The European Project: the future of the EU.

[Kyriakos]

Sarkozy is very influent in french politics. Many of Macron's ministers are Sarkozy plants.

He isn't the leader of the largest party in a generally pending election.
Corruption is of course a serious matter, but it's also naive to think that heroic judges took it upon themselves or similar and electoral politics was never at the core of the sentence.
That said, I am sure this will not be the most egregious event of this type we will see - we have only started on our full decadence timeline.

 

[Verbose]

Sarkozy is on the irellevant side of history - it happened decades ago.

And the French courts have a long memory. When they couldn't get at Chirac they threw the book at his stand-in Alain Juppé – while clearly signaling they would come for Chirac when they only could. And then Chirac kept avoiding them, by political deal-making with Sarkozy to ensure Sarko would keep the officers of the court at bay. Which lasted until Sarkozy got his come-upance, and ended up in court himself. But by that time Chirac was so old senile and decrepit, while the courts did sentence him eventually, there wasn't any longer much point in carrying out any kind of sentence.

This is a GOOD story about corrupt politicians eventually having their past misdeeds catch up with them, and institutions holding up like they are supposed to.

Usually you are all aboard with how all politicians are corrupt and useless – except now you side with them, still on the assumption they are of course rotten and corrupt one can assume — only adding the layer that supposedly the courts are even worse cesspools?

If everything stinks in your nose, it might be your nose that is the problem.

 

[Akka]

It is not obvious how you mean it would be better if criminal activities were not prosecuted – because, democracy...

It's actually extremely obvious.
Does the person supports the EU ? Then they should absolutely be prosecuted, because they are breaking the law and should be held accountable as they are subverting democracy.
Does the person opposes the EU ? Then they should absolutely not be prosecuted, because they are representative of the people and it's the oppressive EU trying to to silence dissent.

 

[Gorbles]

It is somewhat strange that those parties never are "on the right side of history", is all.

As a leftist, I would say "actually that tracks"

I would say that the popularity of the party doesn't rest solely on Le Pen, and that if some mysterious Deep State wanted to dismantle the party, there are better ways to do it.

Likewise, if Le Pen isn't actually guilty of embezzlement, this would be a hilarious faux pas that would backfire terribly for the French government (and imo, people).

 

[Snowygerry]

I would say that the popularity of the party doesn't rest solely on Le Pen, and that if some mysterious Deep State wanted to dismantle the party, there are better ways to do it.

(...)

Well not really, while you can convict a political party, you cannot stop the same people starting a new one and once again becoming the most popular party, so the court does not cancel democracy, it just imposes limits on it in accordance with the law of the land, as it was intended centuries ago.

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/4/4/702/640284?login=false

Between the time of the judgment of the Ghent Court of Appeal and that of the Court of Cassation, Vlaams Blok won an important electoral victory in the elections for the Flemish Parliament in June 2004, obtaining a record 24 percent of the vote.

On November 14, 2004, Vlaams Blok became Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest). While the party leaders initially announced that they intended a new start with a new program, they have since asserted, on several occasions, the continuity between the programs of the old and the new parties.

 

[Gorbles]

Well not really, while you convict a political party, you cannot stop the same people starting a new one and once again becoming the most popular popular party, so the court does not cancel democracy, it just imposes limits on it in accordance with the law of the land, as it was intended.

https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/4/4/702/640284?login=false

Sure. Is that happening here?

Also, lol, in your example they just rebranded, to initial popular support. Not sure that worked, eh?

 

[Snowygerry]

Well I'd say it worked, people can still vote for a semi-racist party as long they operate within the limits of the law, and that is my intention.

 

[Gorbles]

Well I'd say it worked, people can still vote for a semi-racist party as long they operate within the limits of the law, and that is my intention.

I'll repeat myself: is that what's happening here?

 

[Kyriakos]

And the French courts have a long memory. When they couldn't get at Chirac they threw the book at his stand-in Alain Juppé – while clearly signaling they would come for Chirac when they only could. And then Chirac kept avoiding them, by political deal-making with Sarkozy to ensure Sarko would keep the officers of the court at bay. Which lasted until Sarkozy got his come-upance, and ended up in court himself. But by that time Chirac was so old senile and decrepit, while the courts did sentence him eventually, there wasn't any longer much point in carrying out any kind of sentence.

This is a GOOD story about corrupt politicians eventually having their past misdeeds catch up with them, and institutions holding up like they are supposed to.

Usually you are all aboard with how all politicians are corrupt and useless – except now you side with them, still on the assumption they are of course rotten and corrupt one can assume — only adding the layer that supposedly the courts are even worse cesspools?

If everything stinks in your nose, it might be your nose that is the problem.

I am with you, soft-banning political parties and cancelling elections either always happened in the Eu or are a sign that things are getting better*. To conclude otherwise would imply the strict impossibility of a non-independent judicial branch.
As history sadly doesn't allow us to go with the first, we rest on the second - but rejoice as in the near future the precedent will mean we can opt for the first too when needed.

