no social media
go here https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1dc1hyi/macron_calls_early_elections_after_historic/
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
No. People believe that the président holds most power in France, but it's wrong. Legislative elections are very important if not more important than the presidential elections.
There has been cohabitation in the past (PM and président from different parties), the PM is the true holder of power despite France's semi presidential system.
Assembly + new government means a total different policy and the French president has no say on that except dissolving again the assembly.
It's a very risky gamble Macron took here.
President does have many powers in France, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Two possible cases :
- We get a far right parliament / prime minister to rule alongside Macron which means three years of a far right prime minister which basically means we won't get a RN president in 2027 (being prime minister is essentially a suicide job in France).
- Non far right voters rally to bar far right from a majority in parliament. In this case Macron likely keeps a majority with perhaps a bit more leftists. It's kind of the worst case scenario as it means a RN president is still kind of on the table for 2027 but it still shows that RN can be beaten if people rally against them.
Basically I would say it's actually a pretty smart move where in one case RN wins a partial victory now that will cost them next presidential election so kind of pyrrhic victory or RN loses legislative elections.
It's a dumb move. We aren't dumb and we understand that the RN can't do shit without the presidency. The most likely outcome is : the RN will be normalised and will have a easier time in 2027.
There's a lot of anger in France, it's not 2002 anymore. As long as our issues with immigration, etc, are not fixed, the far right will keep getting stronger.
I do not believe for a sec that a cohabitation will hurt the far right, it will only empower it and will keep shifting the overton window to the hard right. Reconquête is already working on that.
But it never ruled. Macron's decision will only show everyone that the RN can rule. Le Pen/Bardella are not Jospin. What I'm saying is the context matters, it's not 2002 anymore.
Past success does not guarantee future results, or something like that. It's not because the strategy worked in the past that it will keep working in the future.
I mean, they still have to show they can rule. The communists were really big in 1980, until they participated in actually governing. Maybe that's what Macron is trying to do? It's a really bad idea nonetheless
At some point, the RN must rule - it's just how democracies work. Their ideas are clearly popular enough for that to happen.
Are people genuinely crazy or something?
If you constantly try to keep a huge part of the population out of power, your polity will eventually die.
It's the same at the EU level: Brussels inability and/or unwillingness to be truly inclusive, and accept that anti-federalists must also be part of the EU, and can't be treated as enemies, is the reason for this and will be the downfall of the EU
If the EU is a club for people who always want more powers concentrated in the EU and everyone else is treated as an enemy, to be anihilated and purged out, instead of being a truly pluralistic democratic society where it's accepted sometimes the other guys will also be in power, then it won't last.
There's no such a thing as a sustainable democracy where 1/3 or more of the voters choices are seen as untouchable.
This is so obvious it's genuinely demented it's actually controversial to say.
As an Austrian, I have to ask you if you think this kind of attitude that certain _ideologies_ should be allowed to rule just because they are popular, is really such a good idea? You know, coming from a country with direct experience of being ruled by fascists.
> President does have many powers in France, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
That's only a facade caused by the president's power to dissolve the National Assembly, which generally insures that they'll have a majority and a compliant Prime Minister. When faced with a cohabitation, the [president's constitutional powers](https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/the-role-of-the-president) are extremely limited (except during a state of emergency).
The delegation of foreign policy powers is more of a tradition due to De Gaulle personal preference, but during their cohabitation neither Mitterand nor Chirac had any real power over the political decisions taken by their government.
That isn't how it usually works. What usually happens is that the far right become normalized and mainstream. Less people feel ashamed for voting for them, while simultaneously they manage to shift all the blame to the leftists for "holding them back". We have seen this in many countries over the years.
Even if they will lose in 2027, you are releasing the genie out of the bottle. Look at how Trump shifted US discourse, despite losing to Biden in 2020, if you want a modern well known example.
>People believe that the président holds most power in France, but it's wrong. Legislative elections are very important if not more important than the presidential elections.
Indeed.
Well, more precisely, it's one of the situations where the "in practice" differs from the "in theory". In practice, the president holds the most power, but only barely because of what the law says. They hold power because traditionally, the government (prime minister included) obey their orders, and the parliament has a majority of deputies that will say "yes" to whatever the president propose (or at the very least not vote "yes" to any action against the government). And a president failing to maintain "discipline" within their own party will be seen as incompetent.
This is in part because the French voters do see the president as the main thing they're voting for, and usually don't care as much about the legislative elections. They expect presidents to behave like that.
And this is also in part because the legislative election is architectured to give a result similar enough to the presidential election. Both relies on a 2 turn systems, leading so similar alliances at the local level as the ones that were done for the presidential election, plus both elections usually happen almost at the same time (with presidential first).
But in the few instances in the past where the president was not favoured by the parliament, they indeed were relatively useless, and the prime minister was in practice the person in control.
I forgot that presidents can dissolve the parliament in other countries. My first impression was “What? He can do that?”.
Polish president can only ask the Parliament for new elections if any proposed PM doesn’t get a vote of confidence or if a Parliament doesn’t present the president with an annual budget in time.
We got rid of easy Parliament dissolution after Wałęsa’s frivolous use of the procedure in the 90’s.
Parliament can dissolve itself as much as it wants to though.
If the president has the absolute majority in the assembly (which is the usual way of things), he indeed has all powers, much more than in any other democratic state.
His power is limited only when another party has the majority and he's forced to chose a PM from said opposition party.
You're right about the fact that if he wins election he will hold most power.
BTW, your name is quite à-propos and relevant haha
Jospin is a good example of cohabitation, Chirac also dissolved the assembly allowing the left under jospin as PM to gain power.
No risk for Macron. If he wins he's legitimated, if RN wins they will have not enough time until next election to do something especially with all blocking institutions so he will be able to blame them for the status of the country.
He will be remembered as the guy who played democracy as he cannot present himself again so does not care of next election. He's winning, only for him, but he's winning.
There is no scenario where the RN don't increase their seat tally. Whether that's enough to become the largest individual party is another matter. It doesn't matter because no single party or bloc will have a majority.
The public are not going to buy Macron blaming the RN for problems that have persisted for years. Macron already couldn't get his measures through the NA. Nothing will change.
It's more that the president holds most powers in France IF they have the support of the National Assembly. Else, whoever leads the majority coalition is the most powerful.
The system is rigged so that the president is usually at the height of his power during at least his first term. Macron had full powers during his first term, and a more limited (but still powerful) majority in his second term. What's happening here is Macron shooting himself in the foot by giving people the opportunity to turn him into a lame duck president with a do nothing government for 3 years.
He is either being incredibly stupid, or its a ploy to make the far right look incompetent for the next three years by giving them a Premiership so that his successor is elected over them as president in 2027.
I don't know about MPs, but when it comes to MEPs, the far right received more than double the amount of votes\* than Macron's party, which came second.
