As everyone knows, we had a pretty tough election in November and the country is still healing from the divisiveness and name calling (from all sides).  Many Americans, including myself, are trying very hard to avoid giving people harsh labels in an attempt to soften the tone of the discussions and get the country working again.

That is specifically why I was asking about issues and avoiding labels.  I also try hard to not pin people to the political or religious opinions of their parents and families.  Certainly it can follow that they think similarly, but I can tell you that my children and I don't share identical viewpoints on many things.  I view that as an accomplishment - they are independent thinkers.

Le Pen is certainly given a hard time in the press.  It is hard to tell how much of that is real vs rival generated, at least from here.  She is certainly a Nationalist which is somewhat what a person wants in their leaders, not sure about how far that goes beyond reasonable.

As far as Macron, all I can tell you is that in the financial press on this side of the ocean, the French Banks have been bragging for some time how they planned out the strategy to get Macron elected.  He is being presented here as something like a French Mario Draghi. 

As you know, Drahgi was a former Goldman Sacks guy and "slightly biased" toward bankers needs.  That is either good or bad, depending on your viewpoint.  I don't necessarily subscribe that being "pro bank" is the same as "pro business".

I find it fascinating that the same strategy of "a third way" somehow seems to work on people.  In recent memory, both Obama and Trump used the same strategies to win.

 

Fair enough, but I'm tired of "fair-mindedness" being used as a vehicle for the normalisation of people like Le Pen and Trump. What it's bringing to the world is clear enough to me and I'd rather call it by its name, label and all. I hope your tone-softening efforts work out, still, but I fear they lead down a dark path.

I guess the third way thing is what I was alluding to earlier, the status quo is only good for an ever-decreasing amount of people lately. I just find it completely depressing that people could see Trump (currently filling his staff with the sort of people he was pledging to drain the swamp of, quelle surprise, ensuring a few tens of thousands of people will die for lack of healthcare, etc etc etc) or Le Pen as a good way to change that. And those people will say things like "Macron is just another banker!" And it's true so that's not great either but somehow France got themselves an either/or situation like this instead of a choice including positive change. Just like the USA, just like the UK. I think it's already past the point of no return for decades yet.

Here's a point in Macron's favour:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/macron-greece-french-left-marine-le-pen-yanis-varoufakis

"When my country was being bullied by Europe’s pro-austerity establishment, Macron was a rare ally."

Macron appears to have a sizeable lead in early returns...

And now has been declared the winner. Very low turnout (~25%).

And Le Pen just threw the FN under the bus...

A year or two ago, I'd be a bit disappointed at another neoliberal win I think, presumably hoping for somebody along Melanchon's lines (disclaimer, haven't really followed the French politics closely enough to be sure) but now it just feels like a massive relief. Which I guess is that there Overton window sliding rightwards, but nevermind for now. Fuck off, Le Pen and FN! 

It's hard to get excited by the likes of Clinton and Macron, but this felt like it could have been a global tipping point (disintegration of the EU). Very relieved that at least did not come to pass. For now. Not out of the woods yet.

"Hooray, only 35% Nazis in France!"

 :-O

From across the ocean, it doesn't actually appear to matter all that much who is elected in France.  Our news indicates that all real decisions are made in Brussels by non elected representatives.   The individual national governments appear to be just rubber stamps, pretending to matter by arguing before voting yes.

Similar to the US, probably 3 or 4 layers of government could be eliminated with no loss of effectiveness.

I am not singling out France, great country, it's just that when I look at it all:
- Democracy
- Republic
- Oligarchy

We all seem to be somewhere between Republic and Oligarchy, rather than in between Democracy and Republic like our "representatives" try to pretend.

Le Pen is more or less correct on a point she made, no matter who was elected, France would be run by a woman.  She was thinking A. Merkel, but really it seems to be C. Legarde.

"all real decisions are made in Brussels by non elected representatives"

The European Parliament, for instance?

I am not an expert on EU law.  That appears to be one of many EU agencies that wield power over what laws are initiated and passed.

I guess the main point is - if the EU is deciding on the laws, and the national governments have little choice but to implement them, then what is the point of National governments?

Similarly in the US, our President will go to a G-7  meeting, decisions are made there, and the laws get passed both nationally and at a state level.  Why do we need these "representatives"  if they are are just "taking decisions".

