|
quote:Emmanuel Macron (born 21 December 1977 in Amiens) is a French senior official, politician and former investment banker Aurgh. Point taken.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Is there a French politics thread that I can't find? Via this BBC story. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35982929quote:The law was passed in the final vote on the bill in the lower house of parliament by 64 to 12 with 11 abstentions, France's Le Monde newspaper reports. Is that number of abstentions normal or was this an exceptional situation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Is there a French politics thread that I can't find? Via this BBC story. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35982929 11 abstentions? Lol. The French lower house has 577 seats. I guess the rest just didn't feel like showing up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:11 abstentions? Lol. The French lower house has 577 seats. I guess the rest just didn't feel like showing up. Probably someone tried to sneak the bill through out of normal working hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:02
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
87 reps being present out of 577, sounds about right. Did I say that holding multiple offices ("cumul des mandats") was a problem? Most of these people are also mayors and/or councilors at the dept. and/or regional level. Can't be expected to be everywhere at once! They can be expected, however, to get the full pay for all these jobs; which is why getting rid of cumulards has been a constant promise in the French political scene, one that never had any chance of becoming true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:Adjusted to 32% +- 3% so the 30% will probably just be reached. "Turnout was low, 32.2%, but above the 30% threshold for the vote to be valid. The deal was rejected by 61.1% of votes, compared with 38.1% in favour." Fuuuck. So the exact opposite ratio as the Tokyo poll, unsurprisingly. Well at least it's not binding so it probably won't torpedo the agreement, but still. Why are the Dutch so mad at EU anyway?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:"Turnout was low, 32.2%, but above the 30% threshold for the vote to be valid. The deal was rejected by 61.1% of votes, compared with 38.1% in favour." Xenophobes, I assume, because refugees. Leftists who have even looked at the EU twice because it is an instrument of class war in the hands of capital, and little else. I find it really funny how the interior minister, Ronald Plasterk, is now saying that yeah, the result is valid but we have to change the law so that this poo poo doesn't happen again. "Instead of a minimum turnout maybe we should adopt a minimum number of votes against to make this kind of referendum valid", quotes El Pais. That's awesome dude. So you lose a consultation in which you only campaigned for a week and the result for the future is changing the law to make losing this kind of referendum harder for the government? Great democratic values right there, rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:29
|
|
|
I thought this was an absolutely beautiful (but bitter) story; we should all aspire to be as enlightened as this man: http://www.nrk.no/ytring/jeg-ble-voldtatt-av-en-mann-1.12852714 quote:I am a heterosexual man who was raped by a Somali asylum seeker. My life fell into gravel, but now I feel guilt for which he was sent out of the country. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Probably someone tried to sneak the bill through out of normal working hours. That bill's been debated for months, not a chance. Odds are it's just that it passing was a foregone conclusion and so most representatives didn't even bother to show for the final vote. You'd think the national legislature would require a minimum % of representatives to be present for a bill to be legit but 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
Kassad posted:That bill's been debated for months, not a chance. Odds are it's just that it passing was a foregone conclusion and so most representatives didn't even bother to show for the final vote. You'd think the national legislature would require a minimum % of representatives to be present for a bill to be legit but This or maybe being a politician and associated with prostitution for any reason is a bad idea in twenty sixteen France.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Narciss posted:I thought this was an absolutely beautiful (but bitter) story; we should all aspire to be as enlightened as this man: I too aspire to be raped by a somalian
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:raped Rape is power + sexual assault. This was not a rape. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) ----------------
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:I find it really funny how the interior minister, Ronald Plasterk, is now saying that yeah, the result is valid but we have to change the law so that this poo poo doesn't happen again. "Instead of a minimum turnout maybe we should adopt a minimum number of votes against to make this kind of referendum valid", quotes El Pais. You have to understand that the people who pushed for the referendum as good as literally used the actual treaty we were voting on for toilet paper. They have gone on the record to say that they never read the association agreement, don't give a poo poo about the contents, and could care less about Ukraine. It just so happened to be the first possible subject of the new referendum law, and they chose it basically because it would be an easy subject to fearmonger about, as a country with a serious corruption problem and which is is at war, which