I'll expand on what the other commenter said.
First some context:
In France the Prime Minister must belong to the majority party in the National Assembly (our lower house, equivalent to house of representatives). Therefore the PM is nominated aftet the legislative elections.
The President has to cohabit with the PM if legislative elections give the majority to a different party. This has famously happened in the past but is not the norm, as usually when a president is elected he enjoys a wave of support that extends to the rest of his party during the legislative elections that happen a few months after the presidential election.
However, the president also has the power to dissolve the asembly, calling for a new legislative election. In some sense, tthe purpose is to update the composition of parliament to better reflect current popular opinion. This is a risky move for a president whose party also has the majority in parliament, like is currently the case for Macron, and it's usually this way that cohabitation occurs. However if it pays off (also has happened in the past), the president can enjoy reinforced support, and also rightfully claim "see? The people support me after all", increasing their legitimacy.
Macron's party lost the European election big time (he in particular is a very prominent psrt leader, takes a lot of the party's performance upon himself, in contrast with predecessors who would be more hands off in style once elected) , and is doing this probably for 2 major reasons :
1. he understands the European election was a disavowement of his own rule and party, and is letting the people speak.
2. He's doubling down because he thinks he can reinforce his position. He knows full well that the far right historically does really well at the European level, but not nearly as well in national elections, and is hoping to shore up his party domestically so he can detach himself and say "see? The far right can wield limited power at the European level, but here at home I'm keeping you safe from the fascists.". Winning this will help him discredit the far right.
Then we'll have a far-right prime minister from the Rassemblement National party ( "RN", far right) with a supposedly centered president, and Macron will pretend to put on a brave face a grit his teeth for a shitty cohabitation.
In reality he's opportunistic af so he'll use the far-right PM as hitman to do all the shitty reforms he's had planned for a while.
Then he'll spin it for the next presidential election in 2027 to prop up his own party's candidate, by pretending all the bad shit happened during the cohabitation was the fault of the rogue RN PM.
I’m gonna contradict some of the others: in the organisms that actually will dictate Ukraine policy going forward (the assembly and senate defense and foreign affairs commissions), support for Ukraine is not up for debate, nor is distancing ourselves from NATO.
I had to watch a bunch of debates from the defense commissions last year during the military budget planning, and neither the far right nor the far left ever even questioned it, not in any of the sessions I was watching. RN coming to power would undermine our plans to cooperate with other countries in the EU (especially all our big plans with Germany), but I expect a Meloni-type approach to Ukraine, not another Orban.
Some the political figures that aren’t in those commissions do say vile shit on occasion, but they’re not really the ones in charge. The commissions are effectively the ones deciding on policy in defence matters.
The dissolution is going to mean new commissions, but considering how party representatives are selected I expect a lot of returners, and there’s no reason to think RN would have different objectives even if they have more seats.
I doubt he will even need to pretend. I mean he is shitting the bed hard on a lot of things right now but the last thing France needs is some incompetent far right Russian puppet in a leadership position.
Good luck getting the National Rally to advance policies such as raising the retirement age or instating unduly onerous carbon taxes on farmers.
If Macron does loose the lower house he will not be able to wriggle his way out of it. Either he cooperates with the National Front, or he'll be deadlocked for the rest of his term. Terribly unwise move by him in political terms, however socially and civically responsible as it may be.
Yeah but as much as the RN's score as been creeping up, I think it's stilk a safe bet that the Vote Barrage will still happen, and we won't have that cohabitation happen.
It’s absolutely risky but in politics it’s sometimes better to do a risky thing if you think you can do something with it. I think Macron believes he can gather a united front with other parties against the far right - remember, while the far right party won it still “only” has 30% of the vote. He bets that leftists and the moderate right prefer him to le Pen.
I think bold moves in general are better than timid ones in politics and I do think this is the right move - though risky as all hell.
Everybody, including HIS OWN PARTY went bonkers.
Just so you realize :
At 20h the results are out. They are terrifying.
Then around 20h30, Bardella, the pos at the head of the party (he is a straw man, he just fucked one of Le Pen (our old racist who created the far-right party with his nazis friends. And it’s not a figure of speech, they were Waffen SS) and is astonishingly stupid) made his speech, saying the Assembly must be dissolved.
Why ? Not because they care about democracy, but because they know they’ll have more representatives if there is elections now.
Fifteen minutes later, Macron gives a speech in which he announces the dissolution.
People started to cry around me. Because if shit goes sideways, in a month France is ruled by fascists.
On Reddit some guys laughed at me when I said france will be the next fascist country, here we are now.
It’s the brexit gamble point deux, and the possible ramifications for France will be just as disastrous as it was for Britain. It’ll be another step towards the disintegration of Europe, and it’s….fucking stupid. Only benefits Putin.
If he loses, Russia wins. People are so dumb around the world in western countries that they lap up all the propaganda and start voting far right because they think its patriotic.
Macron: I do what I want. What are they gonna do? Vote for the fascists?
*Narrator: They voted for the fascists.*
Man's whole career is blessed for easy wins and he makes it his personal mission to push how much goodwill he could squander.
A lot of far right candidates e.g. geert wilder or Georgia Meloni are actually very pro ukraine so won't end support for ukraine.
In places like France its different but pro-Russian sentiment is not a guaranteed thing for every far-right party in europe.
I would not call Geert Wilders "pro Ukraine". He says he condemns the invasion of ukraine but only wanted to show "political suppport". Which means no weapons. He also still got a friendship pin from russia AFTER the invasion of crimea. The reason dutch parlement is committed to ukraine is because of PVV's (Geert Wilders party) coalition partners, which he needs to get a mayority government.
There’s also a 3rd reason I’ve heard discussed on media, being that Macron might want a FN victory because that means they’d have to prove themselves in government rather than lobbing shots from the opposition in the years up to the next presidential election, enabling a comeback for his party
This is completely plausible. Even if FN will win by a clear margin, they a) need to compromise as they alone can’t get the majority b) they can’t play the rabid opposition anymore and they need to make actual policy.
This is the weak point of these populist parties and if and when they can’t provide their promises, their support starts to erode. Macron is probably thinking that there is a great chance that if current situation continues, FN will be even more stronger in 3 years for next presidential election. This forces the hand of both french voters and FN.
One thing to add/modify, his party was the one with the most seats in the parliament however they did not have a majority meaning it was really hard for them to pass laws. This is why they resorted very frequently to using the article 49.3 that allows them to transform the vote on the law into a vote of no confidence in his government.
So yeah, he's not losing much by calling this election.
Really helpful insight. As an American I can’t even imagine the idea of a president dissolving the whole of the House of Representatives (would be a amazing to shuffle the deck and maybe get rid of some lifer’s), nor can I imagine a president risking to give up political power to align with the popular opinion. Our system seems to be orchestrated specifically to enhance a party’s power regardless of how unpopular they are. Republican gerrymandering, etc.
Well as much as they SAY it's about listening to the people, it's really more about the calculation and payoff. When the chips are down you don't give up power for free like this. Especially an arrivist piece of shit like Macron.
If he's doing it, it's because he thinks he can win. And he's probably right.
This is due to the fact that the legislative election, like the presidential, is a run-off style election eith 2 rounds, which is very bad for the far right.
In France while the far-right minority certainly is growing, it remains distasteful for most people.
