Why France is stuck with Macron, even though they hate him - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15269771
ckaihatsu wrote:More to the point, real-world, is that *Macron* doesn't. Hence the protests, for a social-impasse kind of situation -- which it *is*, everywhere.

It's a *constitutional crisis* in at least two major countries, Israel and Peru, and I'd argue Venezuela, too, in 2019.

It's the end of the era of Trumpian dictators.


Macron definitely does. He's recognizing the unsustainability of the pension system now, so the problem won't get worse in the future and the measures won't need to become even more extreme than they are.

It is also not a "constitutional" crisis. Macron is invoking the Constitution just as all French governments have done since it entered into force in 1958.
#15269778
wat0n wrote:It is also not a "constitutional" crisis. Macron is invoking the Constitution just as all French governments have done since it entered into force in 1958.


Not everything that is constitutional should necessarily be practiced.

What if a hypothetical president Le Pen uses the same method to push through a "reform" that limits media freedom. Would protesters be throwing a tantrum as well?
#15269808
Rugoz wrote:Not everything that is constitutional should necessarily be practiced.

What if a hypothetical president Le Pen uses the same method to push through a "reform" that limits media freedom. Would protesters be throwing a tantrum as well?


If the reform is unconstitutional, it would be thrown out by the courts.

The tantrum, though, is that they're protesting against a reform that is quite obviously necessary given the French pension system is unsustainable.
#15269813
ckaihatsu wrote:I'm saying take it up *internationally*, because that's the advice handed to *previous* countries in economic distress, like Sri Lanka, particularly.


Yeah, but France is not in distress. It is good management to prevent economic distress and that is what they are doing. So if you think this is some kind of international stability institution imposed austerity then it is simply wrong. This is a independent decision of the French government.
#15269838
wat0n wrote:If the reform is unconstitutional, it would be thrown out by the courts.

The tantrum, though, is that they're protesting against a reform that is quite obviously necessary given the French pension system is unsustainable.


Haha, oh sweet summer child. There are always legal ways to make the courts powerless and/or loyal.

Some reform might be necessary, but increasing the retirement age is obviously only one way to go about it.
#15269850
wat0n wrote:The French judiciary is independent as far as I'm aware.


Lets say Le Pen wins in 2027 with a loyal majority in parliament. She, respectively parliament, can appoint 6 of the 9 judges on the "conseil constitutionnel" during her first term (3 of them are appointed every 3 years, 3 terms end in 2028 and another 3 end in 2031).

In the US it's even easier, just pack the court.
#15269852
Rugoz wrote:Lets say Le Pen wins in 2027 with a loyal majority in parliament. She, respectively parliament, can appoint 6 of the 9 judges on the "conseil constitutionnel" during her first term (3 of them are appointed every 3 years, 3 terms end in 2028 and another 3 end in 2031).

In the US it's even easier, just pack the court.


Macron isn't doing any of that and that's also not what the protests are about.

They are protesting the pension reform. We know that because article 49.3 has been used in every past French presidency, and there were no massive riots every time. I will also note the Assembly could have forced an election, but didn't.
#15269854
ckaihatsu wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Women's_March

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2018_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2019_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2020_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2021_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2022_protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2023_protests



The French could protest the sun coming up in the morning. They would swear at the sun while smoking Gauloises and saying life was shit.

It's a tradition, and my satire is motivated by envy as much as anything else.

One last thing, they didn't pick Macron, they rejected crazy. I doubt most hate him; but they are clearly not happy with the way things are going, and who could blame them for that.
#15269856
wat0n wrote:Macron isn't doing any of that and that's also not what the protests are about.


Who decides when protests, like in Israel, should overrule parliament? Netanyahu doesn't do anything unconstitutional, and neither would Le Pen if she appointed loyal judges.

wat0n wrote:They are protesting the pension reform. We know that because article 49.3 has been used in every past French presidency, and there were no massive riots every time. I will also note the Assembly could have forced an election, but didn't.


Of course, they probably thought they would lose an election under the circumstances. The fact that the president can dissolve the assembly when it doesn't pass the law he wants is quite perverse, but apprently you think it's ok.
#15269857
Rugoz wrote:Who decides when protests, like in Israel, should overrule parliament? Netanyahu doesn't do anything unconstitutional, and neither would Le Pen if she appointed loyal judges.


Simple, when the politicians want to change the system of checks and balances. Again, not the case in France.

Rugoz wrote:Of course, they probably thought they would lose an election under the circumstances. The fact that the president can dissolve the assembly when it doesn't pass the law he wants is quite perverse, but apprently you think it's ok.


It's how a semi-presidential system works.

It is indeed perverse, although in France it is the assembly itself which would have dissolved itself.

It is also perverse to dump the pension problem on the next assembly, though.
#15269861
Rugoz wrote:The use of article 49.3 might, but you're avoiding the point, the interesting one anyway.


That's not the point.

Article 49.3 is indeed part of the French system of checks and balances. Protestors from what I can tell are not demanding a Constitutional reform to change it.

No, what they want is to keep their pension system as is.
#15269864
wat0n wrote:Article 49.3 is indeed part of the French system of checks and balances. Protestors from what I can tell are not demanding a Constitutional reform to change it.


Some are.

But beyond the French case, there's still the question of what constitutes a big enough threat to the constitutional order such that the demands of protesters should overrule the legislative. And whether the demands should be backed by 'public opinion'. And who gets to decide all of that. Unless you think the threat of violence should speak for itself.
#15269865
Rugoz wrote:Some are.

But beyond the French case, there's still the question of what constitutes a big enough threat to the constitutional order such that the demands of protesters should overrule the legislative. And whether the demands should be backed by 'public opinion'. And who gets to decide all of that. Unless you think the threat of violence should speak for itself.


I think that more than that, the real issue is how should Constitutions be amended.

Should there always be a direct question to voters? Or should this be just left to representatives? Or maybe it depends on whatever is being reformed, if not all Constitutional norms are equally important?

In Israel's case, there is no direct participation of the people. The Knesset is trying to amend the Basic Laws to concentrate power in its hands in what is already an unitary state (so local governments cannot effectively check the power of the central government of which the Knesset is part of), which is naturally suspect but could be acceptable if the voters agree to it.

It's not like the US, for example, where even though amendments don't have to be brought to the voters directly, the power of the states acts as a check so it is hard for a political party to get away with messing up with the system of checks and balances (even though I'm aware they could try to pack the SCOTUS).

It's also not like the cases where there have been Constitutional referenda, I assume you guys in Switzerland do get to vote your Constitutional amendments. Not that is a panacea, Venezuela is a basket case but I don't forget their Constitution was approved by the people directly - it's on them.

As for France, I don't think this is what protests are about. If they want to reform their Constitution to change their system of checks and balances, I think it would be more advisable to put it up for a vote given it is (like Israel, but far less justifiably) a centralized unitary state.
#15270657
wat0n wrote:I think that more than that, the real issue is how should Constitutions be amended.


In the sense that whoever decides on what is constitutional also "amends" the constitution?

Thing is, voters will reject a law they don't like regardless of the question of constitutionality. If you let voters decide on the constitutionality of laws you introduce potential referendums on all laws.
#15270676
Rugoz wrote:In the sense that whoever decides on what is constitutional also "amends" the constitution?

Thing is, voters will reject a law they don't like regardless of the question of constitutionality. If you let voters decide on the constitutionality of laws you introduce potential referendums on all laws.


Your question most certainly involves Constitutional amendments. The structure of the judiciary or the rules to appoint the top court judges are normally a Constitutional matter.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]