according to them would soon join the EU as a result of the treaty and cost us poor taxpayers a lot of money (neither of which are true). So the referendum, for the opponents of the association agreement, wasn't about the treaty - it was an opportunity to make a statement against the EU. And because the arguments for the treaty are boring, technical, and not very relevant to most people, the no vote was always going to win. And I think the issue is that the referendum law wasn't meant to be used that way. So a lot of people decided not so show up because they didn't want to legitimise this use of the referendum, because this is what we have elected representatives in parliament and government for, or because they thought the people behind the referendum are assholes (or because they don't care about politics at all of course). But if you wanted the 'no' vote to be defeated, you could do that either by voting yes or by strategically abstaining from voting due to the turnout requirement. And so to get rid of the strategic voting/abstaining it would be far better to require a percentage of the voting population to make a positive choice, rather than a percentage of those turning out. In that case, everyone voting would know that their vote mattered. Now I would be far happier with Plasterk if he'd just stayed being a professor rather than a politician, and the lack of support for the yes vote from the parties in government was disgraceful, but he's not entirely wrong here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:This or maybe being a politician and associated with prostitution for any reason is a bad idea in twenty sixteen France. That seems dubious. It's not the first time a bill passes with barely anyone present for the vote, for one. In fact, I think the Socialist Party representatives trolled Sarkozy once by turning up unexpectedly for a vote, so that they outnumbered the UMP representatives although the latter were the majority. Didn't change anything since they just voted again later, but it was funny at the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:You have to understand that the people who pushed for the referendum as good as literally used the actual treaty we were voting on for toilet paper. They have gone on the record to say that they never read the association agreement, don't give a poo poo about the contents, and could care less about Ukraine. It just so happened to be the first possible subject of the new referendum law, and they chose it basically because it would be an easy subject to fearmonger about, as a country with a serious corruption problem and which is is at war, which according to them would soon join the EU as a result of the treaty and cost us poor taxpayers a lot of money (neither of which are true). So the referendum, for the opponents of the association agreement, wasn't about the treaty - it was an opportunity to make a statement against the EU. And because the arguments for the treaty are boring, technical, and not very relevant to most people, the no vote was always going to win. I have read all of what you write about in the first paragraph and I certainly agree with you, and if I knew anything of the people pushing for the referendum I would probably hate them too. And I even ackwnoledge that your arguments in the second paragraph as a solid explanation of what happened. (With the exception of your comment that the referendum law wasn't meant to be used like that. That holds no weight in politics, the law is the law, otherwise tell me how the promoters of the referendum violated it. If each law had specific situations to be used in then maybe every law would be contextual and would have to be revised every few years to see whether the strict use-case list of each law was still relevant.... which could be a good idea!) But here's my point: In the EU, whenever a democratic consultation doesn't go the way the European Institutions would desires, it is invalidated, one way or the other. The European Constitution was soundly shot down, and exactly the same principles came back in the form of the Lisbon Treaty. But it's a treaty, it's a different thing, and so many countries could ratify it without a referendum. Bam, the Dutch and French opposition to it, sidelined. But of course that didn't help in Ireland. The referendum gave a NO answer and then a year later, another referendum, after some "concessions". A repeat of what happened with the Nice treaty, funnily enough. A year later! What would have happened if the scots had demanded another referendum a year later? They would have been laughed at in the face. And now we hear Dutch politicians say "oh we are going to have to talk very slowly with everyone, see what we can do, etc.etc." and other things I can't hear over the sound of the wringing of hands. Do you want to bet that the substance of the agreement is forced through the Dutch political system in less than a year? The EU has all of the forms and the pomp of a democracy, but it just doesn't work like one. Seriously, it is disgusting. And this referendum might have been a a farce by some parties, but it exposes, once again, something about the EU: if we don't like the way you vote, we will find a way to subvert it. And that's without getting into the TTIP treaty and article 207(3) of the Lisbon treaty, seriously. It's like the EU is trying to put paid to Emma Goldman's quote (If voted changed anything it would be illegal). VVVVVVVVV CrazyLoon: Well..... yes. We couldn't agree more. GC: Your comment is an empty thought-stopper. Like telling the bullied kid to stop worrying about the bullies. Do better than that. Dawncloack fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:if we don't like the way you vote, we will find a way to subvert it. This sounds like the standard endgame of all democracies, TBH. Not even mentioning the subversion that happens before the voting, to try and steer it in the 'correct' direction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