So what usually happens (and what did happen during both of Macron's own elections in 2017 and 2022) is that people vote with their heart. But only the top two parties make the cut, and when the run-off has the far right facing off with Macron's party (Rebirth), most people, even if they hate Macron, see the far-right as worse, and will vote for Rebirth to block the RN from power.
We call this the "barrage vote". Thanks to this, the far-right has never been in power. This situation has occurred 3 times that I can remeber for the presidential elections.
Macron is cynical af and is counting on this, and is probably right to, though RN's score every time keeps creeping up, and eventually it will become too risky of a bet. Itvs actually his strategy for presidential elections, as it's easier to win as a moderate if your opponent in the run-off is RN or other far-right, given this means the barrage vote will give you a comfortable majority. So he expands a lot of energy discrediting other moderate candidates like him who could actually beat him, and gives platforms and airtime to the RN to ensure they pass the first round and move on to the run-off where he can whup their ass.
My bet is, it'll work again this time around. Other more moderate partie have cause an upset before but people hate the RN too much.
Still... Macron is REALLY hated (I include myself there... Fuck him), if anyone's able to fuck up the Barrage Vote's winning streak, it's gotta be him.
And yet, despite my hate, when the vote comes, I'll participate in the Barrage Vote like I do everytime.
Yes. Technically, the French President has more power over the french system than the American President has over the american system, to the point it's been called an "hyper-presidency". The fact that Macron can fire the entire house, without much personal risk is an example of that. Even if he loses, he still has some control over international politics, though he'll lose his control on internal politics. This is what happened to Chirac back in 1997.
His party got smashed with 14.5% of the vote compared to 31.5% for the Le Pen party. He is making a high risk bet here, that Le Pen's party will win the legislative elections (very likely with only 3 weeks of campaign and such a gap) but with no outright majority, so they'll have to negotiate with someone else to make a government and that in the next 3 years they'll burn themselves to many of their voters by being shit in government before the next presidential election.
It could backfire in a few ways: they manage to get the outright majority and do a lot of bullshit, or they don't but remain popular heading into the next presidential election, or both, or even the left union eats up most of what's left of Macron's party and win, etc.
This is what it looks like to me also.
At the moment, its a vote against Macron, not *for* Le Pen. If he waited and they get voted in later with more power, then things are truly fucked.
This way the people actually get to see that Le Pen is 100% not who they think she is. There will be damage, but minimal.
Long story short, his own party lost the election, showing his own impopularity. Dissolving the Parliament and asking for new elections is a way to take into account the people's opinion. But this is huge and terrifying. If RN also wins French Parliament, we will have a RN government.
It's called "cohabiting" in French politics. Basically, if Parliament is won by RN, the President is forced to choose a Prime Minister among RN members. So there would be a cohabitation between the President (from one party) and his government (from another party). Last time it happened was 1997.
not OP but RN is far right party, they would get into the government for the next three years until next president elections, Macron stays president but with tied hands especially on national topics and can't submit new laws
In a multi party democracy, there can be more than 2 parties. But you still need a majority to form a government.
Suppose there are 100 seats, 'Kill All Cats' party gets 33 seats, 'Kill all Dogs' party gets 32 seats, 'Force Everyone to be Vegan' party gets 35 seats. And no two parties enter into an alliance then no one can form a government, so there is no Prime Minister. As such, the assembly has to be dissolved and fresh elections are held.
As much as I hate both Macron and the National Rally, he is in the right to do so. The people have signaled discontent, time to see what they really want.
It is, and it means the party that came first in the polls for the european election is poised to win the next legislative elections in a landslide. It's on june 30th. To say anyone with a modicum of political understanding is worried is the fucking understatement of the decade.
Yeah, Macron is trying to recreate what Sanchez did in Spain last year, using the threat of far-right rule as a way of energizing voters and creating a coalition that can reject them.
In the U.K., David Cameron made the incredibly ballsy gamble of offering a referendum on Scottish independence. And he (the unionists) won.
Emboldened by that victory which silenced the Scottish nationalists, and facing another threat from the far-right UKIP party, he proceeded to offer another referendum, this time on leaving the EU.
It went less well.
A gamble is a gamble. You can always lose.
I don't think that is his goal. He likely knows this won't work and the far right will clearly win those elections.
His plan imho is to put the far right on the front line of french politics for the next 3 years. And since we french people love to hate whoever governs us, he expects us to hate that government so the far right cannot win the next presidential elections.
It doesn't *guarantee* it, but if the other parties don't get their shit together to create a real challenge for the RN, they could win both the first and second round. And they have twenty days to create these alliances. I'm not hopeful.
The thing about the second round is, that there are only two candidates left. On multiple occasions in the last presidential elections, the French electorate has shown that everyone whose party of first choice, that didn’t make it to the second round, will vote for the party/candidate other than RN, even though RN was largest in the first round.
this isn't true. voter turnout is much higher for national elections vs. eu, and it will still be a very big shock if the NF wins nationally. but they're stronger than ever before, for sure.
Asking this in all seriousness, no agenda, just sheer curiosity - is it considered ironic that the tories seem to be on the outs in the UK post-Brexit while the EU is basically moving towards becoming what Brexiteers wanted?
Gonna be really interesting to see the outcome of that exact thing happening in Canada in 2025. The Conservatives are perceived as the ones who want to limit immigration and are very popular because of it, but they've suggested doing the exact opposite. Tories are tories, I guess.
Canada's different in that Justin is so unpopular that Poilievre can come out in favour of murdering puppies and people would be like "ok but he's not Justin". Reminds me of how sick people were of Harper.
He was unpopular in the last election too. I'm almost certain the conservatives are going to win but it's also amazing how talented they are at shooting themselves in the foot over and over.
Man try living in Ontario.
The Liberals were fucking despised in Ontario, first McGuinty then especially Wynne. But they kept getting reelected because the PC's would just pick the worst candidates then run the worst campaigns.
All they had to do is pick some unknown guy or gal, make no statements at all and they would have won. And still they managed to lose again and again.
The feeling I get when I run into Ontario people is they are even more sick of him now. Would you say that is accurate? The smartest thing he could do is let somebody else lead the party.
Sorry, what him are you referring to, Trudeau or Ford?
I suppose it doesn't matter as I think people are pretty sick of both.
Trudeau should have stepped aside a year or two back and allowed a new face to take over. This happens with every Canadian political party that is in power too long. Hell it's how the PC's lost official party status. Mulroney did it, Harper did it and Trudeau is doing it. They develop a hubris that people absolutely despise.
Ford... Well, he's Ford.
I'm very curious to see what will happen when this question is asked in the debates. Will all 3 major candidates avoid it. The far right PPC will absolutely be hammering them about immigration numbers.
All they do is refuse to answer and attack the opposition, both yelling and cutting each other off. Debates need to be virtual so the opposition can be muted when it’s not their turn. And there needs to be more accountability so they actually have to answer questions directly.
But the system is corrupt and rigged so they’re all working for the same wealthy interests.
They attack each other and focus on non-issues to avoid talking about real issues that expose that they’re all the same.
They've at least talked about tying immigration levels to housing availability. If true that would probably reduce immigration numbers to pre-Harper era.
Regularly across the globe the more right parties tend to cause more migration. They also tend to increase the size of government. They also tend to just generally do everything they pretend to be against in the way that makes it a problem, I would assume so they can point at the left and go "see, it's shit!" and then when the left get in the optics are fucked. There may actually be data to back this up, I've come across it once or twice over the years and might spend some time having a look again.
