French Presidential Election

[Mrpotatohead]

Voting in the first round of the French Presidential Election is about to close with 2 candidates of the 11 going through to the second and final vote on May 7th. It will be interesting to see which 2 make the final round as this election will not only have consequences for France, but its impact will also be felt across the whole of Europe. Should Marine Le Pen win, you would think the days of the EU will be well and truly numbered.

[bobinho]

No doubt about it. Le pen wins and we will be seen as the catalyst for "Europe" to change massively.

The Germans are extremely unhappy about merkels open door policy, but decades of war guilt prevents them from suggesting they are unhappy with things.

[ablueclaret]

Remember what happened when we had European states hating one another, as some have said about SD you don't know what you have until it is gone.

[Mrpotatohead]

Remember what happened when we had European states hating one another, as some have said about SD you don't know what you have until it is gone.

Which European states hate each other?

[Stevie2112]

Macron win projected.

[Mrpotatohead]

Early projections show it is Emannuel Macron who has won the first round and he will run against Marine Le Pen in the second round. Personally I take these early predictions with a pinch of salt, because so many times over recent years they have proved to be inaccurate.

[nil_desperandum]

No chance of le Pen getting anywhere near close. Le Pen is predicted to get about 21%, so even though polls can be wrong the likelihood of her getting anywhere near the Elysee palace are absolutely minimal. She would need to pick up another 30% in the 2nd round, and that's just not going to happen.
I thought she might win the first round, but it looks as though Macron should edge it.

[Imploding Turtle]

It's Marcon v Le Pen in the run-off.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39686993" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

Early projections show it is Emannuel Macron who has won the first round and he will run against Marine Le Pen in the second round. Personally I take these early predictions with a pinch of salt, because so many times over recent years they have proved to be inaccurate.

You're talking about opinion polls. Exit polls haven't been inaccurate.

[nil_desperandum]

Early projections show it is Emannuel Macron who has won the first round and he will run against Marine Le Pen in the second round. Personally I take these early predictions with a pinch of salt, because so many times over recent years they have proved to be inaccurate.

True, but they are hardly likely to be wrong by such a margin. She would have to double her vote and then add on half again to win the 2nd round.
When her father reached the 2nd round his vote went up by just 1% in the second round!

[nil_desperandum]

2 new opinion polls suggest that Le Pen will get about 35% in the 2nd round. Rather more than I would have hoped or expected, but - of course, still a long way behind Macron on about 65%

[dsr]

Le Pen would have stood a chance only if Melenchon had been in the top two. Now that would have been interesting! Scary, but interesting.

[dsr]

Remember what happened when we had European states hating one another, as some have said about SD you don't know what you have until it is gone.

How true. We fairly recently saw a smaller version of what happens when nations turn to hate, in Yugoslavia. The question there being, was the situation eased by keeping nations together when they didn't want to be, or did it make it worse?

[RingoMcCartney]

Macron v le pen.

Goldman Sachs v The People.

Death to the Banksters.

Allez Les Populaire!!!!!

[AndrewJB]

How true. We fairly recently saw a smaller version of what happens when nations turn to hate, in Yugoslavia. The question there being, was the situation eased by keeping nations together when they didn't want to be, or did it make it worse?

The nationalist hatred borne out of Yugoslavia's break up was whipped up by various demagogues and branded into the different nationalities through violence. Every Yugoslav I've met (who is old enough to remember Tito) has said they preferred the multicultural model to what came later (no brainer - although they also take pride in being Serb, Bosnian, Croatian, etc). Not a single one even imagined things would turn out as they did - so used they were to living alongside the other nationalities. What happened in Yugoslavia should be a warning to everyone.

I wouldn't say everyone in Yugoslavia was yearning to be in their own country, but problems were more widespread - economic, political, etc.

[Paul Waine]

The nationalist hatred borne out of Yugoslavia's break up was whipped up by various demagogues and branded into the different nationalities through violence. Every Yugoslav I've met (who is old enough to remember Tito) has said they preferred the multicultural model to what came later (no brainer - although they also take pride in being Serb, Bosnian, Croatian, etc). Not a single one even imagined things would turn out as they did - so used they were to living alongside the other nationalities. What happened in Yugoslavia should be a warning to everyone.