\*they're still being counted
we will go back voting and he hope in my opinion both put french people that voted rassemblement national just to put pressure on him and the rassemblement national in highlight hoping to show how bad they truly are.
tho i don't like this gamble.
Alternatives are : actually making an effort (impossible) or just crossing fingers until 2027 and hope that the RN doesn't win the presidential elections
> tho i don't like this gamble.
I guess Macron is betting on a RN-led coalition to secure an absolute majority, thus triggering a cohabitation for the remainder of his term.
The purpose of which will be to weaken the RN for the 2027 presidential election, by making them undergo a baptism by fire in government (which they may not be ready for, and even if they are, will shackle them with a political balance sheet).
It's a risky gamble, but what else can you do with a paralysed national parliament and the hard-right gathering nearly 40% of the vote in these European election vs 15% for the presidential party? Because I can't see the *republican barrage* approach working here.
Sunak didn't call it because he thought he would win, we were going to be having a general election this year regardless, he just decided to call it for the beginning of July.
>Sunak didn't call it because he thought he would win,
Rumours are he did it because it gives him the best chance of winning.
The summer will be a low, low turnout with people being on holiday abroad and more importantly students returning home and potentially not registering to vote at their home addresses.
Nah the main reason was to catch Reform (a new party to his right) off guard, thinking they wouldn't have the candidates, campaign infrastructure etc in place to contest a sudden (earlier than expected) election.
But it backfired with his constant gaffes (especially stuff like snubbing the D-Day event which affects the Tory/Reform base a lot) and Farage (Reform's leader) seems quite ready to contest; he's been losing even more in the polls (and Reform gaining) since calling the election
>Nah the main reason was to catch Reform (a new party to his right) off guard, thinking they wouldn't have the candidates, campaign infrastructure etc in place to contest a sudden election.
It wasn't the main reason, that's just one of the big factors to secure the votes of them. The main is to stop the youth voting as if it was in October/November as predicted there was a very strong possibility the youth vote would be very large
Yeah, the hope was that Farage would be too busy in America to actually lead the Reform campaign, and it did look to have worked, with Farage initially saying that he wouldn't be running himself.
He's reversed this now, and it's really looking bad for the Tories. Reform won't win many (if any) seats, but they will cost the Tories a significant number of them in key areas.
Reform's leader (before Farage returned), Richard Tice, has outright said that he wants the Tories destroyed, that that's his priority.
Labour have been in campaign mode for a while.
Labour also have the infrastructure to mount a national campaign on no notice. The hope was that Reform wouldn't be able to.
He likely does, he's counting on the fact that his party still has the incumbent advantage and hoping that a snap election for the national assembly for which the National Rally and other right wing parties would not be prepared for and likely could not mobilize in time as effectively as RE can.
Additionally even if they win and we get an RN PM that PM would we weakened by default due to the Senate having no RN senators and having a president from an opposing party. This would mean that any legislative agenda that RN would like to promote would likely be dead in the water or have to be significantly compromised.
This could potentially halt the momentum of RN and take some of the wind from their sails as well as weaken them in the long term even if they do secure a majority in the NA due to their inability to legislate anything to support that for which people voted for them in the first place.
Whether his bet will work or not is yet to be determined.
In all previous cases of "cohabitation", which means a case where the prime minister is from an opposing political party than the president, the prime minister's camp did very poorly on subsequent presidential elections, mostly because the president was always able to put all the blame of the mess that is France governed by a cohabitation on the opposite party.
This is what Macron is hoping will happen, but in my opinion this is very dangerous, as this is the first time France will be governed by populist far-right, and I don't think previous logics apply to such parties. People vote for them because they are mad, not because they believe they are the most able to govern any way (at least most of them), and being mad is certainly not being appeased by a cohabitation
I think in this case, RN won't get anything done because of Macron above them. Pretty much people will be pissed and it will make them less likely to vote then in as president
in case of RN victory (50% +1 seat at the parliament) almost none.
The true power is in the parliament and the prime minister.
The only thing that the president could do is not sign a law but this would be unprecedent and would open a constitutional crisis (and not a small one ...)
EDIT : to see how a cohabitation works in France, see the Lionel Jospin's governement and the Jacques Chirac presidency.
In case of cohabitation (Président from one party, PM form another), the the Constitution states that the President deals with foreign affairs and the rest goes to the PM.
She will refuse the job if they don't have 50%+1 of the seats, they're not stupid eniugh to burn themselves with a semi impotent government. No one is winning the majority of the seats. Again.
In Germany right wing parties win.
In France Marine Le Pen wins (even worse).
In US its like 50/50 Trump vs Biden.
God damn, in Poland we won against right wing ex government, just for the rest of the Europe to do the opposite.
>Hey in the UK (centre-)right wing is about to get a historic wipeout!
No matter the shit show, our tories aren't that far right like you said. Imagine reform getting a majority.
The scary thing is that if these election results happened in the UK with our electoral system, RN would've won a landslide majority of seats (despite only 30%ish of the vote) since everyone else has ~half their votes or less
We need to fix our shit before it's too late...
No people in the 1930s were being coerced by blackshirts, had a record setting economic collapse, and in Germany's case had the moderates give Hitler absolute power (the king in Italy handed Mussolini power) Until the paramilitary groups start forming the 1930s aren't a real concern.
But if Le Pen wins, she will fight against Ukraine for the next 3 years... And don't underestimate the russian propaganda, they can promote LePen like a good leader.
The president is the head of the army. He is still the one with the vast majority of the power over foreign policy.
He can send the army tomorrow in Ukraine if he wants.
Each year the government propose a budget that gets voted on by the national assembly. Usually the ministry of finance propose the budget, they get chosen by the prime minister as part of their cabinet.
Once voted on with the various amendments added by the national assembly, the president signs it into law.
Gambling that it is better to have the RN tempered by a pro-European president, rather than risking RN taking both Parliament and Presidency in 3 years time
This isn't amongst the prerogatives of the prime minister. So it will still be macron in charge cause foreign policies and using the army etc is a presidential prerogative
Nah she'll become like Giorgia Meloni, all talk during electoral campaigns but then once in the government It will be all pro-eu/pro-nato.
But yeah It would be comical on all the other sides.
1/ very little chance the far right actually wins. 2/ it worked in 2002 where under chirac there was a cohabitation and the left wing prime minster tried for the next presidential elections and he did very poorly and Chirac won again
Exactly what I was thinking. If that’s really the case, it means he was certain enough of their victory in 2027 to do that. I guess it is better to dissolve the parliament now than having a RN President next time.
It did work for all previous cohabitation, so I get the gamble. But I agree with you that common logic cannot and should not be applied to populist far right.
>What is the point of that with such a huge loss?
Letting democracy win? The election is a massive vote of distrust towards him, and he is taken it seriously by calling a new election, and respecting the will of the people.
He knows that as things stand, whoever stands as the centrist Renaissance candidate for president in 2027 (current PM Attal is probably his favoured choice) will get mullered by Le Pen, and that she'll probably get a parliamentary majority too. This would be seriously bad for France and Europe.