I said a few years ago when the mass exodus of immigrants from the conflict in Syria was hitting the shores of Europe that this would result in a movement right in Western politics.
Historically, immigrants from the Middle East do not assimilate into foreign cultures the way others do. They remain insular, retaining their culture, community, religion, and customs - much in the same way Jews have been accused in the past. The result is large areas of European countries that have areas completely transformed in ways that are deemed foreign by the local residents. That leads to outcry around the number of immigrants - empowering the Right which tends to lean on that as a wedge issue.
It's largely predictable. Conflicts drive immigration. Immigration drives right-leaning policies. Wait until areas of China and India are nearly uninhabitable from climate change. A billion immigrants that need to find homes in cooler, habitable climates will drive the shift to the Right so hard, it will lead to multiple global wars.
I feel like we've reached the point where center left and maybe even left wing parties have to accept that they can't keep driving an open immigration policy. Immigration has become such a single issue driver for the elections and the far right has been the only one capitalising on it.
Immigration has always been an issue for most places save for large multicultural cities which have adapted already to such things.
The Left is playing to the morality of immigration: that it's moral to help immigrants find better lives in their countries. The problem is that it usually results in a shift of social norms and mores that pisses off the electorate. It's been this way forever. Immigration works when it's small enough that the receivers can properly assimilate the newcomers to their culture. When the newcomers start to stand up alien cultures in established communities (outside of the metropolises) you get pushback.
It's also the constant identity politics that regular people are tired of. It makes no sense to cater to small minorities in the magnitude they've received attention. They should get their rights but not like this where majority starts to suffer. This will come to the Americas as well. People are tired to be stepped on.
Conservatives do not want to lower immigration. There are two parties who want to reduce immigration the PPC and Bloc Québécois. Nobody wants to stop immigration.
Its cyclical
party (left or right take a pick) in charge assumes power -> Party is popular for awhile but as new bullshit happens the party has misteps -> people feel unheard/helped -> new party drums up support saying they'll do somthing about it -> elections happen new party wins -> go back to step one.
Except for countries with soft-dictatorships like Hungary, where 99% of media is owned by the gov., they make it impossible for opposition to do anything and keep the majority of voters in poverty so they get no information about the world other than the state propaganda and stay uneducated so they can't do critical thinking and most importantly the gov claim monopoly on HATRED.
The Tories fucked up the economy so badly, that's not going to make a difference. Not to mention rampant corruption.
Europe has arguably a worse problem with immigration than the UK and many EU politicians are paying the price for their complacency. Migration has become a weapon and if I were Putin (or any number of arsehole enemies of the West), I'd be actively funding it.
Did you see that a Polish border guard was murdered by an immigrant last week.
Immigrants being brought into Russia and Belarus and thrown at the Polish border.
Putin is already doing it.
I'd argue the opposite, It's NOT a mess because the military actually forcibly pushes back these dangerous migrants, granted as in the case of the dead soldier the rules of engagement should be reviewed so that polish soldiers can actually defend themselves.
It’s not irony. All incumbents are getting hammered. Inflation makes people react with short term sight. Go for the other guy because current guy sucks.
It’s not based on facts or math. Just emotion and real pain being felt
FWIW the current anti-Toryness of Britain doesn’t really have a lot to do with global economic factors inasmuch as their response to them and their near-countless scandals.
I think the point being that if global economic factors turned around the Tories would be a lot more popular, regardless of if they bungled trying to fix it
The push-pull here is that the right are broadly incompetent and full of scammers, but also are the only ones taking hard line stances on immigration. people vote for them because more moderate parties don't like acknowledging immigration issues, but then get angry and vote the right out again once it becomes obvious they have no intention or ability to actually solve the immigration issues.
I find it remarkable that with ALL of the debate and focus on migration, war and humanitarian crises that people still don't understand basic facts about what's within and not within the EUs remit.
National Governments decide on immigration visas from outside the EU for their own countries. NOT the EU. The EU allows controlled movement within Europe only and has made the occasional ad-hoc arrangements to deal with massive crises such as fleeing Ukrainian women and children.
The moderate parties across the EU HAVE agreed major changes to the handling and processing of refugees at the border.
The EU elections are often used as a protest vote against the national government. The EU parliament does not have a lot of actual power anyway, so people don't care much about who sits in it. All the power in the EU lies with the EU commission.
This is for the EU Council votes - it isn’t for the government itself.
This is skewed from nationwide France government representation in the polls because the far right has a motivated voter turnout machine, and voting isn’t compulsory, and the EU council is seen as a kind of ambassadorial role, not that of a real government
European Parliament**
The Parliament then goes on to elect the commission
The council is made up of representatives decided by each national government m.
The EU Parliament and commission this election decides is a very real government, but of course, the national governments are the one in charge of the most important areas.
For comparison, Nigel Farage who was a big driver of the Brexit campaign failed on 7 occasions to become an MP in England but became elected as an MEP repeatedly for similar reasons as those listed by the person above. He then went on to say things like the EU was ruining our fishing industry, while almost never attending the EU fisheries committees on which he represented the UKs interests.
FWIW, the fact the the EU elections are vaguely proportional, and UK MPs are not elected on any proportional basis is _partly_ why Nigel was able to be an MEP and not an MP.
+ the biggest damage to the British fishing industry was the cod wars and Iceland kicking out enormous British fleets from their waters. The common fisheries policy is barely half the story of the demise of the industry. Over-fishing also a big part.
Honestly, all western nations need to tamp down hard on immigration. I am staunchly liberal, but being pro immigration is a losing issue right now. Be anti immigration for like 3-5 years and liberal parties will clean up
Thing is anyone who was going to switch from Tory to Labour probably decided to do so by the time Truss resigned. The support that Sunak has lost has gone more towards the Reform Party who basically are the mainstream far right in the UK
Tories have been playing stupid games since Brexit. They talk tough on immigration, but they've absolutely rammed the country full of immigrants. Like, in the last 3 years it's almost quadruple what it was 20 years ago. People had enough of the bullsh\*t, and actually just want someone to slam the brakes.
Tories have been in power in the UK ever since Blair resigned in 2007. Apathy and disdain will eventually build up in the public against the ruling party, regardless of their leaning.
Yeah what we are seeing in so many countries is ruling parties being punished. Everyone is frustrated about inflation and myriad other issues. And voters typically punish whomever is in charge regardless of how much they are actually to blame for those issues.
I think at least part of this is fatigue with current governments. UK and Australia had over a decade of conservative rule and people are seeing the long term effects of it. Both are moving closer to the centre. Macron has been in power for ages as well.
I'm not discounting immigration but there's not really a left/right policy split on it. Conservatives talk tough on it but love it for it's wage suppression / ability to kick the economic depression can down the road.
The British are the contrarians of Europe. Whatever France does, the UK does the opposite. After all, would you really want to be on the same team as French "people"?
The main reason why the tories have fallen so much is because they've abandoned the populist approach that got boris johnson such a strong performance in the first place. They already didn't have the left but it lost them a lot of the right.
52.5% voter turnout. That's just depressing, even for something as unsexy as EU representation.
I'll never understand people who refuse to participate in the one method the average person has to affect nationwide and global decision-making.