I wouldn't say everyone in Yugoslavia was yearning to be in their own country, but problems were more widespread - economic, political, etc.

Agree, AJB. It's very easy to build up resentment and worse between one group and another. Yugoslavia is one example of what can happen when we forget what we have in common and focus on our differences.

[Imploding Turtle]

The Ringo's of the world can stop getting excited, she's not going to win.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/le ... -ever-was/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dsr]

The nationalist hatred borne out of Yugoslavia's break up was whipped up by various demagogues and branded into the different nationalities through violence. Every Yugoslav I've met (who is old enough to remember Tito) has said they preferred the multicultural model to what came later (no brainer - although they also take pride in being Serb, Bosnian, Croatian, etc). Not a single one even imagined things would turn out as they did - so used they were to living alongside the other nationalities. What happened in Yugoslavia should be a warning to everyone.

I wouldn't say everyone in Yugoslavia was yearning to be in their own country, but problems were more widespread - economic, political, etc.

Exactly. And in France, they were pretty close to having a Presidential election between the National Front and the Communists. Too much nationalism can lead to trouble, but so can too little. There are economic and political problems in the EU, too.

[AndrewJB]

DSR - I think we could break nationalism down to positive and negative, rather than too much or too little. I wasn't aware the French Communist Party were popular enough to have a chance.

[ClaretinMyBlood]

Le Pen may not win this election, but what it is showing, is that there is a growing population across Europe that are wanting change.
We have been the first to commit to leaving, but it would be a miracle if we were to be the last, time will be called on the EU sooner or later, and when it is, I'll be glad we decided to get out whilst we could.

[Lancasterclaret]

I can't decide who knows the least about Balkan history on this thread.

You seriously think the Serbs had forgotten the Ustase?

Or that the Croats had forgotten Serbian domination?

[Lancasterclaret]

Le Pen may not win this election, but what it is showing, is that there is a growing population across Europe that are wanting change.
We have been the first to commit to leaving, but it would be a miracle if we were to be the last, time will be called on the EU sooner or later, and when it is, I'll be glad we decided to get out whilst we could.

So far we are the only ones who gone full mental though. And its looking like we are the only ones full stop.

[ClaretinMyBlood]

I wouldn't say the majority of our nation was 'full mental' (myself included).
I would say we have been the first with enough sense & balls to see what is best for our own nation.
Do you really think, once we make a success out of brexit, that there won't be other nations wishing to follow suit?

[Lancasterclaret]

It all depends on how you define success I suspect.

I'm looking for slightly more indications than we've got at the moment, and I'd be amazed in any other European country follows us*

*this is assuming that the EU remains as it is, which it is

[ClaretinMyBlood]

Prepare to be amazed.

[dsr]

So far we are the only ones who gone full mental though. And its looking like we are the only ones full stop.

44%+ of the French voted for Presidential candidates who want out. And I'm sure there are centrist voters who would also like to be out but won't bring themselves to vote NF or communist. I bet if the French were allowed a referendum, or presumably two because history suggests the first one wouldn't be taken seriously, then they would vote out.

[AndrewJB]

I can't decide who knows the least about Balkan history on this thread.

You seriously think the Serbs had forgotten the Ustase?

Or that the Croats had forgotten Serbian domination?

I didn't suggest they had, however it is a reality that Yugoslavs lived on peacefully together for nearly fifty years afterward (there was a degree of integration that made subsequent ethnic cleansing particularly nasty). My point is there was nothing inevitable about the Yugoslav Civil War. And further if it could happen there, it could happen elsewhere (does hatred require a solid historical grievance in order to be stoked, or will a perceived grievance be enough?).

[Rowls]

The nationalist hatred borne out of Yugoslavia's break up was whipped up by various demagogues and branded into the different nationalities through violence. Every Yugoslav I've met (who is old enough to remember Tito) has said they preferred the multicultural model to what came later (no brainer - although they also take pride in being Serb, Bosnian, Croatian, etc). Not a single one even imagined things would turn out as they did - so used they were to living alongside the other nationalities. What happened in Yugoslavia should be a warning to everyone.

I wouldn't say everyone in Yugoslavia was yearning to be in their own country, but problems were more widespread - economic, political, etc.

