Topic: Frexit? A potential rebirth for EU, or its end? (Read 468 times)

Sadly no.
The decision is announced at the European council... Council made of ministries of all the EU countries.
Senate and National assembly have no place in this decision. The "law part" would be AFTER president (through its government which he directly appoints) takes the decision. But National assembly and senate would have no choice in the fact that France is leaving.
You're completely wrong again. They ARE allmighty, they just decided to not bother so much to not cause a revolution.
That can pass whatever bill they want without asking anything to anyone, that's what article 13 is all about. And previous president did it several times, including laws that no one wanted neither in the population or the national assembly.
It's just that most president are here for the money so they don't bother, but if they want they CAN.
No problem on the phrasing part, political subjects are always heated and I'm not the last to write too fast.

Concerning all what you're saying, I agree with pretty much everything but you failed to mention the one important question: how do you bring those changes?
You're pretty much saying "hey wouldn't it be best to slowly give the power to the people by making them learn how to handle it and take the time to change the culture of everyone concerning responsaibilities over political discussions and decisions?"

Yeah sure it would be better than a suddent change from no power at all to all the power to the people and no representants.

But how do you handle a slow transition? People having the power right now will NOT give it willingly. That's what the yellow vest movement is all about (more referendum) and the answer from the government is obviously "get back to work little shit don't think you can decide anything".
They will not give the power willingly, we'll have to take it by force... And you can't take "parts of the pwoer" by force, you either win the battle and take it all or lose and take nothing.

If you have an idea on how to do it please be my guest, but all you've been saying was "it would be best to go slowly by more referendum and more implication" and yes, but referendums and political implications are mainly decided by the people currently holding power. Why would they accept to hand it to us little by little when they can keep it?

You mentionned it but didn't show any evidence simply because it doesn't exist

Here is what Europe does and why it's a cancer:
-It's a bottom levelling tool. By saying "free market everywhere" it means that the lowest standards are competing against the highest. Why would a company accept decent working conditions in France when they can take the Eastern Europe slaves to do the same thing without any repercussion?
-By removing any border you allo all companies operating in Europe to centralize their profits on one country. The 40 biggest corporations of France pay nearly 0 taxes in France simply because they transfer their profit to Benelux or Ireland. There is nothing that can be done against that.
-You remove any kind of immigration control. This cannot be a good thing. Having people move freely anywhere without any condition means the state loses control over its population, that means it loses control on itself.
-Centralizing the power means even less people are taking decisions for even more people, that means it's even easier for big companies to use lobbying and corruption to reach their goals. Did you ever go to Bruxells' European Center? It's 4 buildings of European Union in the middle of 20 buildings owned by lobbyists. For every European Deputy there are approximately 5 professional lobbyists influencing them on a full time schedule. (https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/04/A/50304)
-Centralization of the currency allowed banks and big companies to take over the currency of every country in the EU... They decide, we obey, and that concerning every aspect of the currency.

And that's what I can think of in 2 minutes. Now the actual advantages I can see are:
-Ensured peace. But that can be promoted with a European Alliance, no need for a Union.
-Scientific work promotion, but again no need of a Union here. Switzerland is part of the most important scientific works groups of the EU and isn't in the EU
-Population exchanges and ability to move arround. That's cool but you just need to get rid of the Visa obligation, we do that with tons of countries already

So please if you think EU is useful, explain what can balance those montruous cons I've listed 

jes the banking cartel of france that think its a country will leave the eu to then enslave whole europe to their money printing press

Government =/= president. I just disagree about the fact that the president hast the actual capacity to make a bill that big pass unilateraly.
I don't see how you can say that the president has direct control of both the senate and the Assemblée nationale. The senators are not appointed by the president. And leaving the EU needs to be done by a law.

While I agree he has too much influence, I disagree with your wording. Proof enough is that many presidents fail to pass the bills they intend. They are not allmighty.
Of course people are not ready to make decisions about the country, how could they? These decisions have been taken away from them/us for way too long. Restoring a direct democracy without a period of teaching/adjustment would be very dangerous, because a lot of people are not used to think about the long term consequences.


Maybe I didn't chose the right words - apologies.