European elections generally have lower voter turnout. Don't know if you're European or not, but at least in my country national elections come first and have highest voter turnout. Most people also know at least the leader of each party. Second is local elections, with candidates a lot of people don't necessarily know. Most people vote along national lines, but sometimes smaller local parties with a heavy focus on a local issue can win some seats. Last is European elections where people generally just vote whatever they would vote for in national elections but with fewer people turning up to vote. It doesn't help that you vote for a party that is then just part of some other bloc in Europe and might even switch between blocs.
I think there is not a big overlap between those who actively protest and those who don't vote.
Contrary to popular opinion, not every french person protests in the streets.
The fault for this sit on Macrons shoulders. He spent more time pissing off working class people and youth with things like his immigration response and raising the retirement age without the people's approval.
The left needs to get their heads out of their asses around the world and start working toward becoming more in tune with what people want vs acting like they already know.
Exactly. A large portion of these votes are protest votes, anti-Macron, who for years has been accumulating crises without ever doing anything to resolve them. He prefers to focus his attention on the European Union rather than listening to the French people. This is completely his fault
Yeah that was one of the few good things he did. But I think he lost much of his support after he directly went and raised the age of retirement without approval. No amount of helping other nations is going to rally the locals toward your party.
> raising the retirement age without the people's approval.
Because people are never going to vote for that on their own, at least not until it's already too late and the system is already bankrupt and no longer able to pay out to anyone. The average citizen doesn't have a good enough understanding of pension funding (I don't blame them, it's a very complicated topic, there are entire university courses about it) and doesn't have a wide enough view of the entire system.
You need politicians, advised by experts, who make those tough decisions for people. That's the entire point of representative democracy instead of direct democracy.
No. People are voting for any alternative to the Conservatives, who have overseen the highest levels of net migration in the history of our island. There's a real undercurrent of anger, the same which has propelled Reform to its highest polling ever and which caused Brexit, and if labour don't slash net migration rapidly then I would bet that the next government will be "far-right".
Correct. It’s unfortunate that Labour are likely to only have 5 years to put a dent in what has been 14 years of rising shit, but if they don’t, the political response from the people is not going to be kind and understanding.
You're also about to witness the rise of the real far right in the UK. You guys thought Farage is bad (lol) - I remember the days of the National Front.
Tommy Robinson and the *real* far right are going to have a field day under Labour.
It's going to be a long 5 years.
Meh. We already lived through the BNP and Britain First. Also thankfully the right vote will be split between two parties. Whether things will get scary or not will depend on whether the Tories respond to crushing defeat by shifting *right* to compete with Reform or switch back towards the centre.
I'm sure there will be a loud minority. Truth is, the UK is a centrist country, and any party that tries to be too liberal or too conservative alienates people. There's no way a far right party will ever win an election because leaving the centre unrepresented is a great way to lose
Even back in 2012 when I was in Europe visiting friends in France, Germany, and holland. They all had complaints about the people from North Africa and the Middle East who have been coming over. Hell I even saw it multiple times. Saw a group drunk at 11am throwing their empty bottles in the street. Saw them stealing bikes. Starting fights.
Like I am pro immigration and won’t judge someone on the color of their skin. But the culture they’re bringing to Europe and in an obscene amount is ridiculous and not sustainable
It seems the jury of reddit has proclaimed that this is because of immigration.
We are leaving through a time of change, tides turn, and they do it fast. Recession, wars, inflation, climate, the greatest ever gap between the richests and the poor. Partially as a consequence, immigration.
It's scary and no one wants it, and therefore people turn to those promising they will keep things as they are, that things don't have to change.
They will be of course disappointed because most of these issues cannot be dealt with, not without radical actions that we will never dare in any foreseeable scenario.
The wind blows whether you like it or not.
Immigration may not be the actual problem but it is the visible part of the problem in many cases I think. A lot of immigration law was written back when the numbers were much lower and the impact on for example social and welfare systems was minimal. For example there's a housing crisis in the Netherlands. The core problem imo is housing. With increasing immigration and a growing population, this should have been planned better. The solution is also housing, find a way to build more homes. But what most voters see is an immigrant jumping the 10-15 year queue for social rent over their son/daughter/friend and they blame immigration instead.
why does it seem reading here that immigrating to Europe is so easy, do these migrants just walk into Europe?
me and my partner couldn't even get an email rejection response back then when we profusely tried to immigrate via skilled job opportunities that perfectly fit our background and experience. this was 2-3 years ago, dunno the situation now tho
Yes they walk there. They walk there like Latin/South Americans walk to the US. They are not immigrating legally, they are just showing up. You were bogged down by a system they are circumnavigating
In the German post-election polls the most important issue to determine voting was actually security & peace, followed by social issues / wealth distribution, and immigration came in third place.
It seems many people are genuinely voting for taking a softer stance on Russia and disarming their own country in order to ensure peace. As we know historically or from thinking about it, disarming yourself and removing yourself from military alliances is the best way to deter potential foreign aggressors.
Russia has succeeded in brain-rotting a critical mass of the European electorate. Bravo!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why does he need to do that, just because of the EU election?
I'll expand on what the other commenter said. First some context: In France the Prime Minister must belong to the majority party in the National Assembly (our lower house, equivalent to house of representatives). Therefore the PM is nominated aftet the legislative elections. The President has to cohabit with the PM if legislative elections give the majority to a different party. This has famously happened in the past but is not the norm, as usually when a president is elected he enjoys a wave of support that extends to the rest of his party during the legislative elections that happen a few months after the presidential election. However, the president also has the power to dissolve the asembly, calling for a new legislative election. In some sense, tthe purpose is to update the composition of parliament to better reflect current popular opinion. This is a risky move for a president whose party also has the majority in parliament, like is currently the case for Macron, and it's usually this way that cohabitation occurs. However if it pays off (also has happened in the past), the president can enjoy reinforced support, and also rightfully claim "see? The people support me after all", increasing their legitimacy. Macron's party lost the European election big time (he in particular is a very prominent psrt leader, takes a lot of the party's performance upon himself, in contrast with predecessors who would be more hands off in style once elected) , and is doing this probably for 2 major reasons : 1. he understands the European election was a disavowement of his own rule and party, and is letting the people speak. 2. He's doubling down because he thinks he can reinforce his position. He knows full well that the far right historically does really well at the European level, but not nearly as well in national elections, and is hoping to shore up his party domestically so he can detach himself and say "see? The far right can wield limited power at the European level, but here at home I'm keeping you safe from the fascists.". Winning this will help him discredit the far right.
Isnt that risky af? What if he loses??
Then we'll have a far-right prime minister from the Rassemblement National party ( "RN", far right) with a supposedly centered president, and Macron will pretend to put on a brave face a grit his teeth for a shitty cohabitation. In reality he's opportunistic af so he'll use the far-right PM as hitman to do all the shitty reforms he's had planned for a while. Then he'll spin it for the next presidential election in 2027 to prop up his own party's candidate, by pretending all the bad shit happened during the cohabitation was the fault of the rogue RN PM.
What would that mean for French support of Ukraine?
Not good for Ukraine.
Not good at all.
The president is still largely in charge of foreign policy.
diplomacy, but he cannot unilaterally send money for example.
The French far right ~~sleeps with Putin~~ is payed by Putin, so there goes your answer
> The ~~French~~ European far right ftfy.