One easy trick to make the EU popular again your politicians don't want you to know: Stop blaming every internal problem on the EU.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:Xenophobes, I assume, because refugees. Leftists who have even looked at the EU twice because it is an instrument of class war in the hands of capital, and little else. The youth wing of the liberal party wants to remove the possibility of a referendum because according to them the low voter count for this bullshit referendum is proof that nobody cares about any referendum ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 15:48
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:The youth wing of the liberal party wants to remove the possibility of a referendum because according to them the low voter count for this bullshit referendum is proof that nobody cares about any referendum ever. Well, I think if you have read Cicero (in particular de re publica) and Thucydides you quickly come to the understanding that direct democracy is a very dumb idea that very seldom produces good results and are in almost all recent cases abused by populists to further their agenda to the detriment of everyone but themselves. I'm very happy that Germany does not have them on the federal level.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Rape is power + sexual assault. This was not a rape. So it's not rape if the victim is richer than the assaulter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:41
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So it's not rape if the victim is richer than the assaulter? It's not money that counts but their privilege ranking.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:direct democracy is a very dumb idea that very seldom produces good results and are in almost all recent cases abused by populists to further their agenda to the detriment of everyone but themselves. Bloody Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Il-Sung and Mao, if it hadn't been for that damned direct democracy!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:But here's my point: In the EU, whenever a democratic consultation doesn't go the way the European Institutions would desires, it is invalidated, one way or the other. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised; Dutch politicians would be well in their rights to do so, because the referendum is consultative, not binding. In principle, this leaves our government and parliament completely free to ratify the treaty after all and to accept any electoral price they would pay for that. That would be well within the law. Dutch politicians generally aren't that brave though (and we have elections next year), so they will try to find some kind of fudge to say that the demands of the voters have been met. But how can you satisfy the demands of no voters when the no voters either don't care about the actual topic of the referendum or when their complaints about it are not based on any concern that is grounded in reality? Also, should you grant a complete veto to whichever part of the electorate that shows up over legislation that has been passed by a broad majority in our parliament? Sure, our government could decide not to ratify the association agreement. But we share this European Union with 27 other member states. Is it, in that sense, democratic for a distinct minority to block the signing of a treaty that all the other elected governments of the EU signed, and that in fact our own parliament also approved last year before the voters that turned up yesterday said should not be ratified? I don't have good answers to any of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:54
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Bloody Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Il-Sung and Mao, if it hadn't been for that damned direct democracy!! I'm not sure why you believe Hitler, Mussolini and Mao to be recent examples of direct democracy. I was referring to multiple Swiss referenda (free-movement, deportation of criminals, deportation of not really criminals without judicial oversight), the Brexit referendum and the recent referendum in the Netherlands. You could throw in the referenda on treaty of Lisbon as well, but those might be a bit controversial. Maybe you can come up with some referenda, who resulted in the outcome different from that advocated for by the relevant authority, that actually had a positive impact on society.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So it's not rape if the victim is richer than the assaulter? Apparently so: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-a6972471.html quote:Police investigating the mass sexual assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve claim they were ordered to remove the word “rape” from their initial report.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So it's not rape if the victim is richer than the assaulter? For justice!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I'm not sure why you believe Hitler, Mussolini and Mao to be recent examples of direct democracy. I was referring to multiple Swiss referenda (free-movement, deportation of criminals, deportation of not really criminals without judicial oversight), the Brexit referendum and the recent referendum in the Netherlands. You could throw in the referenda on treaty of Lisbon as well, but those might be a bit controversial. Maybe you can come up with some referenda, who resulted in the outcome different from that advocated for by the relevant authority, that actually had a positive impact on society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LondonerVince/status/718123002110615553 Things like this kind of make me appreciate good old FPTP voting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:13