 

[Snowygerry]

I'll repeat myself: is that what's happening here?

I think so yes. The rebranded party is extremely careful to stay in the legal limits, don't you agree ?

 

[Gorbles]

I think so yes. The rebranded party is extremely careful to stay in the legal limits, don't you agree ?

To clarify, I was talking about the National Rally, formerly the National Front (they rebranded in 2018). The expenses stuff broke around 2023 (according to a quick Google) with the guilty charge being delivered today (?), which is what we're discussing.

So I see no comparison with any attempt at forcibly dissolving the party. They should just take care to, y'know, not elect rulebreakers?

 

[Snowygerry]

Or evict them from the party when they break the law yes, I actually agree with Kyriakos that the court should not tell people how to vote, if they want to try to elect criminals they are free to do so, they should just know that the court can and will limit their ability to serve in public functions, or partake in elections.

No matter how popular they are.

​

 

[Verbose]

I am with you, soft-banning political parties and cancelling elections either always happened in the Eu or are a sign that things are getting better*. To conclude otherwise would imply the strict impossibility of a non-independent judicial branch.
As history sadly doesn't allow us to go with the first, we rest on the second - but rejoice as in the near future the precedent will mean we can opt for the first too when needed.

No party has been banned – soft, hard or creamy in between. An individual politician who played fast and lose with laws and regulations about financing has been banned.

It's that, or everywhere is somehow all Putini-Xi-Trumpistan already... And it's not that bad, yet.

Politics is not about individuals like that. When people think it is, there's already trouble afoot.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'd take it one step further and say that preventing leaders of major parties from running not only has no political implications but it is purely incidental that they could topple the government of the day; justice remains axiomatically blind to such things.
As you said, they can prepare a new candidate with the same popular appeal as the banned one. If they can't in a few months, well it means they simply sucked as a party so no loss.

 

[Verbose]

I'd take it one step further and say that preventing leaders of major parties from running not only has no political implications but it is purely incidental that they could topple the government of the day; justice remains axiomatically blind to such things.
As you said, they can prepare a new candidate. If they can't in a few months, well it means they simply sucked as a party so no loss.

Javier Bardella was poised to step up anyway. He just the promotion early. Le Pen, you can feel bad for her personally if you like, as her personal political project is what's now in pieces (I don't and won't). Political commentary in France is that this was politically bad for everyone – except the RN, who now gets to paint themselves as victims.

Which is what both so far both the Russia government (Peskov) and Orban have already come out of the woodwork to also proclaim.

And here you are peddling the same narrative. Your general resentment of... all kinds of things... was always going to land you with Trump, Vance, Orban and Putin like this.

 

[Kyriakos]

I commend you on in the same post trying to paint the other person as treating everything as one, by treating everything as one. Sadly Trump=Putin=Le Pen=AfG=whatever, is not the lofty insight you think it is.
Meanwhile, I do agree that the only ones who didn't lose from banning their popular leader is the party that had its popular leader banned. This is the positive way of thinking we can use, instead of resentment.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, there are absolutely zero commonalities between far-right parties; absolutely no previous lines of communication or even in-person meetings. This has never happened and the very idea that it could be suggested is . . . I don't even know man. Sarcasm tanks are running empty. They've been low for a while, given the state of things. How far do you need to push this absurdity, all because "EU bad"?

The only miscarriage of justice here are the people found guilty of embezzling funds. It has nothing to do with getting rid of the National Rally, or anything close to that.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't agree, but we are all free to have our views. Soft-ban Voltaire too, and the creep who owns his house currently.

 

[AdrienIer]

Yes, there are absolutely zero commonalities between far-right parties; absolutely no previous lines of communication or even in-person meetings. This has never happened and the very idea that it could be suggested is . . . I don't even know man. Sarcasm tanks are running empty. They've been low for a while, given the state of things. How far do you need to push this absurdity, all because "EU bad"?

The only miscarriage of justice here are the people found guilty of embezzling funds. It has nothing to do with getting rid of the National Rally, or anything close to that.

Yeah. Proof that this isn't a pointed attack against the party as a whole, Bardella was not accused of anything despite being part of the scam. He produced fake documents to "prove" that he worked for the EU parliament, and when the press proved that they were fake the judges didn't go after him anyway. So the clear "heir" to the RN will be able to be its candidate.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't agree, but we are all free to have our views.

We're free to discuss them, however "lofty" they may be considered to be (or not). If you don't want to discuss them, but you want to keep suggesting bad things that bad people are doing that will have bad consequences, it's a pattern that others are going to tire of. Maybe that's fine. Maybe it's all just a waste of time.

EDIT

To be clear, I suggest bad things that bad people are doing that will have bad consequences all the time. But I tend to (think I) have more of a proverbial smoking gun than "somebody was found guilty of embezzlement, which is actually anti-democracy". And I've posted plenty of news where charges have been fabricated! This is a thing that can, theoretically, technically happen.

It just doesn't seem to be happening here.