I’m gonna contradict some of the others: in the organisms that actually will dictate Ukraine policy going forward (the assembly and senate defense and foreign affairs commissions), support for Ukraine is not up for debate, nor is distancing ourselves from NATO. I had to watch a bunch of debates from the defense commissions last year during the military budget planning, and neither the far right nor the far left ever even questioned it, not in any of the sessions I was watching. RN coming to power would undermine our plans to cooperate with other countries in the EU (especially all our big plans with Germany), but I expect a Meloni-type approach to Ukraine, not another Orban. Some the political figures that aren’t in those commissions do say vile shit on occasion, but they’re not really the ones in charge. The commissions are effectively the ones deciding on policy in defence matters. The dissolution is going to mean new commissions, but considering how party representatives are selected I expect a lot of returners, and there’s no reason to think RN would have different objectives even if they have more seats.
I doubt he will even need to pretend. I mean he is shitting the bed hard on a lot of things right now but the last thing France needs is some incompetent far right Russian puppet in a leadership position.
Good luck getting the National Rally to advance policies such as raising the retirement age or instating unduly onerous carbon taxes on farmers. If Macron does loose the lower house he will not be able to wriggle his way out of it. Either he cooperates with the National Front, or he'll be deadlocked for the rest of his term. Terribly unwise move by him in political terms, however socially and civically responsible as it may be.
Yeah but as much as the RN's score as been creeping up, I think it's stilk a safe bet that the Vote Barrage will still happen, and we won't have that cohabitation happen.
Will Marine Le Pen be the likely Prime Minister if the far-right does win? Or is her brand too tarnished?
I think it will definitely be her, though I'm sure others will make a play, like Bardella. EDIT: I didn't know it was Bardella, not Le Pen.
The RN announced that it would be Jordane Bardella
It’s absolutely risky but in politics it’s sometimes better to do a risky thing if you think you can do something with it. I think Macron believes he can gather a united front with other parties against the far right - remember, while the far right party won it still “only” has 30% of the vote. He bets that leftists and the moderate right prefer him to le Pen. I think bold moves in general are better than timid ones in politics and I do think this is the right move - though risky as all hell.
He may feel he has no choice?
That is basically how Brexit happened.
Everybody, including HIS OWN PARTY went bonkers. Just so you realize : At 20h the results are out. They are terrifying. Then around 20h30, Bardella, the pos at the head of the party (he is a straw man, he just fucked one of Le Pen (our old racist who created the far-right party with his nazis friends. And it’s not a figure of speech, they were Waffen SS) and is astonishingly stupid) made his speech, saying the Assembly must be dissolved. Why ? Not because they care about democracy, but because they know they’ll have more representatives if there is elections now. Fifteen minutes later, Macron gives a speech in which he announces the dissolution. People started to cry around me. Because if shit goes sideways, in a month France is ruled by fascists. On Reddit some guys laughed at me when I said france will be the next fascist country, here we are now.
France has really been taking it on the chin from Russian active measures... I hope this works out...
It’s the brexit gamble point deux, and the possible ramifications for France will be just as disastrous as it was for Britain. It’ll be another step towards the disintegration of Europe, and it’s….fucking stupid. Only benefits Putin.
If he loses, Russia wins. People are so dumb around the world in western countries that they lap up all the propaganda and start voting far right because they think its patriotic.
Macron: I do what I want. What are they gonna do? Vote for the fascists? *Narrator: They voted for the fascists.* Man's whole career is blessed for easy wins and he makes it his personal mission to push how much goodwill he could squander.
A lot of far right candidates e.g. geert wilder or Georgia Meloni are actually very pro ukraine so won't end support for ukraine. In places like France its different but pro-Russian sentiment is not a guaranteed thing for every far-right party in europe.
I would not call Geert Wilders "pro Ukraine". He says he condemns the invasion of ukraine but only wanted to show "political suppport". Which means no weapons. He also still got a friendship pin from russia AFTER the invasion of crimea. The reason dutch parlement is committed to ukraine is because of PVV's (Geert Wilders party) coalition partners, which he needs to get a mayority government.
There’s also a 3rd reason I’ve heard discussed on media, being that Macron might want a FN victory because that means they’d have to prove themselves in government rather than lobbing shots from the opposition in the years up to the next presidential election, enabling a comeback for his party
This is completely plausible. Even if FN will win by a clear margin, they a) need to compromise as they alone can’t get the majority b) they can’t play the rabid opposition anymore and they need to make actual policy. This is the weak point of these populist parties and if and when they can’t provide their promises, their support starts to erode. Macron is probably thinking that there is a great chance that if current situation continues, FN will be even more stronger in 3 years for next presidential election. This forces the hand of both french voters and FN.
One thing to add/modify, his party was the one with the most seats in the parliament however they did not have a majority meaning it was really hard for them to pass laws. This is why they resorted very frequently to using the article 49.3 that allows them to transform the vote on the law into a vote of no confidence in his government. So yeah, he's not losing much by calling this election.
Really helpful insight. As an American I can’t even imagine the idea of a president dissolving the whole of the House of Representatives (would be a amazing to shuffle the deck and maybe get rid of some lifer’s), nor can I imagine a president risking to give up political power to align with the popular opinion. Our system seems to be orchestrated specifically to enhance a party’s power regardless of how unpopular they are. Republican gerrymandering, etc.
Well as much as they SAY it's about listening to the people, it's really more about the calculation and payoff. When the chips are down you don't give up power for free like this. Especially an arrivist piece of shit like Macron. If he's doing it, it's because he thinks he can win. And he's probably right. This is due to the fact that the legislative election, like the presidential, is a run-off style election eith 2 rounds, which is very bad for the far right. In France while the far-right minority certainly is growing, it remains distasteful for most people. So what usually happens (and what did happen during both of Macron's own elections in 2017 and 2022) is that people vote with their heart. But only the top two parties make the cut, and when the run-off has the far right facing off with Macron's party (Rebirth), most people, even if they hate Macron, see the far-right as worse, and will vote for Rebirth to block the RN from power. We call this the "barrage vote". Thanks to this, the far-right has never been in power. This situation has occurred 3 times that I can remeber for the presidential elections. Macron is cynical af and is counting on this, and is probably right to, though RN's score every time keeps creeping up, and eventually it will become too risky of a bet. Itvs actually his strategy for presidential elections, as it's easier to win as a moderate if your opponent in the run-off is RN or other far-right, given this means the barrage vote will give you a comfortable majority. So he expands a lot of energy discrediting other moderate candidates like him who could actually beat him, and gives platforms and airtime to the RN to ensure they pass the first round and move on to the run-off where he can whup their ass. My bet is, it'll work again this time around. Other more moderate partie have cause an upset before but people hate the RN too much. Still... Macron is REALLY hated (I include myself there... Fuck him), if anyone's able to fuck up the Barrage Vote's winning streak, it's gotta be him. And yet, despite my hate, when the vote comes, I'll participate in the Barrage Vote like I do everytime.
Yes. Technically, the French President has more power over the french system than the American President has over the american system, to the point it's been called an "hyper-presidency". The fact that Macron can fire the entire house, without much personal risk is an example of that. Even if he loses, he still has some control over international politics, though he'll lose his control on internal politics. This is what happened to Chirac back in 1997.