 

Can't be, those people get elected too. Hmm. Hmmmmmmm. Quite a few Brexiteers seem to struggle with this part, even now. Can't expect it to be any better in California.

I also wonder what qualifies a decision as "real". And if it's still a bad thing given that these countries in the EU have elected people that get to contribute to that decision... probably that's less handy for the likes of Greece. It ain't perfect that's for sure.

What Smithy said.

It's a myth that we're ruled by Brussels, but it's nice propaganda for the anti-EU folks.

All these people in positions of power are elected by the public, or by the people we elect. If we're really not happy about who is representing us we can stand ourselves, we can join a party and campaign for selection. We have these opportunities. And I believe in the UK it is much much less dependent on money than in the US.

Also, with a direct presidential election, like in France, there's more of a chance of an outsider having a genuine chance of winning. What with not requiring electoral college votes, or constituency MPs (not that we have a president).

It depends on the decision though, surely? If you want in the EU then you have to abide by its (for example) environmental laws, and human rights, and so on. You get to have an input on what those things actually are. If you don't want to, you get out, but then you don't have the same trading privileges. It's not like you just turn up and whoever's got the rotating presidency gets to call the shots. (That's still Germany, France, UKohwaitnotanymore and Spain, right?)
 

As others have said, the idea that "all real decisions are made in Brussels by non elected representatives" is not true.

In the UK, around 5% of our laws (at present) are EU laws. These mainly cover areas of trade, human rights, etc. The other 95% are purely the responsibility of Britain and our politicians here, similar to in France (although not completely the same as we do have some additional devolved powers in Britain).

Even then, the EU parliament consists of elected politicians from all nations, that's why countries vote for MEPs (Member of the European Parliament). Finally, there are vetoes where countries can reject the implementation of legislation if they disagree with it.

I am simplifying things here a lot, but the idea that rules are forced onto countries without any control is not true. Also, the whole "unelected representatives in Brussels" is the line often trotted out by the anti-EU brigade, but it is simply not true.

How soon we forget.

I guess because trade imbalances are such a big issue for me, not having control of your trade laws is giving up a lot.

Of course it makes perfect sense to have a group of countries working together to achieve an economic critical mass of common trade among themselves, that is for sure.  As a business traveler, using the Euro is certainly easier than before with so many currencies. (other than having way too many types of coins, when only 3 are needed)

What are your thoughts around the power that negotiating as a 28-country bloc vs. a single country might have on trade deals outside of the EU?

It is an interesting question.  Obviously the normal perception is that you would have more negotiating power as a bloc, but if you are being represented by someone with trade priorities substantially different than your priorities, it might not turn out so well.  If you are from a "Fair trade philosophy" vs "Free trade philosophy" you will view any deal differently.

It also matters a lot on if you are a large consumer vs large exporter. 

For example, US trade priorities are typically supporting aircraft, weapons, beef and wheat exports, with a slight second tier for banking and insurance.  The rest are more or less tossed out there as pawns with no concerns for the effect on trade deficit, employment, or the budget deficit.

In the UK, the priority appears to be banking and insurance first, then weapons and sheep.  The rest are tossed out there for pawns.

Certainly Greece has not benefited from EU trade deals.

China protects it's entire business infrastructure core and is mostly focused on exports that bring in cash.  If any other country protected its business core to the level that China does, it would be called out and strung out.  They run the country like a business and for better or worse, have beaten out a lot of other countries in the process.

Taiwan has carefully protected its industries, especially the semiconductor industry until recently, and that is when it's problems really started.

Similarly, Japan has carefully protected it's industries from outside competition until the last decade or so and that is when it has met it's downfall.

As far as the UK and the US, a trade deal will be easy, as we more or less think of the UK as our weird but likable uncle.  The deal will only be complicated by UK banking regulations, and the US is right now moving to match these. (for better or worse)

The bigger challenge the UK faces, IMHO, is that it is no longer a critical mass.  They tried to play both side of being part of the EU and being a bridge for China to more easily enter the EU markets and now with Brexit, this falls apart.

The risk is that the UK ends up being pulled too far under the influence of China and is eventually forced to be part of China's sphere of influence, obvious or not.  With the current tax structure oriented toward VAT vs a sales tax, I don't see how this will change.

I am just an ordinary guy though, so those might be completely useless personal opinions.