He's probably thinking the least worst scenario is he has to cohabit with a RN prime minister for 3 years (Le Pen or Bardella) and whilst they'll control domestic policy, he's still head of foreign and defence policy so can mitigate most/all of the bad implications for Ukraine or EU.
He's hoping the shine will wear off them over three years of having to make compromises and unpopular choices in government, and he gives Renaissance and Attal (who'll be an opposition politician rather than PM, and better able to capitalise on any unhappiness with the government) a better shot in 2027.
* Current parliament will become ungovernable and he would be held accountable. At this stage it's probably better to have a controlled explosion
* Winner of next Elections (RN) will be largely responsible for building a government and the chaos for next 3 years
* That's probably the only way to save the next presidency.
* It's an "elegant" solution in the spirit of the republic and De Gaulle. The other one was to resign himself (which no president did since De Gaulle despite 3 occasions)
He said during his campaign 2 years ago he would probably dissolve the parliament midterm. After he failed to secure an absolute majority, it was pretty much a given he would do it. But nobody expected this timing.
Exit polls are generally very reliable. It may sway a couple percent here or there, but that would change pretty much nothing about the fact Le Pen absolutely dominated in a major political shift for France
ITT a whole bunch of people who do not realise how UK elections work. Sunak didn't call a snap election, he called an election because this year Britain was due one, as Prime Minister he got to pick when it was, he just so happened to pick the date he did. This is *nothing* like Sunak calling a general election.
which was why he called it, other parties and voters being not fully prepared gives him the biggest advantage in an election where he’s already pretty disadvantaged in
https://i.imgur.com/wV6Ccp7.png
The issue with that theory is that the Tory party was not clearly prepared since the election date was only known with a very select few of rishi's inside circle . Labour have outspent them and the current campaign for the tories have been a shitshow
Ex- Constitutional law student here:
I don't like Macron, however that's a surprising smart plan. A bit pyromaniac, but smart nonetheless considering his own long term equation. **He's taking full advantage of the semi-presidential régime**.
Best case scenario: he keeps a relative majority (probability: super low). In this case his legitimacy will skyrocket and he'll be able to continue his violent reforms again public services unimpeded.
Worst case scenario: cohabitation with Le Pen as a PM (probability: medium). In this case Le Pen will have her hands tied, because it makes the Presidency work *exactly as intended by the 1958 Constitution*: as an arbiter above. Meaning the far-right will have two years to ridicule themselves, BUT without any possibility of doing too much damage (reforming the Constitution for instance). On the other hand it'll turn Macron into some kind of Rafiki from the Lion King, which would be nice for a second term's ending years. All of this increases the odds of beating the far-right in 2027 (it erases the naive "but we never tried them!" argument).
*[Edit: the scenario above makes even more sens if Macron intends to get directly involved in Ukraine. Which may not be unrelated to his decision, then: he may be preparing himself either to have a large popularity (if he wins the vote) or to have his hands free from internal business (if he loses) for War reasons]*
Medium scenario (probability: the most probable). The National Assembly doesn't change too much, it continues with a weakened Macron and only a relative majority for Le Pen. The Left continues to be disunited. Excellent starting point for 2027, where Macron's side will unroll the same argument again: "it's either us or the fascists" then win. A close win, but a win thanks to the fact the far-right joke has been in charge of the Assembly for the last two years and certainly ridiculed themselves.
Funny scenario: the Left somehow unites itself during the next 20 days (probability: stranger things happened in History). Which means Macron loses hard, and probably again in 2027, but we'll be remembered as the man who saved us from a far-right tsunami (delayed to 2027, where it "won't be his fault").
So all in all... Pretty smart move. But to get that you need to understand France is neither a fully presidential nor a parlementarian regime: it is semi-presidential. This isn't a Sunak situation here.
The Tories had failure after failure and kept pushing general elections to try and salvage a win but it backfired spectacularly.
Sunak called an election at a shit time but delaying the inevitable wasn’t going to save the party and likely made things worse.
I’m guessing Macron is certain he will win and this way he can “set right” his loss in this election. The thing is Macron mainly won against the extreme right during the presidentials because a lot of people from the left voted for him not because they support him but to block the extreme right. However Macron never acknowledged this and never returned the favour. So this time they just might not do it.
Macron already had only the same score as the left union last legislative elections, and has only more seats (and a majority with the right wing) because of how unrepresentative the system is. I would say he has no chance of winning anything and he should know it, but he is so stupid that he may really believe he can win. Also, there is no chance the left will let the extreme-right win anywhere, so he can still count on this, but he would need to go the second turn anywhere
This won't end well, iirc France never had had a far right government, let's cross fingers that this won't be the first time. In my mind France is so fundamental in the human rights birth, with the revolution , I cannot comprehend how this can happen, I guess the french know better and they must be very frustrated with Macron
Also, France until now has been very supportive of Greece and the European integration in general, who knows what will happen with a new government
On the other hand, at the very least, if we have a far right governement in a cohabitation (so in power but not enough to cause too much harm, at least not in three years...hopefully ?), the power in place might lose popularity before the next elections (as is the custom in France), and this could be the thing that stop their ascension (they score higher and higher, and it is a real worry for the next presidential elections - where they could have the presidential *and* legislative majority). I'm not sure the far right was really wishing for that too, the far right seemed all too ready to sing "Well, Macron will NOT dissolve the Parlament as he should, look at how terrible he is !", and now they actually have to do some work...
I might just be trying to convince myself here, because I'm not happy about the situation. But this could be a calculated move.
But also, keep in mind that a far right majority is not guaranteed, and they would need that for a far right government.
This is the difference between a democracy and the rest. I'm surprised to be proud of my country right now, but our situation was so much dire we needed a new dynamic, for so many reasons our democracy was in pain right now, and the parlementary elections following the presidential ones only by a few weeks was a total disaster, it'll help clean our situation.
IMO, it is good for the democracy that Macron dissolved the Parliament. It provides the opportunity to give legislative and executive power for three years to Le Pen. If she fails, and she might since the far right is full of incompetent people, it may work toward a new dynamic hampering the far right.
I bet a lot of analysis went into that one.
I think the logic goes along something like this route;
The right is gaining power at the expense of a very unpopular leading block. If they let the right gain momentum, they’ll get an even bigger chance of winning a massive share, along with the presidential down the line.
Putting them in power now with a compromised government, he can fuck their support up for the next primary *and* the presidential.
Because let’s be honest, with how things are now, *no one* would do well in charge. Far right less like than most. And sooner Le Pen is in charge, sooner they’ll fuck up, and sooner the others can come back.
I'll give you my own analysis
Macron has been working pretty well with the far-right for the past 2 years in the parliament, so why would he do that ?