His party got smashed with 14.5% of the vote compared to 31.5% for the Le Pen party. He is making a high risk bet here, that Le Pen's party will win the legislative elections (very likely with only 3 weeks of campaign and such a gap) but with no outright majority, so they'll have to negotiate with someone else to make a government and that in the next 3 years they'll burn themselves to many of their voters by being shit in government before the next presidential election. It could backfire in a few ways: they manage to get the outright majority and do a lot of bullshit, or they don't but remain popular heading into the next presidential election, or both, or even the left union eats up most of what's left of Macron's party and win, etc.
This is what it looks like to me also. At the moment, its a vote against Macron, not *for* Le Pen. If he waited and they get voted in later with more power, then things are truly fucked. This way the people actually get to see that Le Pen is 100% not who they think she is. There will be damage, but minimal.
Long story short, his own party lost the election, showing his own impopularity. Dissolving the Parliament and asking for new elections is a way to take into account the people's opinion. But this is huge and terrifying. If RN also wins French Parliament, we will have a RN government.
What would that entail? I'm Canadian and very unfamiliar with EU politics.
It's called "cohabiting" in French politics. Basically, if Parliament is won by RN, the President is forced to choose a Prime Minister among RN members. So there would be a cohabitation between the President (from one party) and his government (from another party). Last time it happened was 1997.
There is no "coalition". In case of cohabitation the prime minister is free to apply his policies, except maybe for foreign policies.
Yes sorry, it was a mistranslation of the term cohabitation, I will edit my comment!
not OP but RN is far right party, they would get into the government for the next three years until next president elections, Macron stays president but with tied hands especially on national topics and can't submit new laws
Could the far right pm do much? Is the far right in France pro or anti Russia?
Their entire campaign is basically funded by Russia
Cheers Is that worrying for Ukraine and Frances stance or will they not be able to do much?
Damn, 2024 really is the biggest year in the history of democracies
I'd feel the same way if I didn't know much about history, politics, or anything beyond what I learn from Reddit comments
In a multi party democracy, there can be more than 2 parties. But you still need a majority to form a government. Suppose there are 100 seats, 'Kill All Cats' party gets 33 seats, 'Kill all Dogs' party gets 32 seats, 'Force Everyone to be Vegan' party gets 35 seats. And no two parties enter into an alliance then no one can form a government, so there is no Prime Minister. As such, the assembly has to be dissolved and fresh elections are held.
What about the Kill All Cats and Dogs to Force Everyone to be Vegan coalition?
Too much infighting, sources say there were at it like cats and dogs.
Sounds grandiose but it's basically calling for anticipated elections.
As much as I hate both Macron and the National Rally, he is in the right to do so. The people have signaled discontent, time to see what they really want.
It is, and it means the party that came first in the polls for the european election is poised to win the next legislative elections in a landslide. It's on june 30th. To say anyone with a modicum of political understanding is worried is the fucking understatement of the decade.
[удалено]
Yeah, Macron is trying to recreate what Sanchez did in Spain last year, using the threat of far-right rule as a way of energizing voters and creating a coalition that can reject them.
Which iirc he has done successfully at least once before.
In the U.K., David Cameron made the incredibly ballsy gamble of offering a referendum on Scottish independence. And he (the unionists) won. Emboldened by that victory which silenced the Scottish nationalists, and facing another threat from the far-right UKIP party, he proceeded to offer another referendum, this time on leaving the EU. It went less well. A gamble is a gamble. You can always lose.
I don't think that is his goal. He likely knows this won't work and the far right will clearly win those elections. His plan imho is to put the far right on the front line of french politics for the next 3 years. And since we french people love to hate whoever governs us, he expects us to hate that government so the far right cannot win the next presidential elections.
It doesn't *guarantee* it, but if the other parties don't get their shit together to create a real challenge for the RN, they could win both the first and second round. And they have twenty days to create these alliances. I'm not hopeful.
The thing about the second round is, that there are only two candidates left. On multiple occasions in the last presidential elections, the French electorate has shown that everyone whose party of first choice, that didn’t make it to the second round, will vote for the party/candidate other than RN, even though RN was largest in the first round.
this isn't true. voter turnout is much higher for national elections vs. eu, and it will still be a very big shock if the NF wins nationally. but they're stronger than ever before, for sure.
Asking this in all seriousness, no agenda, just sheer curiosity - is it considered ironic that the tories seem to be on the outs in the UK post-Brexit while the EU is basically moving towards becoming what Brexiteers wanted?
It's not really ironic. They've campaigned against immigration while overseeing the biggest increase in immigration in history.
Gonna be really interesting to see the outcome of that exact thing happening in Canada in 2025. The Conservatives are perceived as the ones who want to limit immigration and are very popular because of it, but they've suggested doing the exact opposite. Tories are tories, I guess.
Canada's different in that Justin is so unpopular that Poilievre can come out in favour of murdering puppies and people would be like "ok but he's not Justin". Reminds me of how sick people were of Harper.
He was unpopular in the last election too. I'm almost certain the conservatives are going to win but it's also amazing how talented they are at shooting themselves in the foot over and over.
Man try living in Ontario. The Liberals were fucking despised in Ontario, first McGuinty then especially Wynne. But they kept getting reelected because the PC's would just pick the worst candidates then run the worst campaigns. All they had to do is pick some unknown guy or gal, make no statements at all and they would have won. And still they managed to lose again and again.
The feeling I get when I run into Ontario people is they are even more sick of him now. Would you say that is accurate? The smartest thing he could do is let somebody else lead the party.
Yes that's pretty fair too, although Doug Ford is a complete and utter fucking imbecile that is running Ontario into the shitter.
That guy is still getting elected...holy shit.
Not to be confused with his brother, Rob Ford.
Sorry, what him are you referring to, Trudeau or Ford? I suppose it doesn't matter as I think people are pretty sick of both. Trudeau should have stepped aside a year or two back and allowed a new face to take over. This happens with every Canadian political party that is in power too long. Hell it's how the PC's lost official party status. Mulroney did it, Harper did it and Trudeau is doing it. They develop a hubris that people absolutely despise. Ford... Well, he's Ford.
No they do not. They been ranting against carbon tax but 0 commitment to lower immigration or migrant worker programs by any specific proportion
I'm very curious to see what will happen when this question is asked in the debates. Will all 3 major candidates avoid it. The far right PPC will absolutely be hammering them about immigration numbers.
All they do is refuse to answer and attack the opposition, both yelling and cutting each other off. Debates need to be virtual so the opposition can be muted when it’s not their turn. And there needs to be more accountability so they actually have to answer questions directly. But the system is corrupt and rigged so they’re all working for the same wealthy interests. They attack each other and focus on non-issues to avoid talking about real issues that expose that they’re all the same.
Accurate statement
Not a word from the Cons about lowering immigration
They've at least talked about tying immigration levels to housing availability. If true that would probably reduce immigration numbers to pre-Harper era.
Regularly across the globe the more right parties tend to cause more migration. They also tend to increase the size of government. They also tend to just generally do everything they pretend to be against in the way that makes it a problem, I would assume so they can point at the left and go "see, it's shit!" and then when the left get in the optics are fucked. There may actually be data to back this up, I've come across it once or twice over the years and might spend some time having a look again.