Of course everyone preferred the Yugoslav model - it ensured the longest period of peace the region has ever known.

But if you think it was a "model" of multiculturalism you're quite wrong. It was essentially a well run dictatorship (latterly more democratic) under Tito.

Multi-culturalism never held the country together. If that was what had glued their society together it would never have fallen apart would it?

The ONLY thing that united them was hatred of their German occupiers which banded them together under Tito. Once Tito was dead, the Yugoslav state was on borrowed time.

Neither was the hatred "whipped up by demagogues" - it was there all the time. The only person to emerge from the conflict who (to my mind) fit this profile would be Slobodan Milosovic and Radovan Karadic but these guys rose to power because of the conflict; they did not start it. These guys were killing each other and firing guns well before the conflict started. To paint Yugoslavia as some kind of multicultral wonderland ripped apart by demagogues peddling racism is as simplistic as it is wrong. The entire country was an artificial construct held together by one man and united by a threat that was defeated in 1945. That definition may be simplistic but its far more accurate than the other.

I've heard them speak gushingly about their "multiculturalism" too but in the same breath speak, shall we say, 'less adoringly' about "the Serbs", "the Croats", "the Muslims", "the Bosniaks", "the Solenians", "the Macedonians", "the Communists", "the Gypsies"...

Funnily enough the "Bosnia Centre" in Nottingham disbanded and closed down - because of in-fighting. The irony was lost on most of them.

As American say, "go figure".

[Lancasterclaret]

AndrewJB

I suspect that many Serbs who were alive in the 1990s had relatives who had suffered at the hands of the Ustase in WWII are much more likely to kick off than Scots who probably lost a load of relatives at Flodden or Culloden! Ditto English killed at Prestonpans.

Fifty years is not enough time to real divisions, while 300 + years should be!

Rowls is perfectly correct, the only thing that held the Yugoslavs together was Tito, and that was only because of his record in the war (with the Serbs) and because he was a Croat.

Once he'd gone, it was always going to kick off.

[Sidney1st]

That's what I like about this forum, the more interesting discussions usually present me with something new to learn about, today its the Ustase's.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Cheaper than buying a GCSE textbook.

[AndrewJB]

Of course everyone preferred the Yugoslav model - it ensured the longest period of peace the region has ever known.

But if you think it was a "model" of multiculturalism you're quite wrong. It was essentially a well run dictatorship (latterly more democratic) under Tito.

Multi-culturalism never held the country together. If that was what had glued their society together it would never have fallen apart would it?

The ONLY thing that united them was hatred of their German occupiers which banded them together under Tito. Once Tito was dead, the Yugoslav state was on borrowed time.

Neither was the hatred "whipped up by demagogues" - it was there all the time. The only person to emerge from the conflict who (to my mind) fit this profile would be Slobodan Milosovic and Radovan Karadic but these guys rose to power because of the conflict; they did not start it. These guys were killing each other and firing guns well before the conflict started. To paint Yugoslavia as some kind of multicultral wonderland ripped apart by demagogues peddling racism is as simplistic as it is wrong. The entire country was an artificial construct held together by one man and united by a threat that was defeated in 1945. That definition may be simplistic but its far more accurate than the other.

I've heard them speak gushingly about their "multiculturalism" too but in the same breath speak, shall we say, 'less adoringly' about "the Serbs", "the Croats", "the Muslims", "the Bosniaks", "the Solenians", "the Macedonians", "the Communists", "the Gypsies"...

Funnily enough the "Bosnia Centre" in Nottingham disbanded and closed down - because of in-fighting. The irony was lost on most of them.

As American say, "go figure".

I'll begin by correcting where you've misquoted me: Firstly I didn't say it was a 'model of multiculturalism' or that 'multiculturalism held the country together' - but that the country ticked along with their model of multiculturalism peacefully for nearly fifty years. What I stated is a fact. It is also a fact that the Yugoslav Civil War was not inevitable. Just as I haven't painted Yugoslavia as a multicultural wonderland, nor was it a country consumed and riven by hatred - or Tito wouldn't have been able to hold it together, would he?

Now to correct your own oversimplifications. The country wasn't united in hatred of the Germans.Yugoslavia had collaborators from among all their various peoples. The Serbian Nedic worked alongside the Ustase during the later stages of the war - as did the Chetniks. As much as there were differences between the nationalities, it could be argued that WW2 brought them together, as much as drove them apart.