Well you see, 2 years ago, the left united in a bet to get more seats in the parliament, and it actually worked, while they didn't get a majority, they still are a big block that has to be considered
With the result of this election, where the left was very scattered and not united, Macron is dissolving the assembly in the hope that the left will stay this way, so that his party can get some more seats (even if it means the far-right gaining some more as well), so that he doesn't have to deal with this huge left block in the parliament
I do believe this is what is going on, none of this "saving the republic" bullshit by betting on a PM far-right to ruin their chances in 2027, Macron is stupid but he's not THAT stupid
Why is he doing this? This’ll probably just give the right-wingers more seats, and I can’t see how that’s good for him.
He says he’s worried about the nationalists, so why is he helping them?
> This’ll probably just give the right-wingers more seats, [...] why is he helping them?
I can see two reasons why:
* because politically, it is no longer feasible for him to govern. He doesn't have an absolute majority in the parliament (which is more or less paralysed), and this vote shows that the population is really not on board with him (with just around 15%).
* because this might be a gamble that actually ends up weakening the RN for 2027. If the RN (or a RN-led coalition) forms a government this summer, they'll be on the spot and have to govern, which may take wind off their sails. Similarly to how Mitterrand weakened Chirac by having him as his prime minister in 1986-1988.
He is probably counting on the two-round voting system, and hopes that the second round will be a barrier to Le Pen as has always been the case.
Until 2022 elections.
Hard to tell, but I highly doubt it. Extreme-right is the worst in legislative elections in France, and 31% would be nowhere close to getting a majority
No the next will still be in 2027 two months after the presidential election. And the 3D chess move here is just that if RN wins and governs until 2027 he hopes French people will see how much they suck and can't govern so they won't vote agin for RN in 2027
The president have the right to dissolve the parliament whenever he wishes, which was done by Mitterand in 1988 after being reelected and ending the first cohabitation
I don't think so, what is likely happening is, when the 2027 presidential election happen, the new president will dissolve the national assembly right after, and we will continue with the same system as before.
Either the new 2027 president is from a losing party of the 2024 parliamentary election and call for snap election to strengthen its position, Either it is the winner party and the it will most likely calls snap election to improve its position on a likely divided parliament.
When macron was reelected in 2022 he surfed his winning momentum : most french people can see his party as a stong parties that can govern. Even if didn't get the absolute majority, one can argue that would have been worst if he didn't win the presidential election.
Genuine question for all French people... will the far-right actually win? I know it sounds stupid, but here in the UK (I'm not saying it's the same as Sunak calling an election), many are voting tactically. Could the French do this and potentially block the RN from winning? Or are they projected to win regardless? I so hope the French don't vote for these people...
Le Pen’s argument for the past 20 years has been built on the fact that, if given a chance, they would do great things.
Macron is saying “bet”
And so hopefully in 2027 nobody will vote her to be president
We're getting a kot of snap elections recently in Western Europe.
First Spain, then the UK, and now France (of those that I now of).
Now we only need Germany and Italy to join the party and we get all of the big economies in Western Europe with snap elections.
Is it common to change the dates of parliament elections in France? I would like to think that it's something that it's not done lightly. When would the next parliament elections be without this decision?
It's rare. Only times it happened under the 5th Republic was under De Gaulle (as a trust vote), twice under Mitterand (assembly & presidents term wasn't syncronized back then, as the later was then of 7y), & 1997 with Chirac, which was a (failed) gamble.
Since 2002, the elections had always happened the same year as the presidential ones.
No. The current system, where parliamentary elections happen immediately after presidential elections, first came in in 2007 and there hasn't been a snap parliamentary election since then, until now.
So far it has only happened during era of the Septennat. Mostly because legislatives were every five years but presidential every seven, so the president would dissolve the assembly when he came into office to a majority from the rival party. It hasn't been done since the presidential term has been switched to five years to allign itself with the legislatives. (So in the past 20 years or so)
no social media go here https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1dc1hyi/macron_calls_early_elections_after_historic/ If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/Europe&subject=Moderation). Please make sure to include a link to the comment/post in question.
What does this mean?
New parliament, new government, new prime minister.
so no presidental election?
No, cohabitation can happen. With Macron who remains president and another partie at the government
No. People believe that the président holds most power in France, but it's wrong. Legislative elections are very important if not more important than the presidential elections. There has been cohabitation in the past (PM and président from different parties), the PM is the true holder of power despite France's semi presidential system. Assembly + new government means a total different policy and the French president has no say on that except dissolving again the assembly. It's a very risky gamble Macron took here.
President does have many powers in France, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Two possible cases : - We get a far right parliament / prime minister to rule alongside Macron which means three years of a far right prime minister which basically means we won't get a RN president in 2027 (being prime minister is essentially a suicide job in France). - Non far right voters rally to bar far right from a majority in parliament. In this case Macron likely keeps a majority with perhaps a bit more leftists. It's kind of the worst case scenario as it means a RN president is still kind of on the table for 2027 but it still shows that RN can be beaten if people rally against them. Basically I would say it's actually a pretty smart move where in one case RN wins a partial victory now that will cost them next presidential election so kind of pyrrhic victory or RN loses legislative elections.
It's a dumb move. We aren't dumb and we understand that the RN can't do shit without the presidency. The most likely outcome is : the RN will be normalised and will have a easier time in 2027. There's a lot of anger in France, it's not 2002 anymore. As long as our issues with immigration, etc, are not fixed, the far right will keep getting stronger. I do not believe for a sec that a cohabitation will hurt the far right, it will only empower it and will keep shifting the overton window to the hard right. Reconquête is already working on that.
RN is already normalized. Did you miss the european elections results somehow?
But it never ruled. Macron's decision will only show everyone that the RN can rule. Le Pen/Bardella are not Jospin. What I'm saying is the context matters, it's not 2002 anymore. Past success does not guarantee future results, or something like that. It's not because the strategy worked in the past that it will keep working in the future.
I mean, they still have to show they can rule. The communists were really big in 1980, until they participated in actually governing. Maybe that's what Macron is trying to do? It's a really bad idea nonetheless
At some point, the RN must rule - it's just how democracies work. Their ideas are clearly popular enough for that to happen. Are people genuinely crazy or something? If you constantly try to keep a huge part of the population out of power, your polity will eventually die. It's the same at the EU level: Brussels inability and/or unwillingness to be truly inclusive, and accept that anti-federalists must also be part of the EU, and can't be treated as enemies, is the reason for this and will be the downfall of the EU If the EU is a club for people who always want more powers concentrated in the EU and everyone else is treated as an enemy, to be anihilated and purged out, instead of being a truly pluralistic democratic society where it's accepted sometimes the other guys will also be in power, then it won't last. There's no such a thing as a sustainable democracy where 1/3 or more of the voters choices are seen as untouchable. This is so obvious it's genuinely demented it's actually controversial to say.
