Mainly economic, against fuel price increases but now including a range of other issues, but Macron's policies like tax cuts for the wealthy and labour "reforms" that help employers have shown up his claims to be governing for everyone. Both rightwingers like Le Pen and leftwingers like Melenchon have tried to capitalise on the protests but I suspect they were as surprised by them as Macron was
Why hasn't EU realize yet that holding on ideology that cost a lot of money wouldn't guarantee the survival of its nations ? I mean how much does LGBT issues, accepting refugees and health benefits contributes to European economy ? How would France be able to save others when the nation can't even save itself ? Why can't Macron strike a balance between economy and ideals but no, he has to go to an extreme ?
What the EU has not realized is that the ideology it supposedly holds is not actually held by most of its citizens. The whole project is supposedly laid on ideological grounds but in reality the vast majority of people and countries just bought into it for the economic benefits. And it's not just the periphery either as evidenced by what the English did and what the French are doing now. Thus if they want to keep pushing those ideals they are going to not just make them costless but actually profitable.
There is no "the EU". There's no Civ player who now has to deal with loyalty issues in her or his EU-Civilization. Stop using those terms and location identifiers such as "Brussels does x" .
I do agree that there's a disconnection on certain values between the population and the EU Commission and Council of Ministers, but it's not as large as you make it out to be, if you look at the eurobarometer polls. Rather, it's a very loud minority, and that's a global trend. Apathy towards the political sphere is still the most dominant political movement..
And the disconnection is btw. largely a fault of the national governments who have played two level games for so long ("everything bad = Brussels made us do; everything good = we fought in Brussels to get that / we decide that in our own home country").
For the poorest incomes in France the "modernisation" of Macron decreased their disposable income, whereas the top 1 % incomes got a substantial tax reduction.
That's not funny at all !
Whether there is no hope for them to reverse the action of Macron to enrich the richest 1% remains to be seen.
There is no "the EU". There's no Civ player who now has to deal with loyalty issues in her or his EU-Civilization. Stop using those terms and location identifiers such as "Brussels does x" .
Except that is exactly what the EU acts as if it is.
I do agree that there's a disconnection on certain values between the population and the EU Commission and Council of Ministers, but it's not as large as you make it out to be, if you look at the eurobarometer polls. Rather, it's a very loud minority, and that's a global trend. Apathy towards the political sphere is still the most dominant political movement..
And the disconnection is btw. largely a fault of the national governments who have played two level games for so long ("everything bad = Brussels made us do; everything good = we fought in Brussels to get that / we decide that in our own home country").
That might be a part of it. But you can't just dismiss the fact that large parts of the union are non LGBT friendly, anti migration, only like freedom of movement when it's them moving to a richer country (to the point where the English chose to up and leave over it) and have shown resistance to EU imposed morality at every step for deep cultural reasons.
Why hasn't EU realize yet that holding on ideology that cost a lot of money wouldn't guarantee the survival of its nations ? I mean how much does LGBT issues, accepting refugees and health benefits contributes to European economy ? How would France be able to save others when the nation can't even save itself ? Why can't Macron strike a balance between economy and ideals but no, he has to go to an extreme ?
The things you mention aren't part of any EU ideology. The state of healthcare in France is one of the things the protesters are protesting about.
I get the feeling some people are trying to project their own agendas onto the protesters.
The things you mention aren't part of any EU ideology. The state of healthcare in France is one of the things the protesters are protesting about.
I get the feeling some people are trying to project their own agendas onto the protesters.
Except that is exactly what the EU acts as if it is.
[...]
That might be a part of it. But you can't just dismiss the fact that large parts of the union are non LGBT friendly, anti migration, only like freedom of movement when it's them moving to a richer country (to the point where the English chose to up and leave over it) and have shown resistance to EU imposed morality at every step for deep cultural reasons.
Ok, so I am going to repeat myself: Who acts exactly as if it is what?
I did agree with you that there is a disconnection regarding values, that there is a big diversity of opinions among the population of the European Union and that that variety is not evenly distributed. But that doesn't matter quite all that much, as the European Union is primarily made up of national governments. The Council of Ministers forms quite a strong legislative branch with a weak executive branch (the commission). The European Parliament ISN'T the legislative branch, but some sort of second chamber with diminished rights.