First step would be more Referendum. That doesn't mean the government has to listen to the outcome every single way for starters.
BUT I think starting actually ASKING the population will make people think about these issues and decisions. My belief is this would be a nice start which would help getting peoples interest.

I want to share one more experience I had.
I spent several years in Germany, and I was really surprised how politically engaged people are there. I am talking about people my age so students, from 20's to early 30's. These guys, from an early age on, starting at 14 or earlier, actually have a sound opinion on politics and decisions. Most of them have emancipated from their parents opinion and think by themselves. They are also ready to go to the street every time they want to be heard. Of course when they are too young, some logics are faulty, and they can be missing important points. But they are interested and learning by themselves.

I am really hoping for this to happen in France.

To me it is all about communication and the possibility to identify yourself with what the government does.

While some people might be able to do this because they spend the time and energy to understand what the government actually does, it is not the case of all. To me the case of the Gilets Jaunes is a good example.
The issue that caused the movement, social misery, is understood by everyone, and everyone would like to solve it. However most propositions the Gilets Jaunes claim they want to see happen wouldn't change much, or are not possible because the government lacks the money.

I guess we are not really from the same political side, but I believe France is pretty good socially. We are redistributing a lot of money to people who need it. The system isn't perfect tho, and yes continuous improvement is the way to go. I do not believe everything done is bad tho, and evolution is still possible without "dissolution".

"Il n'y a pas dix solutions, il y a dissolution" is not YET the way to go, at least in my opinion.

Regarding my previous post about Europe, I believe I also mentionned what kind of GDP growth it provoked. Higher GDP usually translated in better life conditions for the country. My opinion still stands that Europe was, is and will be a good thing for most countries involved in the future. I'd be happy to hear why you think it is not going to be.

"L'Etat qui décide de se retirer notifie son intention au Conseil européen (composé des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement des Etats membres)"
It means the ones declaring a country goes out of EU are the president and its government. And as in France government is appointed by President, President decides alone (or fires his government and take a new one accepting to leave EU).
One person controls all the different kind of powers in the state, how is that not a dictatorship? It's not because he hasn't created death camp that it's not a dictatorship...
This is a pretty different explanation that the ones you presented before, saying that current persons in charges are educated and know what's good for the country.

I believe you're still underestimating the capacity of a population to think and decide what must be done. In perticular, you're not taking into account the fact that each mistake made will be learnt from contrary to today's politic.
But in theory you're right, smooth transition is always better. But how do you make a smooth transition from current dictatorship to a direct democracy? It's impossible. President, hence banks and big industries have all the power, why would they smoothly give it back to the population?
The only way to change anything here is through radical, violent change. I don't see anything possible but another revolution with a whole bunch of guillotines.

Do you see any way to change, slowly, the current system towards a direct democracy?

There is absolutely nothing in this link that actually says the president can unilateraly do this.

I agree with you about the fact that the powers are too centered in our democracy. This is still pretty far from a dictatorship tho.

Of course people are not ready to make decisions about the country, how could they? These decisions have been taken away from them/us for way too long. Restoring a direct democracy without a period of teaching/adjustment would be very dangerous, because a lot of people are not used to think about the long term consequences.

Would you expect people who have difficulties to spare any money to be ok with any law that would make them earn less, even if it would benefit the environment for instance? I don't. And I don't blame them.
Hopefully a gradual increased exposure to government decision making and better communication from the government we can get more citizens involved and truely interested in the decision making, which would empower them and get them used to critical thinking.

I hope you don't believe that most of the population would think about the greater good of the country before their own personal well being? Maybe I am just cynical.

You're so insanely up your own ass... I think I hate people like you more than anything.

So to correct the whole bullshit you're saying:
Of course France is a dictatorship and OF COURSE the president can leave EU without anyone saying anything
https://www.touteleurope.eu/actualite/comment-un-pays-peut-il-quitter-l-union-europeenne.html

Are you even aware of the French constitution? The current "democratic system" of our country is simply an elective monarchy. President has the 3 powers and noone can do anything about that:

-Executive: Chief of the army and the police, and of course the famous CRS who answer directly to him. No one has any right here, he can declare any war he wants to anyone, his only obligation being to "notify" the national assembly and the senate in the 3 days following the war declaratiuon, but "it shall not lead to any debate".