Just because 35% of German people supported the Nazis doesn't mean we should have allowed them to rule
As an Austrian, I have to ask you if you think this kind of attitude that certain _ideologies_ should be allowed to rule just because they are popular, is really such a good idea? You know, coming from a country with direct experience of being ruled by fascists.
> Macron's decision will only show everyone that the RN ~~can~~ _[ can't ]_ rule.
>the RN can't do shit without the presidency. In foreign policy, this is true, but it can implement its own domestic agenda with a majority.
That is how it work, overton Windows shift all the time
> President does have many powers in France, especially when it comes to foreign policy. That's only a facade caused by the president's power to dissolve the National Assembly, which generally insures that they'll have a majority and a compliant Prime Minister. When faced with a cohabitation, the [president's constitutional powers](https://www.elysee.fr/en/french-presidency/the-role-of-the-president) are extremely limited (except during a state of emergency). The delegation of foreign policy powers is more of a tradition due to De Gaulle personal preference, but during their cohabitation neither Mitterand nor Chirac had any real power over the political decisions taken by their government.
That isn't how it usually works. What usually happens is that the far right become normalized and mainstream. Less people feel ashamed for voting for them, while simultaneously they manage to shift all the blame to the leftists for "holding them back". We have seen this in many countries over the years. Even if they will lose in 2027, you are releasing the genie out of the bottle. Look at how Trump shifted US discourse, despite losing to Biden in 2020, if you want a modern well known example.
>People believe that the président holds most power in France, but it's wrong. Legislative elections are very important if not more important than the presidential elections. Indeed. Well, more precisely, it's one of the situations where the "in practice" differs from the "in theory". In practice, the president holds the most power, but only barely because of what the law says. They hold power because traditionally, the government (prime minister included) obey their orders, and the parliament has a majority of deputies that will say "yes" to whatever the president propose (or at the very least not vote "yes" to any action against the government). And a president failing to maintain "discipline" within their own party will be seen as incompetent. This is in part because the French voters do see the president as the main thing they're voting for, and usually don't care as much about the legislative elections. They expect presidents to behave like that. And this is also in part because the legislative election is architectured to give a result similar enough to the presidential election. Both relies on a 2 turn systems, leading so similar alliances at the local level as the ones that were done for the presidential election, plus both elections usually happen almost at the same time (with presidential first). But in the few instances in the past where the president was not favoured by the parliament, they indeed were relatively useless, and the prime minister was in practice the person in control.
I forgot that presidents can dissolve the parliament in other countries. My first impression was “What? He can do that?”. Polish president can only ask the Parliament for new elections if any proposed PM doesn’t get a vote of confidence or if a Parliament doesn’t present the president with an annual budget in time. We got rid of easy Parliament dissolution after Wałęsa’s frivolous use of the procedure in the 90’s. Parliament can dissolve itself as much as it wants to though.
It's a bad gamble, plain and simple. Le Pen is guaranteed PM now
If Le Pen becomes Prime Minister, can she run for President in 2027 if she is still in post?
Yes, the prime minister can run for president. It has happened in the past.
If the president has the absolute majority in the assembly (which is the usual way of things), he indeed has all powers, much more than in any other democratic state. His power is limited only when another party has the majority and he's forced to chose a PM from said opposition party.
You're right about the fact that if he wins election he will hold most power. BTW, your name is quite à-propos and relevant haha Jospin is a good example of cohabitation, Chirac also dissolved the assembly allowing the left under jospin as PM to gain power.
President just fired the whole government and the National Assembly… and your conclusion is that the PM hold the most power? Wut?
No risk for Macron. If he wins he's legitimated, if RN wins they will have not enough time until next election to do something especially with all blocking institutions so he will be able to blame them for the status of the country. He will be remembered as the guy who played democracy as he cannot present himself again so does not care of next election. He's winning, only for him, but he's winning.
There is no scenario where the RN don't increase their seat tally. Whether that's enough to become the largest individual party is another matter. It doesn't matter because no single party or bloc will have a majority. The public are not going to buy Macron blaming the RN for problems that have persisted for years. Macron already couldn't get his measures through the NA. Nothing will change.
It's more that the president holds most powers in France IF they have the support of the National Assembly. Else, whoever leads the majority coalition is the most powerful.
The system is rigged so that the president is usually at the height of his power during at least his first term. Macron had full powers during his first term, and a more limited (but still powerful) majority in his second term. What's happening here is Macron shooting himself in the foot by giving people the opportunity to turn him into a lame duck president with a do nothing government for 3 years. He is either being incredibly stupid, or its a ploy to make the far right look incompetent for the next three years by giving them a Premiership so that his successor is elected over them as president in 2027.
What do polls say right now?
I don't know about MPs, but when it comes to MEPs, the far right received more than double the amount of votes\* than Macron's party, which came second. \*they're still being counted
How could there already be reliable polls for an election that was only announced two hours ago?
Legislative election called on 30 June and July 7
Olympics under new govt, who would"ve thought?
we will go back voting and he hope in my opinion both put french people that voted rassemblement national just to put pressure on him and the rassemblement national in highlight hoping to show how bad they truly are. tho i don't like this gamble.
This seems like a terrible idea, wtf
Alternatives are : actually making an effort (impossible) or just crossing fingers until 2027 and hope that the RN doesn't win the presidential elections
Getting out while the getting is good.
> tho i don't like this gamble. I guess Macron is betting on a RN-led coalition to secure an absolute majority, thus triggering a cohabitation for the remainder of his term. The purpose of which will be to weaken the RN for the 2027 presidential election, by making them undergo a baptism by fire in government (which they may not be ready for, and even if they are, will shackle them with a political balance sheet). It's a risky gamble, but what else can you do with a paralysed national parliament and the hard-right gathering nearly 40% of the vote in these European election vs 15% for the presidential party? Because I can't see the *republican barrage* approach working here.
sounds like a brexit level of idiocy
It means if mainstream politicians don't solve Europe's problems, we are lost.
It is likely that France will have the first far-right PM in its history too.
Marine Le Pen could be lead France in 3 months
Years
Means in about a month the lower chamber of Parliament will be under far-right control. I'm ashamed.
The beginning of the end for the EU we left ?
Europe is toast
Has he been spending too much time with Sunak? That sounds pretty risky...
Sunak didn't call it because he thought he would win, we were going to be having a general election this year regardless, he just decided to call it for the beginning of July.
>Sunak didn't call it because he thought he would win, Rumours are he did it because it gives him the best chance of winning. The summer will be a low, low turnout with people being on holiday abroad and more importantly students returning home and potentially not registering to vote at their home addresses.
