten Macron in round two. It would have been great to see if he could do it but he would have been the underdog.

In the first round, votes from left parties was at about 30%. The establishment would have kicked into overdrive to attack Melenchon. He would have picked up [i]some [/i]Le Pen voters because of the economic message but those people hate hipsters and immigrants and that is Melenchon's base.

I would want him to win but it would have been tough.

@SW-User Do you think Éric Zemmour took some voters from Le Pen? If all of his voters had voted for her, she would have won.

@EarthlingWise I don't see how Melenchon can be blamed for things done by a minority of his supporters. Or people who claim to be his supporters. If he personally, has advocated violence, then that is worthy of criticism.

I can only imagine your reaction if Melenchon's bodyguard did something like this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44917421

Not to mention the violence of the French police that took place under Macron's watch.

I am not French but I do know politics. I know how the media work to smear the left and that unfortunately, some well-intentioned people can end up being taken in by that. I've been directly part of a movement that has been smeared because it represented interests against those of the political establishment in my own country. What I see here, is the same pattern repeating.

[media=https://youtu.be/H07sUkFmmdA]

If I am crazy and missing an obvious point, then so are 20% of your compatriots, some of whom are interviewed in the video.

Here is some alternative analysis. Macron is not Le Pen and I'm glad he has won but Macron has also enabled the RN by accepting some of their worst narratives. Also; his attacks of French pensions, the carbon tax and other cuts he has played into the (not unreasonable narrative) that he is a president for the rich. The RN - hate them though I do - have latched onto this and exploited it. In doing so, they have attracted the support of angry older former PS supporters.

The left is socially liberal and also opposes both Le Pen and the neoliberal reforms of Macron. Of course, powerful interests are not going to like this and will do anything within their power to discredit any leaders doing this. Some of their criticisms [i]may [/i]be true but I haven't seen anything you have posted which is backed up by sound evidence. I don't trust the opinions of journalists alone.

You seem nice and this is not personal. I sincerely believe everything I say here though.

@Burnley123 I just wanted to put that straight. I won't engage in political talks any more though.

@EarthlingWise Friends can disagree. I wish you nothing but the best.

@ViciDraco

@deadgerbil MFGA

@bijouxbroussard Yep.

@Burnley123 I'm happy only that le Pen lost. I don't know if Macron can be described as neo-liberal, but he performed something of an electoral miracle 5 years ago and I think the result would have been very different if he had not shaken up the traditional political establishment.

@SunshineGirl I think neoliberal is definitely accurate for Macron. I'm still glad Le Pen lost.

@LordShadowfire Yup. He certainly is. I mean, he certainly did!

Non sandwich au merde si vous plait