https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/jun/09/eu-europe-elections-2024-results-news-updates-live-latest
I'm absolutely shocked
He's not from Macron's party, his associations were with the more right wing Republicans. He came 3rd in their internal selection for Presidential candidate in 2021. He didn't stand in the recent parliamentary elections.
He has to be voted in by the Assemblee,I assume.(get the feeling I was wrong there)
I wonder does Macron have the votes counted or is it going to be a squeeze?
Is that a man from his own party? (oh ,it is M. Brexit .We all know him quite well)
Macron has chosen his PM
In they first place, they haven't said they'd try to vote down everything an LFI government did; just that they'd vote against it in a vote of confidence. That's a pretty standard position for parties that are not in the governing coalition themselves in most democracies.
Secondly, routinely voting against the government in all votes is the standard position adopted by the official opposition in any parliamentary democracy. It's not a way-out-there childish stance at all.
The issue here is not that the centre, centre-right and right blocs say they will vote against an LFI-led government. Why wouldn't they vote against a government that they aren't in and don't support? The issue is that the LFI and its allies in the NFP bloc don't have a majority of seats, or anything like a majority. Simply being larger than any of the other blocs in parliament doesn't mean a God-given right to form a government. Given the parliamentary arithmatic, any government has to be a coalition that includes parties from at least two blocs.
I think what Macron hopes — or hoped, at any rate — was to cause the NFP bloc to splinter. By holding out against a government dominated by the LFI, they would force other parties in the bloc to peel off and form an alliance with centrist parties, resulting in a centre-left government opposed by LFI from the left and by a variety of centre-right and right parties from the right. The current deadlock arises because the NFP bloc has refused to oblige by splintering. Now, they will seek to reverse the strategy, trying to get parties to peel off from the other blocs to form a centre-left government that includes (as its largest party, most likely) LFI.
I wonder is it what we would face in Ireland if anyone outside the core parties ever took a foothold in the Dail. How childish is vowing to vote down everything an incumbent government try and do.
It doesn't bode well for Frances future from a political and financial point of view. I wasnt aware how bad the finance was there, it's scary. They're bound to be spending cuts and knowing France they'll be protests on the streets again
The situation is more complex than the Twitter post suggests...
Centrist and right-wing parties have vowed to vote it down in any confidence vote. A left-wing government “would be immediately censored by all the other groups represented in the National Assembly” and “the institutional stability of our country therefor requires us not to choose this option”, Macron said.
https://www.thejournal.ie/macron-rules-out-left-government-6472021-Aug2024/
It is very byzantine.I wonder how long Macron can hold off nominating a Prime Minister?
Do the potential Prime Ministers secretly prefer not to be nominated because they know they will not be accepted even if Macron nominates them?
That twitter poster seems fairly partisan ,calling Macron's (in) action a "coup d'état" whereas ,perhaps he is merely twisting in the wind and trying desperately to get the best deal for his own party in the short or medium term.
The comments in that twitter page are pretty interesting
Everyone has a different point of view and maybe that reflects the french public as a whole-no overall consensus eccept for the need to keep LePen's party out of power.
Still sounds like chaos
Is this still the French election thread?
Has anyone been following since?
The Prime Minister is appointed by the President of the Republic. In theory the President can appoint anyone; the PM doesn't have to be a member of the National Assembly. But in reality the PM can't function effectively without the support of a majority in the Assembly, so the PM nearly always is a member of the Assembly, and is the leader of a parliamentary group that can command a majority or, at worst, that can avoid a vote of no confidence.
Right now it's not clear who could command majority support in the Assembly. The current PM, Gabriel Attal, doesn't reckon he can, so he has offered his resignation to the President. But the President hasn't accepted it because its not yet clear what alternative PM could secure the support of the Assembly. Attal is effectively a caretaker PM while negotiations continue between the different parties in the Assembly to put together a majority in support of a government, at which point Attal (unless he is the lucky winner, which seems unlikely) will again offer to resign, and this time Macron will accept.
So Macron keeps the existing PM if noone can propose another who can garner enough support to replace him ?
"The leftwing coalition that won most seats in France’s snap general election is facing division after its leading party said it was suspending negotiations with the others over a failure to agree on a prime minister."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/15/france-leftwing-coalition-nfp-stalemate
What a mess this is
Plenty of accounts on twitter and the likes of breitbart that cater to those who aren't firing on all cylinders between the ears were claiming it was Muslims at the time and since.