Finally if the break up of the country and subsequent violence wasn't pushed by 'nationalist demagogues', then what term would you use to describe them?

[dsr]

That's what I like about this forum, the more interesting discussions usually present me with something new to learn about, today its the Ustase's.

Is that the Ilie Ustase's? I thought he was Rumanian? Though he's doing his bit to keep the Federation at odds with itself!

[AndrewJB]

AndrewJB

I suspect that many Serbs who were alive in the 1990s had relatives who had suffered at the hands of the Ustase in WWII are much more likely to kick off than Scots who probably lost a load of relatives at Flodden or Culloden! Ditto English killed at Prestonpans.

Fifty years is not enough time to real divisions, while 300 + years should be!

Rowls is perfectly correct, the only thing that held the Yugoslavs together was Tito, and that was only because of his record in the war (with the Serbs) and because he was a Croat.

Once he'd gone, it was always going to kick off.

Lancaster - I think hatred is a hard thing to nail down. It can survive beyond living memory, and it can die out during it. My point was the violence in Yugoslavia wasn't inevitable, and by the same token it's not impossible for the same thing to happen elsewhere (and by that I meant war generally rather than civil war particularly).

But for the purpose of adding to debate (and the entertainment of other people) I'll say Yugoslavia isn't a special and unique case. Spain is comparable - divided during the Civil War along national as well as political lines, but it survived Franco's death.

[Rowls]

I'll begin by correcting where you've misquoted me: Firstly I didn't say it was a 'model of multiculturalism' or that 'multiculturalism held the country together' - but that the country ticked along with their model of multiculturalism peacefully for nearly fifty years.

AndrewJB this must be a record - you're using the phrase again in the same sentence in which you deny using the phrase.

[dsr]

AndrewJB this must be a record - you're using the phrase again in the same sentence in which you deny using the phrase.

There's a difference between "a model of multiculturalism" and "their model of multiculturalism".

[Lancasterclaret]

But for the purpose of adding to debate (and the entertainment of other people) I'll say Yugoslavia isn't a special and unique case. Spain is comparable - divided during the Civil War along national as well as political lines, but it survived Franco's death.

It did indeed, but I think its monarchy (v popular) played a huge roll in that. Nothing remotely comparable in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito.

[Rowls]

There's a difference between "a model of multiculturalism" and "their model of multiculturalism".

There is indeed and I am being cheeky here. Nevertheless his use of the phrase is sloppy AND -more importantly in this context- he's accusing me of accusing him of saying things which I haven't.

He's saying I'm mis-quoting him but I haven't at all. I replied to his post in the general - that it would be a mistake to paint Yugoslavia as a "model of multiculturalism" (his phrase).

What's Andrew is doing is the same as PHD students who fancy a headline. He's taken a well known truth and focused on something on the periphery of that truth. It's the equivalent of saying "the Vikings weren't all rapists and pillagers". Yes yes. We know that. But *some* of them were and that is their defining historical feature. If you want to say "the Vikings were a bunch of humdrum farmers" you make the Vikings boring AND detract from their historical point of interest and lose sight of how they conquered land.

To imply that Yugoslavia fell apart because a peace-loving bunch of multi-culturalists had "nationalist" hatred somehow put inside of them by rogue "nationalist demagogues" (who knows how - perhaps they poisoned the apples?) is to miss the core truth of the country's disintegration. There's some partial truth in there, of course there is, but my point was always to guard against missing the bigger picture by focusing on something else for political reasons pertaining to the UK.

He also accuses me of not wanting to call nationalist demagogues by name (not true, I call them that myself) and also states that I've oversimplified my opinion - even though I acknowledged my single sentence defining the Yugoslav wars of independence was a simplification.

Finally, as we're descending into a spiral of silly accusations, I'd like to say that a better term than "nationalist demagogues" for the aggressors in the war(s) would be "federalist demagogues". After all, Serbia carried on pretending it was 'Yugoslavia' for ages.

Of course, that's all down to your point of view and it's a different side of the same coin.