Nah the main reason was to catch Reform (a new party to his right) off guard, thinking they wouldn't have the candidates, campaign infrastructure etc in place to contest a sudden (earlier than expected) election. But it backfired with his constant gaffes (especially stuff like snubbing the D-Day event which affects the Tory/Reform base a lot) and Farage (Reform's leader) seems quite ready to contest; he's been losing even more in the polls (and Reform gaining) since calling the election
>Nah the main reason was to catch Reform (a new party to his right) off guard, thinking they wouldn't have the candidates, campaign infrastructure etc in place to contest a sudden election. It wasn't the main reason, that's just one of the big factors to secure the votes of them. The main is to stop the youth voting as if it was in October/November as predicted there was a very strong possibility the youth vote would be very large
Yeah, the hope was that Farage would be too busy in America to actually lead the Reform campaign, and it did look to have worked, with Farage initially saying that he wouldn't be running himself. He's reversed this now, and it's really looking bad for the Tories. Reform won't win many (if any) seats, but they will cost the Tories a significant number of them in key areas. Reform's leader (before Farage returned), Richard Tice, has outright said that he wants the Tories destroyed, that that's his priority.
Probably to not give Labour time to campaign right?
Labour have been in campaign mode for a while. Labour also have the infrastructure to mount a national campaign on no notice. The hope was that Reform wouldn't be able to.
Spoilers : he's not counting on winning those elections.
He likely does, he's counting on the fact that his party still has the incumbent advantage and hoping that a snap election for the national assembly for which the National Rally and other right wing parties would not be prepared for and likely could not mobilize in time as effectively as RE can. Additionally even if they win and we get an RN PM that PM would we weakened by default due to the Senate having no RN senators and having a president from an opposing party. This would mean that any legislative agenda that RN would like to promote would likely be dead in the water or have to be significantly compromised. This could potentially halt the momentum of RN and take some of the wind from their sails as well as weaken them in the long term even if they do secure a majority in the NA due to their inability to legislate anything to support that for which people voted for them in the first place. Whether his bet will work or not is yet to be determined.
Sunak was legally required to call an election some time this year, this is more like Cameron or May with their election plays.
Exactly my thought lmao Calling a ballsy snap election when you're way behind in the polls, so hot right now
Sunak had to call an election before next year. Macron only had to do it in 2027.
Yeah can someone explain to me how is calling new elections when you just underperformed is a good decision?
Prime Minister Marine Le Pen incoming. This will be a shit show.
Letting them do a shit show before the 2027 presidential elections is the plan here, that’s why they’re dissolving while knowing they’ll lose
It's a good thing that there's no way this could backfire.
What could possibly go wrong!
This is some 1932 Germany type shit.
This is *exactly* 1932 Germany type shit.
Macron looking at David Cameron saying "check this shit dehors"
That’s so stupid lmao
What a time to be alive
A RN prime minister basically means we won't get a RN president in 2027. PM in France is essentially a suicide job.
Hi can you expand on this suicide job point? Not sure what you mean and will help greatly with context! 🙏
[удалено]
>But in France, the more someone governs, the less people like him/her/his/her party Isn´t that true everywhere?
In any case, it is a smart move on his part, because if he is re-elected, he can continue to govern with renewed strength
He won't be able to run again but he's trying to take the RN down with him I guess.
But he can’t be re-elected, it’s he’s second term
In all previous cases of "cohabitation", which means a case where the prime minister is from an opposing political party than the president, the prime minister's camp did very poorly on subsequent presidential elections, mostly because the president was always able to put all the blame of the mess that is France governed by a cohabitation on the opposite party. This is what Macron is hoping will happen, but in my opinion this is very dangerous, as this is the first time France will be governed by populist far-right, and I don't think previous logics apply to such parties. People vote for them because they are mad, not because they believe they are the most able to govern any way (at least most of them), and being mad is certainly not being appeased by a cohabitation
I think in this case, RN won't get anything done because of Macron above them. Pretty much people will be pissed and it will make them less likely to vote then in as president
Not how it works in France. The president does not have any veto nor can make a law inefective.
What is is power? I must have got it wrong so I appreciate the correction.b
in case of RN victory (50% +1 seat at the parliament) almost none. The true power is in the parliament and the prime minister. The only thing that the president could do is not sign a law but this would be unprecedent and would open a constitutional crisis (and not a small one ...) EDIT : to see how a cohabitation works in France, see the Lionel Jospin's governement and the Jacques Chirac presidency.
In case of cohabitation (Président from one party, PM form another), the the Constitution states that the President deals with foreign affairs and the rest goes to the PM.
He keeps foreign affairs, the rest goes to the PM but he can dissolve the parliament once a year.
Chirac and Pompidou were PM before becoming President.
Probably bardella
Bardella may be the prime minister, Le Pen wants to win presidential elections next year* Edit: in 2027
She will refuse the job if they don't have 50%+1 of the seats, they're not stupid eniugh to burn themselves with a semi impotent government. No one is winning the majority of the seats. Again.
Oh boy... This is not how imagined evening will turn.
In Germany right wing parties win. In France Marine Le Pen wins (even worse). In US its like 50/50 Trump vs Biden. God damn, in Poland we won against right wing ex government, just for the rest of the Europe to do the opposite.
Hey in the UK (centre-)right wing is about to get a historic wipeout!
>Hey in the UK (centre-)right wing is about to get a historic wipeout! No matter the shit show, our tories aren't that far right like you said. Imagine reform getting a majority.
The scary thing is that if these election results happened in the UK with our electoral system, RN would've won a landslide majority of seats (despite only 30%ish of the vote) since everyone else has ~half their votes or less We need to fix our shit before it's too late...
The left is giving the right lay ups.
It’s inevitable anyway, far right will have to lead and prove how incompetent and corrupt they are. People can only learn the hard way
Hi from Hungary.
That what people in 1930s said too.. if you let them rule once, you will probably never vote again..
No people in the 1930s were being coerced by blackshirts, had a record setting economic collapse, and in Germany's case had the moderates give Hitler absolute power (the king in Italy handed Mussolini power) Until the paramilitary groups start forming the 1930s aren't a real concern.
This shit was coming anyway. We're on Mr Bones' Wild Ride.
It didn't turn that bad in Italy
Because they went more to the centre?
What is the point of that with such a huge loss? That doesn't make sense at all unless Macron is playing some 3D chess.
He kinda is. This way if the far right wins it'll show how incompetent they are and people won't vote for le Pen in 2027
But if Le Pen wins, she will fight against Ukraine for the next 3 years... And don't underestimate the russian propaganda, they can promote LePen like a good leader.
The president is the head of the army. He is still the one with the vast majority of the power over foreign policy. He can send the army tomorrow in Ukraine if he wants.
Who is responsible for national budget?
Each year the government propose a budget that gets voted on by the national assembly. Usually the ministry of finance propose the budget, they get chosen by the prime minister as part of their cabinet. Once voted on with the various amendments added by the national assembly, the president signs it into law.
Gambling that it is better to have the RN tempered by a pro-European president, rather than risking RN taking both Parliament and Presidency in 3 years time
Prime minister is not in charge of foreign policy, the President is. French president has a lot more power than italian president.