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:https://twitter.com/LondonerVince/status/718123002110615553 FPTP - The electoral system of the first country to actually have a referendum to quit the EU.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Yes! Let's cover poo poo up and lie out our asses yet again for the benefit of our own political image, and say we were doing it to 'not give the racists an excuse' (which they don't need, cause they'll form hooligan gangs at the drop of a hat anyway over the tiniest bullshit). Because THAT totally never blows back on anyone, ever, let alone a government of a democratic nation. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
CrazyLoon posted:Yes! Let's cover poo poo up and lie out our asses yet again for the benefit of our own political image, and say we were doing it to 'not give the racists an excuse' (which they don't need, cause they'll form hooligan gangs at the drop of a hat anyway over the tiniest bullshit). Because THAT totally never blows back on anyone, ever, let alone a government of a democratic nation. It's administration-style leadership trying to do damage control like it's 1990.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
On the other hand German police has enough resources to raid the homes of... dangerous Facebook posters with swat teams. https://archive.is/JnDQH What a world we live in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I'm not sure why you believe Hitler, Mussolini and Mao to be recent examples of direct democracy. More a joke since you mentioned ancient Romans and Greeks and then used 'recent' - being a relative word it could comparatively refer to the past 100 years. For once I'm just gently ribbing on ya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:06
|
|
Tesseraction posted:More a joke since you mentioned ancient Romans and Greeks and then used 'recent' - being a relative word it could comparatively refer to the past 100 years. For once I'm just gently ribbing on ya. Well, I think Roman and Greek philosophers are important in this discussion because they have seen the evil that is populist demagogue first hand, whereas direct democracy wasn't really practiced that much for the last 2000 years. But you can look at Hitler and see that his Anschluss referendum has certain parallels to the more recent Crimean referendum, though territorial referenda are probably the only ones that have some merits, if conducted correctly.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
For what it's worth Plato did say that corrupt democracy was the worst possible form of government. Of course, he never got to live under a dictatorship when guns and cameras and tanks had been invented, so he'd probably change his tune a little given modern technology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
He said that actually tyranny was the most corrupt form of government, but that it teleologically follows from an unrestricted democracy which has been stripped of all regard for common virtue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, I think Roman and Greek philosophers are important in this discussion because they have seen the evil that is populist demagogue first hand, whereas direct democracy wasn't really practiced that much for the last 2000 years. A referendum done at a gunpoint doesn't really work as an example of direct democracy not working.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
I think Benjamin Constant's argument that we can't combine the need in direct democracy of a permanent political participation in which the free man can hardly be entitled to private existence or to a protection from the political body, with our concept of liberty that makes us value privacy. In the classical demicracies, the direct rule was sustained by slave ownership and the disenfranchisement of women, it allowed the polis to arbitrarily start wars, execute people for displaying the collective will, ostracize dissenters, and overall it exposed each person in the state to the arbitrary will of the whole. We can hardly implement a system of direct democracy in which people would maintain their insulation from the dangers of politics, and in which they wouldn't be constantly pressured into doing their time to assemblies and political conflict. A direct democracy with no mandatory participation and with a strong division of power would be a legislative rule of random unrepresentative gatherings of people, hardly better than rolling a die to Pick new laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:But how can you satisfy the demands of no voters when the no voters either don't care about the actual topic of the referendum or when their complaints about it are not based on any concern that is grounded in reality? How do you know why they voted? Pluskut Tukker posted:Also, should you grant a complete veto to whichever part of the electorate that shows up over legislation that has been passed by a broad majority in our parliament? Yes, a referendum is a more democratic action than a parliamentary vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:15 |
|
|
Nermal posted:Yes, a referendum is a more democratic action than a parliamentary vote. Referendums in a liberal democracy are overwhelmingly an arbitrary decision by a minority of polarized voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 21:07
|
|