What truly irked me was the implication that it was a happy la-la land torn apart by "nationalist" politics. It wasn't. AndrewJB can talk about the peripheries till the cows come home but the over-simplified truth remains - it was Tito's state and his alone. They sang hymns about him for crying out loud. After him it didn't work.

[Nonayforever]

Getting back to the topic of the French elections, M Le Penn has just stepped down from her role of Front National leader but is still putting herself forward for the presidency.

How does that work ?

[Spiral]

Presidential elections elect a person to the role of head of state, not a party to govern. Party nominations can be thought of like endorsements. The party machine helps her form a platform but she isn't strictly bound to any party. It's also just a temporary step down, too. It's a move to show she wants to unite the country and put France before party.

[Lancasterclaret]

Course, you'd have to be thick as pigshit to think that she intends to do that, but hey, give Putin two weeks on it and you'll be surprised that you remember her having anything to do with the NF.

[Spiral]

Course, you'd have to be thick as pigshit to think that she intends to do that

Agreed. She's trying to detoxify her brand, that's all. FWIW, I think people such as her, Trump, Putin & Erdogan are great arguments for the monarchy. I'm a republican right up until the point where the alternatives begin to open their mouths.

[Nonayforever]

But if she wins the presidency how can she preside over a majority of MP's that she isn't aligned with ?

[AndrewJB]

There is indeed and I am being cheeky here. Nevertheless his use of the phrase is sloppy AND -more importantly in this context- he's accusing me of accusing him of saying things which I haven't.

He's saying I'm mis-quoting him but I haven't at all. I replied to his post in the general - that it would be a mistake to paint Yugoslavia as a "model of multiculturalism" (his phrase).

What's Andrew is doing is the same as PHD students who fancy a headline. He's taken a well known truth and focused on something on the periphery of that truth. It's the equivalent of saying "the Vikings weren't all rapists and pillagers". Yes yes. We know that. But *some* of them were and that is their defining historical feature. If you want to say "the Vikings were a bunch of humdrum farmers" you make the Vikings boring AND detract from their historical point of interest and lose sight of how they conquered land.

To imply that Yugoslavia fell apart because a peace-loving bunch of multi-culturalists had "nationalist" hatred somehow put inside of them by rogue "nationalist demagogues" (who knows how - perhaps they poisoned the apples?) is to miss the core truth of the country's disintegration. There's some partial truth in there, of course there is, but my point was always to guard against missing the bigger picture by focusing on something else for political reasons pertaining to the UK.

He also accuses me of not wanting to call nationalist demagogues by name (not true, I call them that myself) and also states that I've oversimplified my opinion - even though I acknowledged my single sentence defining the Yugoslav wars of independence was a simplification.

Finally, as we're descending into a spiral of silly accusations, I'd like to say that a better term than "nationalist demagogues" for the aggressors in the war(s) would be "federalist demagogues". After all, Serbia carried on pretending it was 'Yugoslavia' for ages.

Of course, that's all down to your point of view and it's a different side of the same coin.

What truly irked me was the implication that it was a happy la-la land torn apart by "nationalist" politics. It wasn't. AndrewJB can talk about the peripheries till the cows come home but the over-simplified truth remains - it was Tito's state and his alone. They sang hymns about him for crying out loud. After him it didn't work.

Nothing sloppy at all, Rowls. I wrote exactly what I meant, and believe it or not I wasn't implying anything beyond it. It's not a' peripheral fact' that all the Yugoslavs I've ever met (who remember life under Tito) told me they did not foresee the horrors of their civil war, and only saw the potential for war shortly before it began. You probably had similar conversations, as you described a wistfulness for how things were (among Yugoslavs you've spoken with). This isn't to suggest that Yugoslavia was a 'happy la-la land' beforehand (indeed you know I haven't said that), however it was a functioning state and this is proved by the levels of integration / intermarriage, and also by the empirical evidence of people you've spoken with and I've spoken with. It was not a country riven with intra-nationalist politics. Yes, there had been crimes committed during the war of one nationality against another - however the post war government did a reasonable job of punishing war criminals of whichever nationality (arguably more so than the French, for example), and laid the foundation for a stable multi-ethnic country. This lasted until 1992 - over ten years after Tito died.