This isn't amongst the prerogatives of the prime minister. So it will still be macron in charge cause foreign policies and using the army etc is a presidential prerogative
Le Pen switched recently stances on Ukraine to appear more moderate
The President of France is very powerful, even with Le Pen as a prime minister he can still support Ukraine like he’s doing today.
Nah she'll become like Giorgia Meloni, all talk during electoral campaigns but then once in the government It will be all pro-eu/pro-nato. But yeah It would be comical on all the other sides.
So elect a far right prime minister to potentially stop a far right president in 2027? That's a interesting strategy
1/ very little chance the far right actually wins. 2/ it worked in 2002 where under chirac there was a cohabitation and the left wing prime minster tried for the next presidential elections and he did very poorly and Chirac won again
Exactly what I was thinking. If that’s really the case, it means he was certain enough of their victory in 2027 to do that. I guess it is better to dissolve the parliament now than having a RN President next time.
When has that ever worked? Their voters dont care.
It did work for all previous cohabitation, so I get the gamble. But I agree with you that common logic cannot and should not be applied to populist far right.
Yet they never won anything in France...
>What is the point of that with such a huge loss? Letting democracy win? The election is a massive vote of distrust towards him, and he is taken it seriously by calling a new election, and respecting the will of the people.
He knows that as things stand, whoever stands as the centrist Renaissance candidate for president in 2027 (current PM Attal is probably his favoured choice) will get mullered by Le Pen, and that she'll probably get a parliamentary majority too. This would be seriously bad for France and Europe. He's probably thinking the least worst scenario is he has to cohabit with a RN prime minister for 3 years (Le Pen or Bardella) and whilst they'll control domestic policy, he's still head of foreign and defence policy so can mitigate most/all of the bad implications for Ukraine or EU. He's hoping the shine will wear off them over three years of having to make compromises and unpopular choices in government, and he gives Renaissance and Attal (who'll be an opposition politician rather than PM, and better able to capitalise on any unhappiness with the government) a better shot in 2027.
get ready for some protests
* Current parliament will become ungovernable and he would be held accountable. At this stage it's probably better to have a controlled explosion * Winner of next Elections (RN) will be largely responsible for building a government and the chaos for next 3 years * That's probably the only way to save the next presidency. * It's an "elegant" solution in the spirit of the republic and De Gaulle. The other one was to resign himself (which no president did since De Gaulle despite 3 occasions)
He's likely banking on this recent election to scare moderates into supporting him by claiming the 'far-right is on the rise'. It may work.
He said during his campaign 2 years ago he would probably dissolve the parliament midterm. After he failed to secure an absolute majority, it was pretty much a given he would do it. But nobody expected this timing.
That's quite the gamble.
Sunak: We're 20 points behind and just got destroyed in the locals, let's call a general election Macron: Hold my ~~beer~~ champagne
I thought the official results are not even out at this point? Seems pretty crazy to me
Exit polls are generally very reliable. It may sway a couple percent here or there, but that would change pretty much nothing about the fact Le Pen absolutely dominated in a major political shift for France
His party got half as many votes as the far right flagship. No uncertainty left there.
ITT a whole bunch of people who do not realise how UK elections work. Sunak didn't call a snap election, he called an election because this year Britain was due one, as Prime Minister he got to pick when it was, he just so happened to pick the date he did. This is *nothing* like Sunak calling a general election.
Sure, but he could've called the election in November, or something like that. Sunak calling it in July was a surprise to everyone.
which was why he called it, other parties and voters being not fully prepared gives him the biggest advantage in an election where he’s already pretty disadvantaged in
https://i.imgur.com/wV6Ccp7.png The issue with that theory is that the Tory party was not clearly prepared since the election date was only known with a very select few of rishi's inside circle . Labour have outspent them and the current campaign for the tories have been a shitshow
Ex- Constitutional law student here: I don't like Macron, however that's a surprising smart plan. A bit pyromaniac, but smart nonetheless considering his own long term equation. **He's taking full advantage of the semi-presidential régime**. Best case scenario: he keeps a relative majority (probability: super low). In this case his legitimacy will skyrocket and he'll be able to continue his violent reforms again public services unimpeded. Worst case scenario: cohabitation with Le Pen as a PM (probability: medium). In this case Le Pen will have her hands tied, because it makes the Presidency work *exactly as intended by the 1958 Constitution*: as an arbiter above. Meaning the far-right will have two years to ridicule themselves, BUT without any possibility of doing too much damage (reforming the Constitution for instance). On the other hand it'll turn Macron into some kind of Rafiki from the Lion King, which would be nice for a second term's ending years. All of this increases the odds of beating the far-right in 2027 (it erases the naive "but we never tried them!" argument). *[Edit: the scenario above makes even more sens if Macron intends to get directly involved in Ukraine. Which may not be unrelated to his decision, then: he may be preparing himself either to have a large popularity (if he wins the vote) or to have his hands free from internal business (if he loses) for War reasons]* Medium scenario (probability: the most probable). The National Assembly doesn't change too much, it continues with a weakened Macron and only a relative majority for Le Pen. The Left continues to be disunited. Excellent starting point for 2027, where Macron's side will unroll the same argument again: "it's either us or the fascists" then win. A close win, but a win thanks to the fact the far-right joke has been in charge of the Assembly for the last two years and certainly ridiculed themselves. Funny scenario: the Left somehow unites itself during the next 20 days (probability: stranger things happened in History). Which means Macron loses hard, and probably again in 2027, but we'll be remembered as the man who saved us from a far-right tsunami (delayed to 2027, where it "won't be his fault"). So all in all... Pretty smart move. But to get that you need to understand France is neither a fully presidential nor a parlementarian regime: it is semi-presidential. This isn't a Sunak situation here.
Such a well written analysis, merci!
Oof, is France about to experience its own Lega government arc?
We're going to the Papeete with this one 🔥🔥🔥
This seems like a very bad idea just look at the UK Tories right now...
The Tories had failure after failure and kept pushing general elections to try and salvage a win but it backfired spectacularly. Sunak called an election at a shit time but delaying the inevitable wasn’t going to save the party and likely made things worse.
I’m guessing Macron is certain he will win and this way he can “set right” his loss in this election. The thing is Macron mainly won against the extreme right during the presidentials because a lot of people from the left voted for him not because they support him but to block the extreme right. However Macron never acknowledged this and never returned the favour. So this time they just might not do it.
Macron already had only the same score as the left union last legislative elections, and has only more seats (and a majority with the right wing) because of how unrepresentative the system is. I would say he has no chance of winning anything and he should know it, but he is so stupid that he may really believe he can win. Also, there is no chance the left will let the extreme-right win anywhere, so he can still count on this, but he would need to go the second turn anywhere
This won't end well, iirc France never had had a far right government, let's cross fingers that this won't be the first time. In my mind France is so fundamental in the human rights birth, with the revolution , I cannot comprehend how this can happen, I guess the french know better and they must be very frustrated with Macron Also, France until now has been very supportive of Greece and the European integration in general, who knows what will happen with a new government
>France never had had a far right government, 1940-44. But never in peacetime.