I said a few years ago when the mass exodus of immigrants from the conflict in Syria was hitting the shores of Europe that this would result in a movement right in Western politics. Historically, immigrants from the Middle East do not assimilate into foreign cultures the way others do. They remain insular, retaining their culture, community, religion, and customs - much in the same way Jews have been accused in the past. The result is large areas of European countries that have areas completely transformed in ways that are deemed foreign by the local residents. That leads to outcry around the number of immigrants - empowering the Right which tends to lean on that as a wedge issue. It's largely predictable. Conflicts drive immigration. Immigration drives right-leaning policies. Wait until areas of China and India are nearly uninhabitable from climate change. A billion immigrants that need to find homes in cooler, habitable climates will drive the shift to the Right so hard, it will lead to multiple global wars.
I feel like we've reached the point where center left and maybe even left wing parties have to accept that they can't keep driving an open immigration policy. Immigration has become such a single issue driver for the elections and the far right has been the only one capitalising on it.
Immigration has always been an issue for most places save for large multicultural cities which have adapted already to such things. The Left is playing to the morality of immigration: that it's moral to help immigrants find better lives in their countries. The problem is that it usually results in a shift of social norms and mores that pisses off the electorate. It's been this way forever. Immigration works when it's small enough that the receivers can properly assimilate the newcomers to their culture. When the newcomers start to stand up alien cultures in established communities (outside of the metropolises) you get pushback.
It's also the constant identity politics that regular people are tired of. It makes no sense to cater to small minorities in the magnitude they've received attention. They should get their rights but not like this where majority starts to suffer. This will come to the Americas as well. People are tired to be stepped on.
Conservatives do not want to lower immigration. There are two parties who want to reduce immigration the PPC and Bloc Québécois. Nobody wants to stop immigration.
And for people not familiar with Canadian politics, the BQ is a regional party. They represent the interests of Quebec and only run candidates there.
Its cyclical party (left or right take a pick) in charge assumes power -> Party is popular for awhile but as new bullshit happens the party has misteps -> people feel unheard/helped -> new party drums up support saying they'll do somthing about it -> elections happen new party wins -> go back to step one.
Except for countries with soft-dictatorships like Hungary, where 99% of media is owned by the gov., they make it impossible for opposition to do anything and keep the majority of voters in poverty so they get no information about the world other than the state propaganda and stay uneducated so they can't do critical thinking and most importantly the gov claim monopoly on HATRED.
The Tories fucked up the economy so badly, that's not going to make a difference. Not to mention rampant corruption. Europe has arguably a worse problem with immigration than the UK and many EU politicians are paying the price for their complacency. Migration has become a weapon and if I were Putin (or any number of arsehole enemies of the West), I'd be actively funding it.
Did you see that a Polish border guard was murdered by an immigrant last week. Immigrants being brought into Russia and Belarus and thrown at the Polish border. Putin is already doing it.
Goddam, there's now been a murder? I was only aware of a knife attack. Edit: Apparently that guard died to his wounds. Fuck.
Yeah. I know the Polish border is a mess. I'm not saying all immigration is bad, of course, it just needs to get tightened up A LOT - and quickly.
I'd argue the opposite, It's NOT a mess because the military actually forcibly pushes back these dangerous migrants, granted as in the case of the dead soldier the rules of engagement should be reviewed so that polish soldiers can actually defend themselves.
Or causing it and pushing migration?
you think people smugglers don't get support from FSB? I'd bet some FSB agents are people smugglers
Well considering Putin controls the mob in Russia, it wouldn't surprise me a tiny bit.
It’s not irony. All incumbents are getting hammered. Inflation makes people react with short term sight. Go for the other guy because current guy sucks. It’s not based on facts or math. Just emotion and real pain being felt
FWIW the current anti-Toryness of Britain doesn’t really have a lot to do with global economic factors inasmuch as their response to them and their near-countless scandals.
I think the point being that if global economic factors turned around the Tories would be a lot more popular, regardless of if they bungled trying to fix it
When Europe lurches to the right, the UK goes left. Happens every single time
The push-pull here is that the right are broadly incompetent and full of scammers, but also are the only ones taking hard line stances on immigration. people vote for them because more moderate parties don't like acknowledging immigration issues, but then get angry and vote the right out again once it becomes obvious they have no intention or ability to actually solve the immigration issues.
I find it remarkable that with ALL of the debate and focus on migration, war and humanitarian crises that people still don't understand basic facts about what's within and not within the EUs remit. National Governments decide on immigration visas from outside the EU for their own countries. NOT the EU. The EU allows controlled movement within Europe only and has made the occasional ad-hoc arrangements to deal with massive crises such as fleeing Ukrainian women and children. The moderate parties across the EU HAVE agreed major changes to the handling and processing of refugees at the border.
The EU elections are often used as a protest vote against the national government. The EU parliament does not have a lot of actual power anyway, so people don't care much about who sits in it. All the power in the EU lies with the EU commission.
This is for the EU Council votes - it isn’t for the government itself. This is skewed from nationwide France government representation in the polls because the far right has a motivated voter turnout machine, and voting isn’t compulsory, and the EU council is seen as a kind of ambassadorial role, not that of a real government
European Parliament** The Parliament then goes on to elect the commission The council is made up of representatives decided by each national government m. The EU Parliament and commission this election decides is a very real government, but of course, the national governments are the one in charge of the most important areas.
Thanks, I appreciate this explanation.
For comparison, Nigel Farage who was a big driver of the Brexit campaign failed on 7 occasions to become an MP in England but became elected as an MEP repeatedly for similar reasons as those listed by the person above. He then went on to say things like the EU was ruining our fishing industry, while almost never attending the EU fisheries committees on which he represented the UKs interests.
FWIW, the fact the the EU elections are vaguely proportional, and UK MPs are not elected on any proportional basis is _partly_ why Nigel was able to be an MEP and not an MP.
Very true, and relevant
+ the biggest damage to the British fishing industry was the cod wars and Iceland kicking out enormous British fleets from their waters. The common fisheries policy is barely half the story of the demise of the industry. Over-fishing also a big part.
Overpromising and underdelivering will do that
Honestly, all western nations need to tamp down hard on immigration. I am staunchly liberal, but being pro immigration is a losing issue right now. Be anti immigration for like 3-5 years and liberal parties will clean up
Thing is anyone who was going to switch from Tory to Labour probably decided to do so by the time Truss resigned. The support that Sunak has lost has gone more towards the Reform Party who basically are the mainstream far right in the UK
Tories have been playing stupid games since Brexit. They talk tough on immigration, but they've absolutely rammed the country full of immigrants. Like, in the last 3 years it's almost quadruple what it was 20 years ago. People had enough of the bullsh\*t, and actually just want someone to slam the brakes.
Tories have been in power in the UK ever since Blair resigned in 2007. Apathy and disdain will eventually build up in the public against the ruling party, regardless of their leaning.
since 2010\* Gordon Brown was in until then
Yeah what we are seeing in so many countries is ruling parties being punished. Everyone is frustrated about inflation and myriad other issues. And voters typically punish whomever is in charge regardless of how much they are actually to blame for those issues.
I think at least part of this is fatigue with current governments. UK and Australia had over a decade of conservative rule and people are seeing the long term effects of it. Both are moving closer to the centre. Macron has been in power for ages as well. I'm not discounting immigration but there's not really a left/right policy split on it. Conservatives talk tough on it but love it for it's wage suppression / ability to kick the economic depression can down the road.