The idea you appear to be pushing - that Yugoslavia was full of irreconcilable differences, and nationalist ideologues weren't responsible for the break-up - can be shown up as false by how the tragedy rolled out. When you read victim testimonies from atrocities committed you see that it was often neighbours - the school teacher, the plumber, etc who were responsible. These are people who lived in the same town or locality for a generation and more at war with each other. Do you really believe they had lived in close proximity for so long harbouring hatred from fifty years before? The hatred with which they - and most of them weren't born until after WW2 - fought the war was not something that just occurred naturally. It was whipped up by people. I call them nationalist ideologues. Whatever you call them probably translates back to that for me.

[Spiral]

But if she wins the presidency how can she preside over a majority of MP's that she isn't aligned with ?

From my understanding the President appoints a Prime Minister who can command the confidence of the national assembly, (analogous to our house of commons), usually a senior figure from the majority party. The NA has the power to remove a PM, hence 'cohabitation' of politically opposed PM and President in the event of the President's party losing in the NA. But it all depends on the make up of the NA. The NA elections are about a month after the Presidential run-off. If the NF wins a majority in the assembly and Le Pen wins the Presidency, she will have significant power in shaping France's political landscape. If another party forms a majority or there is an anti-NF coalition in the NA and she wins the Presidency, her powers will be reduced as the day-to-day running of the country will be left to the majority party in the NA.

[Rowls]

This isn't to suggest that Yugoslavia was a 'happy la-la land' beforehand (indeed you know I haven't said that), however it was a functioning state and this is proved by the levels of integration / intermarriage, and also by the empirical evidence of people you've spoken with and I've spoken with. It was not a country riven with intra-nationalist politics.... This lasted until 1992 - over ten years after Tito died.

The idea you appear to be pushing - that Yugoslavia was full of irreconcilable differences, and nationalist ideologues weren't responsible for the break-up - can be shown up as false by how the tragedy rolled out. When you read victim testimonies from atrocities committed you see that it was often neighbours - the school teacher, the plumber, etc who were responsible. These are people who lived in the same town or locality for a generation and more at war with each other. Do you really believe they had lived in close proximity for so long harbouring hatred from fifty years before? The hatred with which they - and most of them weren't born until after WW2 - fought the war was not something that just occurred naturally. It was whipped up by people. I call them nationalist ideologues. Whatever you call them probably translates back to that for me.

When I said "la-la land" I was being flippant. We do have a slightly different view of how Yugoslavia was but it's our focus that is the main difference.

However I stand by my main assertion: Yugoslavia fell apart because it was an artifice built upon massive fault-lines. I have not said that Yugoslavia was full of "irreconcilable differences" but it was jam packed with more than enough differences to cause trouble. The area still is.

Of course there was love and friendship between people on differing factions but to state that "nationalist ideologues" whipped people up into a frenzy is wrong.

The simple fact is theyy were, and remain, a group of peoples with enough differences to separate them into tribes. They certainly have plenty to potentially unify them but the ultimate net result is one of disparity. For a short period they had enough to bind and manacle them together. When he died the country disintegrated within decade.

Of course, unless we conduct our conversations with ex-Yugoslavs in Serbo-Croat (don't tell them that's the language they speak, they like to differentiate it these days) in one of the actual former Yugoslav countries then we're only likely to speak to one kind of ex-Yugoslav: Those who had enough money, resources, contacts and crucially the desire to flee the conflict.

The kind of people we're less likely to meet are the many, many nationalists living in the all of the former Yugoslav states who hold the kind of hatred and dislike for their close brethren dearly in their hearts. The many who were happy to go around murdering their neighbours.

There's plenty of these murderous bastards. Meeting their politer and more civilized counterparts does not wish away their many murderous compatriots. It's as comforting and it is discomfiting to know they're nothing if not representative of most other European societies. Ourselves included.

The idea that these people had hatred forcibly inserted into their peace-loving souls what strikes me wrong. Mankind has an easy inclination to tribalism. We are tribal creatures. We cannot survive alone. We *need* to belong. If you think preference for our own kind is entirely a social construct or that hatred or dislike has to be put there by "nationalist ideologues" I think you're misunderstanding some very fundamental points of human nature - and if you misunderstand, you're more likely to make mistakes.

But we can agree to disagree on the matter and it has been nice to debate with you. Cheers.