|
Yeah I'm saying "rich" compared to the rest of Europe, I mean it's mostly farmers here but I don't think they are exactly poor. Also, with Austria, pointing a middle finger to the elites is half the appeal of voting for the far right.
|
#
?
May 23, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
mike12345 posted:Also, with Austria, pointing a middle finger to the elites is half the appeal of voting for the far right. actually that's pretty much the case all over.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
We don't have these coalitions and stuff here in the States but I was reading a couple BBC articles and it seems to me like when the other parties have to gang up on one party or to just abstain and say "please, vote for anyone EXCEPT THESE GUYS", there might be a problem and these are only very temporary solutions. Maybe they think the problem is only temporary as well and all the nationalist parties will lose momentum. I dunno if that's true or not. Seems like the next big elections will be next year so we'll see what happens then? Also a bit of bias here as they specifically say UKIP isn't like these other groups because...well, they're British.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:We don't have these coalitions and stuff here in the States but I was reading a couple BBC articles and it seems to me like when the other parties have to gang up on one party or to just abstain and say "please, vote for anyone EXCEPT THESE GUYS", there might be a problem and these are only very temporary solutions. Yes, basically. In some local German elections, the AfD (basically German Trumpublicans) get a large enough share of the vote to force the other parties into unholy unions with greens and christian conservatives in the same government since that's the only way to keep the AfD in opposition.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Yes, basically. In some local German elections, the AfD (basically German Trumpublicans) get a large enough share of the vote to force the other parties into unholy unions with greens and christian conservatives in the same government since that's the only way to keep the AfD in opposition. They should look at the other European countries and realise that is exactly how you increase the power of the very parties you don't like.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Riso posted:They should look at the other European countries and realise that is exactly how you increase the power of the very parties you don't like. Correlation does not imply causation. But in this one case, yeah probably.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
France is just flying at the moment. Fuel shortages due to blockades and strike action at refineries and depots, train strikes tomorrow (which are to be reviewed daily), air traffic controllers and finally dock workers all on strike too.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
It's just been reported that there will also be strikes in EDF power stations, including one nuclear power plant.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
I'm assuming this is based on the government's new labour regulation? What is the major point of contention, again, for those of us with oddly short memories?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Until now I have heard not a single thing about France.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Riso posted:Until now I have heard not a single thing about France. The government is loving with labour regulations and it led to some major outcries. Now mass protests, it seems.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Strikes don't traditionally make international news, unless there is milk spilled, so I'm not surprised that this is the first I hear of it. Class act to use an undemocratic exemption to push through massively unpopular legislation shirking most of the voters when they already know they'll lose next term anyway. Real subtle about where their true loyalties lie.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm assuming this is based on the government's new labour regulation? What is the major point of contention, again, for those of us with oddly short memories? The government trying to worsen labor conditions, or you could also say "make France more competitive", and they want to use a special law that allows the government to bypass parliament to pass the reforms.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:The government trying to worsen labor conditions, or you could also say "make France more competitive", and they want to use a special law that allows the government to bypass parliament to pass the reforms. Yes isn't this the bit mentioned earlier in the thread where the government can force a single piece of legislation through once per legislative session, or something?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