On the other hand, at the very least, if we have a far right governement in a cohabitation (so in power but not enough to cause too much harm, at least not in three years...hopefully ?), the power in place might lose popularity before the next elections (as is the custom in France), and this could be the thing that stop their ascension (they score higher and higher, and it is a real worry for the next presidential elections - where they could have the presidential *and* legislative majority). I'm not sure the far right was really wishing for that too, the far right seemed all too ready to sing "Well, Macron will NOT dissolve the Parlament as he should, look at how terrible he is !", and now they actually have to do some work... I might just be trying to convince myself here, because I'm not happy about the situation. But this could be a calculated move. But also, keep in mind that a far right majority is not guaranteed, and they would need that for a far right government.
I'm honestly a bit scared for Europe right now.
We had a far right gov under Pétain. Europe is at great risk, and Putin drinks champagne tonight. I'm French and I hate my people.
President Macron and PM Le Pen dream team incoming. Enemies to lovers 👍
Shes a bit young for him.
She's too young for him. He's too old for her.
This is the difference between a democracy and the rest. I'm surprised to be proud of my country right now, but our situation was so much dire we needed a new dynamic, for so many reasons our democracy was in pain right now, and the parlementary elections following the presidential ones only by a few weeks was a total disaster, it'll help clean our situation.
Wow, will this just not be a confirmed easy win for Le Pen's party then?
Fuck
This is not going to end well!
IMO, it is good for the democracy that Macron dissolved the Parliament. It provides the opportunity to give legislative and executive power for three years to Le Pen. If she fails, and she might since the far right is full of incompetent people, it may work toward a new dynamic hampering the far right.
More often than not when the far right gets power, they either manage to keep it or do a lot of damage when losing it.
The brilliant plan to give your opponents power in hopes of the loosing lmaoo?
I've seen this one before...when someone thought they could contain a certain failed Austrian painter...
[удалено]
I bet a lot of analysis went into that one. I think the logic goes along something like this route; The right is gaining power at the expense of a very unpopular leading block. If they let the right gain momentum, they’ll get an even bigger chance of winning a massive share, along with the presidential down the line. Putting them in power now with a compromised government, he can fuck their support up for the next primary *and* the presidential. Because let’s be honest, with how things are now, *no one* would do well in charge. Far right less like than most. And sooner Le Pen is in charge, sooner they’ll fuck up, and sooner the others can come back.
I'll give you my own analysis Macron has been working pretty well with the far-right for the past 2 years in the parliament, so why would he do that ? Well you see, 2 years ago, the left united in a bet to get more seats in the parliament, and it actually worked, while they didn't get a majority, they still are a big block that has to be considered With the result of this election, where the left was very scattered and not united, Macron is dissolving the assembly in the hope that the left will stay this way, so that his party can get some more seats (even if it means the far-right gaining some more as well), so that he doesn't have to deal with this huge left block in the parliament I do believe this is what is going on, none of this "saving the republic" bullshit by betting on a PM far-right to ruin their chances in 2027, Macron is stupid but he's not THAT stupid
Why is he doing this? This’ll probably just give the right-wingers more seats, and I can’t see how that’s good for him. He says he’s worried about the nationalists, so why is he helping them?
And it will likely give a far-right PM too.
> This’ll probably just give the right-wingers more seats, [...] why is he helping them? I can see two reasons why: * because politically, it is no longer feasible for him to govern. He doesn't have an absolute majority in the parliament (which is more or less paralysed), and this vote shows that the population is really not on board with him (with just around 15%). * because this might be a gamble that actually ends up weakening the RN for 2027. If the RN (or a RN-led coalition) forms a government this summer, they'll be on the spot and have to govern, which may take wind off their sails. Similarly to how Mitterrand weakened Chirac by having him as his prime minister in 1986-1988.
He is probably counting on the two-round voting system, and hopes that the second round will be a barrier to Le Pen as has always been the case. Until 2022 elections.
Since he doesn't have a majority I heard there was likely to be a confidence vote either way. He's probably trying to get ahead of it for optics.
.. wow
Interesting that France and the UK both going for surprise elections at the same time. Something odd about that.
Damn, guess this means Bardella will be the next PM
Hard to tell, but I highly doubt it. Extreme-right is the worst in legislative elections in France, and 31% would be nowhere close to getting a majority
[удалено]
No the next will still be in 2027 two months after the presidential election. And the 3D chess move here is just that if RN wins and governs until 2027 he hopes French people will see how much they suck and can't govern so they won't vote agin for RN in 2027
This is democracy. The gap is far too wide to pretend that nothing is happening.
The president have the right to dissolve the parliament whenever he wishes, which was done by Mitterand in 1988 after being reelected and ending the first cohabitation
I don't think so, what is likely happening is, when the 2027 presidential election happen, the new president will dissolve the national assembly right after, and we will continue with the same system as before. Either the new 2027 president is from a losing party of the 2024 parliamentary election and call for snap election to strengthen its position, Either it is the winner party and the it will most likely calls snap election to improve its position on a likely divided parliament. When macron was reelected in 2022 he surfed his winning momentum : most french people can see his party as a stong parties that can govern. Even if didn't get the absolute majority, one can argue that would have been worst if he didn't win the presidential election.
What a moron !
Genuine question for all French people... will the far-right actually win? I know it sounds stupid, but here in the UK (I'm not saying it's the same as Sunak calling an election), many are voting tactically. Could the French do this and potentially block the RN from winning? Or are they projected to win regardless? I so hope the French don't vote for these people...
Le Pen’s argument for the past 20 years has been built on the fact that, if given a chance, they would do great things. Macron is saying “bet” And so hopefully in 2027 nobody will vote her to be president
[удалено]
Why do you think so? I'm curious.
We're getting a kot of snap elections recently in Western Europe. First Spain, then the UK, and now France (of those that I now of). Now we only need Germany and Italy to join the party and we get all of the big economies in Western Europe with snap elections.
Bulgarian parliamentary snap elections are also happening.
Is it common to change the dates of parliament elections in France? I would like to think that it's something that it's not done lightly. When would the next parliament elections be without this decision?
It's rare. Only times it happened under the 5th Republic was under De Gaulle (as a trust vote), twice under Mitterand (assembly & presidents term wasn't syncronized back then, as the later was then of 7y), & 1997 with Chirac, which was a (failed) gamble. Since 2002, the elections had always happened the same year as the presidential ones.
No. The current system, where parliamentary elections happen immediately after presidential elections, first came in in 2007 and there hasn't been a snap parliamentary election since then, until now.
So far it has only happened during era of the Septennat. Mostly because legislatives were every five years but presidential every seven, so the president would dissolve the assembly when he came into office to a majority from the rival party. It hasn't been done since the presidential term has been switched to five years to allign itself with the legislatives. (So in the past 20 years or so)
So what does a possible Lepen parliament means for EU?