-Justice: President directly appoints the ministry of justice who controls the "Court de Cassation" which is the most important court of the country. It just means that anything happens to anyone president likes or dislikes, you just have to go to the court of cassation and surprise the judge is directly appointed by the president. If that's what you call a "normal procedure" or a good separation of powers then please leave directly to North Korea cause that's exactly the system they have

-Laws: Do I have to actually tell you about the article 13 that was heavily used and just says "president can pass whatever law he damn wants"?

France is a "cool dictatorship". That means everything is under direct control of the president, but until now the previous president never reaaaaaaaaally abused the sytem like in Cuba or North Korea. But they can whenever they want and there is NOTHING to stop them.

Macron does whatever he wants. He can put anyone in prison without any reason, can pass any law he wants and make the army do whatever ha wants. If that's not a dictatorship then what is?

Oh and for the beautiful:

Sure because I guess anyone wanting to leave the EU is just an uncultures swine? So it's perfectly normal that the people just obey the cultivated bourgeoisie and aristocratie of the country. Why do those uncultured idiots even have a right to vote? Just make them obey will you...

The 22% of people who didn't vote having not expressed themselves the only reasonnable choice is to not take them into consideration. If you do there is even higher chances that more of them want to leave the EU as people not going to vote are essentially disapointed and disgusted of politics and insitutions, hence most of them will likely be all for not staying in the EU.
Well it's great to know you're pretty sure. Anyway leaving the EU is AT THE CORE CENTER of both those programs so anyone voting for one of the two while actually wanting to stay in the EU is either stupid or despaired, which is quite possible of course.
This is insanely arrogant of you to consider Marine voters are just racist. And even if that was the case that's a pretty good case to leave the EU as immigration can't be controlled inside EU.
Same answer except you replace "racist" by "communists" and "immigration" by "workers rights"

You're speech is essentially saying "people vote Marine or Melanchon just because they're stupid, they don't REALLY want to leave the EU".

Well guess what? Most of them ACTUALLY want to leave the EU because they don't see how EU is a good thing for them...
You don't make ONE SINGLE POINT for the EU here. You just say "globalization is a must" "EU is the best" "We need even more globalization because it's so good". You don't say how it is good in any way...

Oh yeah except this geme: "anyone can easily cross the border and go shopping in another country."
I guess that's so great we need the EU definitively.

Your reasonning is essentially saying that people aren't able to think by themselves and take decision. Thus it is important that we have strong government and institutions to guide the poor stupid people.

This is not only false, this is an insult to evolution and the whole human race.

And thanks for all your incredible arguments with tons of facts and examples, that's so much more interesting that those people just saying "EU is good because it's great". 

And as predicted, the Socialists are trying to come in, take credit, and hijack the movement just as they did at Occupy Wallstreet and countless other "Spring" movements. Unless France gets rid of Macron and his policy set France is quickly going to enter 3rd world status. Learn history people.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-30/macron-announces-crackdown-tax-avoiding-executives

Yes, chase out all the people who are fueling the already overtaxed industries in favor of even more entitlement programs while maintaining nearly limitless immigration. What could go wrong?

These industrial leaders will just leave to other nations with better terms. This is why globalism is being pushed so hard, because under globalism you will have no place to escape the malevolent international technocratic overlords and their dictates.

Well it's your point of view at least.

Sure that part of the EU agreement technically had a referendum, but if it does not accurately represent an actual majority of the people who does it serve? The other problem is now the EU just dictates to its members, not its members dictating how thew organization runs. It has become an unaccountable and disconnected bureaucracy, as if the unaccountable national governments aren't bad enough on their own.

My point is a 1% margin in science is well within a usual standard deviation for error (intentional or otherwise), which means it might or might not actually be an accurate mandate. That's why I make the distinction. Anyways it doesn't matter. The EU is simply walking around like a zombie at this point waiting for some one to put it out of its misery in its current bureaucratic form.

Don't deviate.

What your previous postings seem to say is that joining the EU was the single decision of the president, which it clearly wasn't.