It was.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Nothing says democracy like loving over the workers while representing the 'socialist' party. If only right-wing parties were as fundamentally dishonest as to their intentions relative to their party name.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yes isn't this the bit mentioned earlier in the thread where the government can force a single piece of legislation through once per legislative session, or something? Why is that a thing? Like, what is the function of that, legislatively? It can't be based on need because that assumes a maximum of one crisis per session.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Why is that a thing? I think the original function was to let Charles de Gaulle do whatever he wanted.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Nothing says democracy like loving over the workers while representing the 'socialist' party. (I meant to post more quickly: Like the "Law and Justice" Party in Polnad, "Justice and Development" Party in Turkey) hohohohoho OwlFancier posted:Why is that a thing? Like BoB says. Also a way to force governmental unity while making GBS threads your legislative pants.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I'm assuming this is based on the government's new labour regulation? What is the major point of contention, again, for those of us with oddly short memories? You can try a google translate of these articles: http://droit-finances.commentcamarche.net/faq/52536-loi-el-khomri-loi-travail-ce-qui-va-changer#entree-en-vigueur http://www.europe1.fr/economie/que-va-changer-le-projet-de-loi-el-khomri-dans-la-vie-des-salaries-2671489 Basically, though, the biggest points of contention are: * overtime will be paid a lot less * employers can use referenda to enact changes in working conditions even if the trade unions are opposed * indemnities for abusive firing are now given limits It's the same old "we'll solve the unemployment crisis by making sure enterprises can more easily let go of their employees and have less incentive to increase their workforce" policies that have been going on since the 1980s. OwlFancier posted:Why is that a thing? You can look at something like the government shutdown of the USA to see the kind of justification for this existing. But well, turns out solving that problem actually causes a bigger problem, so welp. Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 22:07 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Class act to use an undemocratic exemption to push through massively unpopular legislation shirking most of the voters when they already know they'll lose next term anyway. The exemption (49-3) isn't undemocratic, it's just a way for the government to bypass the amendment process. Basically it's "we want to do this, and no, we don't want to spend the next 10 days listening to amendments on it, so either it's OK with the parliament, or the government resigns". It's an ultimatum to the parliament, but it's not undemocratic. The vote of no-confidence failed, make what you want of that, but it's not because democracy was bypassed. There was a vote, a vote that failed because of whatever reason, and as a result the government has the right to implement the law. Badger of Basra posted:I think the original function was to let Charles de Gaulle do whatever he wanted. The intended use of the 49-3 was to counteract the instability of governments under the 4th Republic, by giving the government a way to force members of their majority to position themselves clearly as "with" or "against" the government by requiring an absolute majority of the parliament to refuse their confidence to the acting government, unlike the previous case where a mere relative majority could defeat a government, which often lead to dissenting members of the majority being "absent" from key votes, resulting in a government that no longer had the power to govern, but at the same time no clear shift in the parliament which could lead to a new majority being formed, effectively meaning that the same coalition or party would form a new government, but on a platform that their own members had already rejected... Edit : Also, it helped as a counter-power for the government to the almost limitless amendment procedure of the 4th and early 5th Republic, when the opposition could just write out a million amendments to shift a comma or re-phrase a paragraph and each one would have to be presented by the author (with time), debated (which can mean supporting speeches by other members), and voted on. The 49-3 was the government's way of preventing this behaviour from the opposition parties on projects which had clear majority support. Shazback fucked around with this message at 22:10 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Basically, though, the biggest points of contention are: Hell, these points alone are loving awful. Christ.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Shazback posted:The exemption (49-3) isn't undemocratic, it's just a way for the government to bypass the amendment process. Basically it's "we want to do this, and no, we don't want to spend the next 10 days listening to amendments on it, so either it's OK with the parliament, or the government resigns". It's an ultimatum to the parliament, but it's not undemocratic. The vote of no-confidence failed, make what you want of that, but it's not because democracy was bypassed. There was a vote, a vote that failed because of whatever reason, and as a result the government has the right to implement the law. Anything that requires a majority to vote against it rather than for it to pass walks a pretty thin line on how democratic it is. In this case it clearly was nowhere near that line. The policy is massively unpopular both in parliament and public as far as I've understood it and would likely not pass without using the exemption. That it's by the book does not change the fact that it's stupid. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 22:21 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:Anything that requires a majority to vote against it rather than for it to pass walks a pretty thin line on how democratic it is. In this case it clearly was nowhere near that line. The policy is massively unpopular both in parliament and public as far as I've understood it and would likely not pass without using the exemption. The only difference between a majority vote for and a majority vote against are abstentions. I do not believe that it is appropriate or desirable for people who are elected to parliament to abstain from voting. Either the law is one they support or it is one they do not. If some politicians are too weak-willed to express their position during a vote in parliament, that's only a reflection on them, not on the process. The PS "frondeurs" were against the law, but didn't vote for the motion of no-confidence that was tabled by the opposition. Either this means that they feel that the government's work overall is good enough in spite of the proposed law (ergo their opposition to the law is minor or they feel that it is a minor issue), or that they support the proposed law. Too many politicians want to have their cake and eat it by saying they're "against" something their party or majority proposes, so that depending on how the cards fall by the time they're up for re-election they can whip out the "I was against XX" or the "my party implemented XX" card, and sweep the fact that respectively they didn't vote against it (or only when they were sure it wouldn't affect their standing in the party/majority) or that they were opposed to a policy that proved successful under the rug.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Shazback posted:There was a vote, a vote that failed because of whatever reason, and as a result the government has the right to implement the law. For those curious, "whatever reason" is that the Socialist Party and its coalition partners hold a relative majority of seats in the National Assembly. That vote of no confidence could only have succeeded if dissenting socialist representatives voted against their own cabinet. There has literally never been a case where a vote of no confidence following the use of article 49.3 was successful. It's effectively a way to bypass a vote safely. Xoidanor posted:Anything that requires a majority to vote against it rather than for it to pass walks a pretty thin line on how democratic it is. In this case it clearly was nowhere near that line. The policy is massively unpopular both in parliament and public as far as I've understood it and would likely not pass without using the exemption. This can't be overstated: estimates were that 80-some Socialist representatives would have voted for this bill, out of nearly 300 representatives in the socialist coalition. The vote of no confidence allowed a lot of socialist representatives to avoid voting for this extremely unpopular bill.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Last week Hollande announced income tax cuts (absolutely nothing to do with the election next year) and then the news this week is that he told his ministers to cut another €2bn. Ecology, Science & Research the worst hit.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
let the good times roll
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Kassad posted:That vote of no confidence could only have succeeded if dissenting socialist representatives voted against their own cabinet. [...] It's effectively a way to bypass a vote safely. The PS group (+ affiliated members) has 288 members in parliament, with the absolute majority being 289. The ecologist and radical (centre-left) groups both have 18 members, and the far left group has 15 members. It's pretty impossible to believe that if the Valls government was toppled on this vote the next majority wouldn't be from the PS, so it's not like the socialist dissidents would have been handing the government to the right-wing parties they oppose. If anything, the new government would have had to go more "to the left" in order to regain support from the dissidents and other parties on the left, since the right-wing parties have decided that having anything to do with the PS is electoral suicide, so it's quite difficult to imagine a "grand coalition" of LR-PS. EDIT : Yes, the 49-3 has most often been used as a tool to control a minority-supported government, but this doesn't mean that it's useless or a way to bypass a vote. It's more that the nature of the 49-3 as a tool of last recourse means that each time it's used the pros and cons have been weighed carefully, and the government has been proven right that no absolute majority would form to refuse them the confidence of the parliament. The specific cases of using the 49-3 have varied, but usually it's been in the case of coalition governments where they test the internal objections to the proposed law, knowing that if the government falls there is a real chance of the opposition forming a coalition government with broader support, as at least one member party of the current coalition would join the current opposition. Kassad posted:This can't be overstated: estimates were that 80-some Socialist representatives would have voted for this bill, out of nearly 300 representatives in the socialist coalition. The vote of no confidence allowed a lot of socialist representatives to avoid voting for this extremely unpopular bill. My understanding is that it has lead to all socialist representatives supporting this law. They might not have voted for it, but they supported it. They might try to spin it as "the government we chose and supported implemented XX but I was really, really against it", but the fact is that when the vote came, they stood by the law. Shazback fucked around with this message at 22:52 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Shazback posted:The only difference between a majority vote for and a majority vote against are abstentions. I do not believe that it is appropriate or desirable for people who are elected to parliament to abstain from voting. Either the law is one they support or it is one they do not. No it absolutely is a fault of the process. The reason that votes of no-confidence in representative democracies typically require an absolute majority to pass (meaning that non-participation gets counted as a no which is not the case in regular votes) is because it makes it easier for an unpopular government to sit. It's good for stability, it means that something has to go seriously wrong for re-elections to happen between terms. This is good because stability means that the legislation does not stall and that confidence does not waver which is important for GDP. The MP's in parliament could sink the exemption backed proposal by forcing a re-election but that is no choice at all. Either the electorate get hosed by the policy or the nation gets hosed by the incoming re-election. This is why I called it blatantly undemocratic. The exemption basically allows the government to hold the nation hostage to get the unpopular legislation to pass.