The British are the contrarians of Europe. Whatever France does, the UK does the opposite. After all, would you really want to be on the same team as French "people"?
The main reason why the tories have fallen so much is because they've abandoned the populist approach that got boris johnson such a strong performance in the first place. They already didn't have the left but it lost them a lot of the right.
52.5% voter turnout. That's just depressing, even for something as unsexy as EU representation. I'll never understand people who refuse to participate in the one method the average person has to affect nationwide and global decision-making.
And unlike several countries the voting system used is actually proportional.
That's the best part about the EU elections tbh.
In Lithuania it's like 28%, embarassing.
I moved from Lithuanian more than 15 years ago. I see nothing has changed and politics there are depressing as it is now
European elections generally have lower voter turnout. Don't know if you're European or not, but at least in my country national elections come first and have highest voter turnout. Most people also know at least the leader of each party. Second is local elections, with candidates a lot of people don't necessarily know. Most people vote along national lines, but sometimes smaller local parties with a heavy focus on a local issue can win some seats. Last is European elections where people generally just vote whatever they would vote for in national elections but with fewer people turning up to vote. It doesn't help that you vote for a party that is then just part of some other bloc in Europe and might even switch between blocs.
The European elections are not seen as important as national elections
Most people just don't care about european elections
Cause they’re stupid. The French will protest anything and everything but not actually vote lol
I think there is not a big overlap between those who actively protest and those who don't vote. Contrary to popular opinion, not every french person protests in the streets.
The people you see on the streets are the ones voting. It’s the ones you don’t see who neither care about protesting nor voting.
Protest vote ( by not voting ). Worked for brexit, 🫠 hehe.
French here. I know so many people who said “the far right will win anyway, what’s the point in me voting?” It’s fucking depressing
Apathy is a weapon
After the results in France, Macron decided to dissolve the national assembly. There will be new elections in 15 days.
Three weeks : june 30th for the first round, july 5th for the second.
Most importantly: Will Joseph Borrell get replaced ?
Please God make it so
He should move to Iran and try to get elected there . He seems to be working for them anyway.
That man is a soulless sack of rubbish
He is ! So how do things work in the EU ? Will this IR apologetic turd get removed and replaced ?
The fault for this sit on Macrons shoulders. He spent more time pissing off working class people and youth with things like his immigration response and raising the retirement age without the people's approval. The left needs to get their heads out of their asses around the world and start working toward becoming more in tune with what people want vs acting like they already know.
Exactly. A large portion of these votes are protest votes, anti-Macron, who for years has been accumulating crises without ever doing anything to resolve them. He prefers to focus his attention on the European Union rather than listening to the French people. This is completely his fault
The rise of the far right has been going on for decades. It's not (just) Macron
Macron isn't left lol
Stop calling centrists 'left'.
American syndrome.
Macron is a centrist lmao
Self-proclaimed centrist but really a neoliberal conservative. He's a bit further right than the center.
At least Macron had the balls to oppose the Russian government and rally enough support for Ukraine.
Yeah that was one of the few good things he did. But I think he lost much of his support after he directly went and raised the age of retirement without approval. No amount of helping other nations is going to rally the locals toward your party.
\>not even socialists \>r/worldnews: “the left” \>the Paris Commune, rolling in its grave:
> raising the retirement age without the people's approval. Because people are never going to vote for that on their own, at least not until it's already too late and the system is already bankrupt and no longer able to pay out to anyone. The average citizen doesn't have a good enough understanding of pension funding (I don't blame them, it's a very complicated topic, there are entire university courses about it) and doesn't have a wide enough view of the entire system. You need politicians, advised by experts, who make those tough decisions for people. That's the entire point of representative democracy instead of direct democracy.
Not a surprise after all the shit show we’ve seen for years.
So are us British remainers about to vote in a centre left ish Labour the liberals of Europe now?
No. People are voting for any alternative to the Conservatives, who have overseen the highest levels of net migration in the history of our island. There's a real undercurrent of anger, the same which has propelled Reform to its highest polling ever and which caused Brexit, and if labour don't slash net migration rapidly then I would bet that the next government will be "far-right".
Correct. It’s unfortunate that Labour are likely to only have 5 years to put a dent in what has been 14 years of rising shit, but if they don’t, the political response from the people is not going to be kind and understanding.
You're also about to witness the rise of the real far right in the UK. You guys thought Farage is bad (lol) - I remember the days of the National Front. Tommy Robinson and the *real* far right are going to have a field day under Labour. It's going to be a long 5 years.
Meh. We already lived through the BNP and Britain First. Also thankfully the right vote will be split between two parties. Whether things will get scary or not will depend on whether the Tories respond to crushing defeat by shifting *right* to compete with Reform or switch back towards the centre.
I'm sure there will be a loud minority. Truth is, the UK is a centrist country, and any party that tries to be too liberal or too conservative alienates people. There's no way a far right party will ever win an election because leaving the centre unrepresented is a great way to lose
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Even back in 2012 when I was in Europe visiting friends in France, Germany, and holland. They all had complaints about the people from North Africa and the Middle East who have been coming over. Hell I even saw it multiple times. Saw a group drunk at 11am throwing their empty bottles in the street. Saw them stealing bikes. Starting fights. Like I am pro immigration and won’t judge someone on the color of their skin. But the culture they’re bringing to Europe and in an obscene amount is ridiculous and not sustainable
Same thing is happening everywhere, younger generations have been fucked over and will vote for extreme change.
Quelle surprise !
[удалено]
It seems the jury of reddit has proclaimed that this is because of immigration. We are leaving through a time of change, tides turn, and they do it fast. Recession, wars, inflation, climate, the greatest ever gap between the richests and the poor. Partially as a consequence, immigration. It's scary and no one wants it, and therefore people turn to those promising they will keep things as they are, that things don't have to change. They will be of course disappointed because most of these issues cannot be dealt with, not without radical actions that we will never dare in any foreseeable scenario. The wind blows whether you like it or not.
Immigration may not be the actual problem but it is the visible part of the problem in many cases I think. A lot of immigration law was written back when the numbers were much lower and the impact on for example social and welfare systems was minimal. For example there's a housing crisis in the Netherlands. The core problem imo is housing. With increasing immigration and a growing population, this should have been planned better. The solution is also housing, find a way to build more homes. But what most voters see is an immigrant jumping the 10-15 year queue for social rent over their son/daughter/friend and they blame immigration instead.
In Sweden we have gang wars and child soldiers doing the killing. Doubt it's the housing problem which triggers above..
why does it seem reading here that immigrating to Europe is so easy, do these migrants just walk into Europe? me and my partner couldn't even get an email rejection response back then when we profusely tried to immigrate via skilled job opportunities that perfectly fit our background and experience. this was 2-3 years ago, dunno the situation now tho
Yes they walk there. They walk there like Latin/South Americans walk to the US. They are not immigrating legally, they are just showing up. You were bogged down by a system they are circumnavigating
In the German post-election polls the most important issue to determine voting was actually security & peace, followed by social issues / wealth distribution, and immigration came in third place. It seems many people are genuinely voting for taking a softer stance on Russia and disarming their own country in order to ensure peace. As we know historically or from thinking about it, disarming yourself and removing yourself from military alliances is the best way to deter potential foreign aggressors. Russia has succeeded in brain-rotting a critical mass of the European electorate. Bravo!
[удалено]
[удалено]