But all that leads to far, as - again - I do think your critique holds true. So true, a pro-european movement has that critique at the basis of its utopian vision: https://european-republic.eu/en/.
I do keep at my point that we gain so much understanding when we start to speak of the Commission, the Council, the Parliament, The Court, instead of "the EU". And I gladly repeat it a few more times if that is what's needed. No scratch that, I probably won't have the nerve for that....
Not really. "Defend the borders" has always been a key part of American conservative ideology. It's one of the few things they think the government actually should be involved in.
Also, their idea of "taking care of people" is much different from the American left's idea of "taking care of people". Rather than provide social welfare programs, working-class American conservatives would instead have the government enact harsher penalties on American corporations that try to either off-shore their operations or attempt to bring in cheaper foreign labor that drives down wages.
In short, the difference between working-class conservatives and working-class liberals in the US is the conservatives want their welfare in the form of a guaranteed job, while the liberals are more for the entitlement programs that make losing one's job less of a threat to their ability to survive.
Not really. "Defend the borders" has always been a key part of American conservative ideology. It's one of the few things they think the government actually should be involved in.
Also, their idea of "taking care of people" is much different from the American left's idea of "taking care of people". Rather than provide social welfare programs, working-class American conservatives would instead have the government enact harsher penalties on American corporations that try to either off-shore their operations or attempt to bring in cheaper foreign labor that drives down wages.
In short, the difference between working-class conservatives and working-class liberals in the US is the conservatives want their welfare in the form of a guaranteed job, while the liberals are more for the entitlement programs that make losing one's job less of a threat to their ability to survive.
Yea I guess I'd have to disagree, borders has only recently been a rallying cry for conservatives.I link it to the borders, language, culture stuff from a certain pundit that really took off in the past ten years.
The EU is tyrannical? The U.S. Democratic Party is tyrannical? The British Labour Party is tyrannical? Sounds like most of these people have never REALLY seen tyrants before. I have, in my life, spoke to a fair number of interesting people who came from various foreign nations and were quite candid and open in discussing "back home." People from nations such as Rwanda, Uganda, the DRC, Zimbabwe, Iraq, and a few others. I also used to mow the lawn and shovel sidewalks as an adolescent (so in the very late '80's/very early '90's) for a retired Austrian woman who lived next door for extra pocket change who told me chilling tales of growing up in Vienna in the late '30's/early '40's. From what I've heard from them, anyone who seriously, REALLY thinks the above three groups are TRULY tyrants has no idea AT ALL what a tyrant really is.
In short, the difference between working-class conservatives and working-class liberals in the US is the conservatives want their welfare in the form of a guaranteed job, while the liberals are more for the entitlement programs that make losing one's job less of a threat to their ability to survive.
Rather than point out every way this post is Wrong with a capital W, I'll just link to the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act and remind you that directing government policy to achieve full employment - even mandating the government ensure full employment - has a long and proud history on the political left; and an equally long if not so proud history on the political right as being rubbished as either impractical or the apocalyptic harbinger of COMMUNISM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey–Hawkins_Full_Employment_Act
so , what's the beef the Rich have with the Nature ? You know , it's always allright to bulldoze a couple of thousands of trees and the like if you are getting your share out of it . But , Trump trumping that the French want him in charge so that they can destroy the planet in the American way ? And instead banging a fist on the table , the Rich then want others to shoulder the cost ?
Rather than point out every way this post is Wrong with a capital W, I'll just link to the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act and remind you that directing government policy to achieve full employment - even mandating the government ensure full employment - has a long and proud history on the political left; and an equally long if not so proud history on the political right as being rubbished as either impractical or the apocalyptic harbinger of COMMUNISM.
You'll note I said the difference between working-class conservatives and working-class liberals. What the working-class advocate for and what the politicians advocate for tend to be very different.
You'll note I said the difference between working-class conservatives and working-class liberals. What the working-class advocate for and what the politicians advocate for tend to be very different.
Yes. Working-class liberals too. If you talk to a working-class conservative and a working-class liberal in the US, you'll find they actually have a lot of things in common in regards to what they expect from the government.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