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:The MP's in parliament could sink the exemption backed proposal by forcing a re-election but that is no choice at all. Either the electorate get hosed by the policy or the nation gets hosed by the incoming re-election. This is why I called it blatantly undemocratic. The exemption basically allows the government to hold the nation hostage to get the unpopular legislation to pass. The opposition to the 49-3 (motion de censure) does not call for a new election (legislative election). I don't know where you got that idea from. It merely calls for a new government to be selected by the President. If the PS frondeurs had voted the motion de censure, nothing would have stopped Hollande from selecting the exact same government and giving them the exact same policy, which would/could have lead in a quasi-eternal loop of "government uses 49-3 to try to pass the law", "parliament censures the government", "government resigns", "president nominates the exact same government with the same policy"... More likely, it would have forced Hollande to denounce the "centrist/social-democratic" policies of Valls and Macron, and negotiate with the frondeurs/écologistes/far-left to find a new policy and government, whist renouncing to the law in its current form.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
All of you debating the democratic merits of this vote are bypassing (heh) the even bigger issue of a party enacting laws that are dramatically opposed to the platform they were elected on. Now that is the most undemocratic bit. Now I love making fun of the French for their regular strikes as much as anyone, but this one is well deserved. If the Socialist loving party wins I would expect them to do socially and economically progressive poo poo, just as I would expect the FN to do all the fascist poo poo, because that's what the majority loving voted for.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
moi président de la république
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Riso posted:Until now I have heard not a single thing about France. So the media is working like it's supposed to. We don't want workers in our country to get any funny ideas do we?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:You can try a google translate of these articles: Has enacting such policies ever directly lead to a decrease in unemployment, or is this yet another thing where economists are baffled that reality doesnt match their theories?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 07:30
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:Has enacting such policies ever directly lead to a decrease in unemployment, or is this yet another thing where economists are baffled that reality doesnt match their theories? It did in Germany.
|
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
bronin posted:So the media is working like it's supposed to. We don't want workers in our country to get any funny ideas do we? No, it is literally that it is very boring news that do not sell papers. "Another strike in France, THIS TIME IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT!!!!" Is a hard sell when you are not French and can barely muster the interest to care about the torrent of news concerning your own country.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It did in Germany. Yeah all those precious low income, part-time and temporary jobs. Brilliant!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It did in Germany. Did it result in full-time jobs so people can afford to live a decent life and start a family? Or was it all temporary and/or part-time jobs? Because here in the Netherlands that is mostly the result of the attempts to reform the labor market. Loads of jobs with a guarantee of 0 hours a week and perhaps more if you offer blood to the employer gods. And loads of people who used to have a job but are now forced to be independent contractors, like postal deliverers, and thus no longer legible for say unemployment benefits unless they take out their own (very expensive) insurance.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Charlie Mopps posted:Has enacting such policies ever directly lead to a decrease in unemployment, or is this yet another thing where economists are baffled that reality doesnt match their theories? in Germany it was used to suppress workers wages, which lead to lower prices which meant Germany could export more stuff to other coutrnies which meant those countries suddenly can't make and export that stuff leading to the Euro crisis where one country is abusing its workers to force other countries to either start gettin higher and higher trade deficits (and debt) or abuse its workers too
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
bronin posted:Yeah all those precious low income, part-time and temporary jobs. Brilliant! Lets not forget that they are also government subsidised poo poo jobs. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:44
|
|