It has gone through all legal instances of the country and even through referendum, which was not required by law.

The quote you just posted adds nothing to your argumentation.

Also if 50% + 1 vote it not enough, where do you put the limit? 60 % ? 80% ? 100% ?

People tend  do disagree. Doing so you kill evolution & progress.

"On September 1992, a referendum in France only narrowly supported the ratification of the treaty, with 50.8% in favour. This narrow vote for ratification in France, known at the time as the ‘petite oui’, led Jacques Delors to comment that, ‘Europe began as an elitist project in which it was believed that all was required was to convince the decision-makers. That phase of benign despotism is over.'[7]"

And the phase of malignant despotism begins! So a mandate of about 1% margin? I am sure there was no voter fraud going on there either right? It gets pretty easy to hide fraud in those kinds of margins.

Which president unilateraly decided to join the EU please? In which country?

I have no clue what you are refering to.

In france the Maastricht traitee has been signed by the senate and the conseil constitutionnel. It wasn't the single decision of the executive.

It also has been accepted by referendum in 1992 by 51.04% of the  votes.

Oh NOW its not about joining or leaving xD

Funny you don't consider it dictatorial to join the EU on a presidential mandate, but it is to leave it.

It's not about joining or leaving. It's just not how it works
Edit: at least in France and most democracies which is a criteria to actually join the EU.

But it is ok if they do this to join the union right

What Sunday? Next elections are 2022.
Also that's not how the french system works. She won't be able to unilateraly leave the EU. And I don't see enough députés or senators back her to actually make that happen.

Most of them are cultivated people who will understand how bad it would be for France.

France is not a dictatorship. It's not like the president can just say that the country will be leaving the Union.

French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen is no fan of the European Union. If she's elected president on Sunday, Europe may face the prospect of a French exit from the EU - a Frexit following last year's Brexit. Emmanuel Macron wants to reform the French economy - taking a cue from Germany with a shake-up of the French labor market.

Missed that masterpiece !


First of all only 77.77% people went to vote.
This leaves us pretty far from 48% of the people voting for a representative that wants to leave the UE.

Moreover your assumption means that people actually vote for any of the candidates only because they want to leave the EU, or that they wouldn't vote for them if they didn't want to.

I am pretty sure that a lot of people voting for both Marine Le Pen and Melenchon don't want to actually leave the EU. It is more about the ideology of both candidates than about the actual measures in their programm.

People voting for Marine often do so because they are racist, or blame the immigration policy for everything bad in France. This doesn't mean they want to to loose all the benefit they got from the EU.
Same goes for Melenchon.

My own feeling about the EU is that it was necessary to further develop our continent.
The first people getting benefits from it are all of the citizens. Globalization is a must today, and the EU and it's borderless region are a very good start.
This also means anyone can easily cross the border and go shopping in another country.

From the point of view of a EU company, all the operations made within the EU are made at smaller cost, and allow for a faster and less expensive market penetration. This has been proven to actually increase the GDP of most european countries.

Of course countries like France or Germany are actually among the ones benefitting the most from the EU.
However it also has increased influx of foreign investment in poor EU countries, making them develop faster.

Every year that passes makes the Union stronger. Maybe it will fail eventually, but I am convinced another Union would soon take its place.

I don't believe any second France will leave the EU in the near future.

Also about your point "that is what democracy is about". You are right but you are also wrong.
This would be true if we had been living in a direct democracy for decades. Which would imply that people actually think about long term before chosing, and doing these choices carefully.
If we want more direct democracy we need to implement this carefully to avoid foolish choices from people that won't have to face the consequences.
When a president, or the government takes a decision many factors are taken into consideration. Public opinion, but also how it will impact the country's future, if it is good or bad (from a moral perspective) and if it respects the constitution. Moreove any technical decision is made after length of analysis from experts of the matter. All of these factors are unavailable to the basic citizens, preventing them from taking a well considerated decision.

no there are only economical benefits to challenge the monopoly of the european central bank, and end the high costs of the european legislation.

but there will be negative consequences, because people will build things wrong, and waste a ton of ressources.

so dont do same mistake like the british that voted for flying pigs.

ending the eu will send many european regions especially the souther periphery, back into medieval age.