Of course if it were Ireland we could make a good guess that it was burnt down as a result of rumours spreading that it was going to used to house asylum seekers.
As I understand it, it was undergoing renovation, just as Notre Dame in Paris had been. In that case it was a problem of electrical equipment and lighting requiring multiple electrical sources to be brought into an old structure made of bone-dry wood. No Muslims needed for a fire to catch hold.
I'd bet a large amount of money that this is the same.
No. It's your argument and it's not my role to spoonfeed you.
The tweet looks like drivel so I'm going to dismiss it as such.
So you linked to a tweet that amounted to a lie. Then an article that explicitly said there was numerous reasons for the decline. Instead you tried to lob it all on Muslims which in reality is not the case. The article you linked to actually points to the state neglecting the buildings and the issue of them falling apart was warned as far back as the seventies. You've googled it but still struggled to back up the rather xenophobic agenda that you're pushing.
Try google.com Just type in things like "churches burnt down in France", "terrorist attacks in French churches". You need to find out yourself about these things and do your own research. Spend 20 minutes on it and you will get the picture.
There will be hundreds of links to them considering the massive rise in numbers of these events over the last few years. The Notre Dame Cathedral in Rouen was built over a thousand years ago, so sad to see this heritage going up in flames.
He had no credibility left (at least to anyone who has read output for the last few years).
To give just one tiny example, which fits with your comment on antisemitism…he's apparently a Le Pen supporter, very concerned about muslim immigration to Europe and rising hatred towards Jews in France on here; but…posts vile anti semitic conspiracy theories and praises attacks of + boosts propaganda of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (Houthis) over there (different threads!).🤡
Is this all you can do? Crap out dodgy links to absolute scutter?
I'll believe this when I see proof.
If people make stuff up to claim something is a serious problem then they will have no credibility.
Stuff like the map is an obvious red flag. That is a crazy number for actually destroyed churches and would have made headlines. That should send red flags about the information that it should be verified.
Maybe check who you are trusting for your information even if they agree with your preconceptions.
So the map you linked to was bullshit firstly, secondly have you read your own link? There's literally loads of different reasons listed including the fact that the buildings are poorly maintained. Other reasons include buildings simply no longer being used as churches.
"He continued: “Fires are also sharply increasing because buildings are more and more dilapidated, and this negligence also attracts a lot of thefts of paintings, statues, or gold chalices...”"
Probably not destroyed but a serious problem of attacks even 3 years ago, now it is worse.
Their claims have no credibility. It is obvious they don't read the articles they are link dumping or grabbing headlines from.
They totally misrepresented an article about anti-semitism and missed the bits where it was critical of their favoured far right party. Ignored questions put to them about the anti-semitism of Le Pen (both of them).
Demonstrates their concern about anti-semitism to be entirely a charade.
In an interview in Paris, the writer and philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy said: “All the Jews I know agree they will of course never vote for France Unbowed, and they will never vote for Marine Le Pen.”
When it came to RN, he said: “There is absolutely no evidence of a deep change on the matter of antisemitism.”
“There is absolutely no evidence of a deep change on the matter of antisemitism.”
Oh I am going to need evidence that all those churches were destroyed. Otherwise I am going to assume you are posting random nonsense from a very nonsense looking account.
Edit: turns out the map is a lie and isn't even particularly recent. Your post is just nonsense. If there is a serious issue it can be detailed without counting "man interrupts mass" as a destroyed church. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/churches-destroyed-in-france/
Another church on fire, some bad luck they have with them this last few years
Looks like the radical left are calling for protests and talk of action ahead of the Olympics which start in 2 weeks. One thing for certain is a lack of torches won't be complained about.
Not only is it not a coalition, but it's also not far left. It's a broad-left electoral alliance;member parties range from pretty far-left to barely left-of-centre, and there are also ecologists, regionalists, autonomists, progressivists and even a few libertarians. What could possibly go wrong?
(The answer, we now know, is not much, since the electoral alliance has already achieved its primary goal. The whole point of an electoral alliance is to do well in an election. There's a bit of a clue in the name.)
Is there anything more likely to crash and burn quicker than a far left coalition . In fact, it wont even get past the first meeting. In France or any other country for that matter .
