6 ms·

I've heard people on the radio (ha yes I listen to that ;-)) that they disagree with Le Pen being banned from running for president. That seems strange to me a

by smooc 1y ago

I've heard people on the radio (ha yes I listen to that ;-)) that they disagree with Le Pen being banned from running for president. That seems strange to me as this was public (eu) money that was funneled into her own movement, i.e. bolstering her popularity in some way. So letting her run in the elections would basically mean she would get away with the fraude.

pc86 1y ago
At the risk of just repeating a previous comment, if you actually want to live in a democracy you have to trust the electorate at some level. I don't know the specifics of this case but if it's clear cut corruption it should be easy to make that case to the electorate and absolutely destroy Le Pen in the election. If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse.
- add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
  Weird time in history to be a maximalist on trusting electorates.
- eviks 1y ago
  That's what happened - some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to.
  - animuchan 1y ago
    That's a very charitable way of explaining away literally anything. Let me try: It's not like Putin started a war, but rather some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. The representatives being Putin and friends. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to. There were no actual attempts at a coup btw, so the electorate is evidently happy with this.
    - eviks 1y ago
      Your try failed due to major inconsistencies with reality, so no, turns out you can't explain literally anything.
      - animuchan 1y ago
        The list of inconsistencies you gave, while complete, is also empty.
- xracy 1y ago
  I mean, "trust the electorate" sounds like a nice ideal, but I think it conveniently ignores the shithose of news and information that makes its way into the public discourse. We can't agree on basic facts in most places. What hope do we have to "trust the electorate" when most people are given straight propaganda and they buy it whole cloth. If you want to live in the world where we "trust the electorate" you first have to figure out how to make the electorate informed. In the meantime, I would gladly accept equally applied and adjudicated laws as a way to remove corrupt individuals from the electable population. A lot of places do this already, so making it so someone can't run for a given election cycle seems like a relatively small slap on the wrist compared to barring felons from ever being allowed to vote or hold office.
- darthrupert 1y ago
  You seem to deliberately ignore how easily people are manipulated. Just rulers have a responsibility to defend against that. The marketplace of ideas as a primary political decision method was a dumb idea.
- jonathanstrange 1y ago
  They applied a law against corruption for which Le Pen herself voted. At some point, you need to trust the laws that elected members of parliament have enacted and also apply it to politicians.
- piva00 1y ago
  Counterpoint: USA's presidential elections 2024.
- tpm 1y ago
  At some level, yes. At the level of letting convicted criminals run for the highest office, no, that would be stupid. > it should be easy to make that case to the electorate It turns out if you have enough money for endless propaganda it is easy to make any case to the electorate. And who will be making the case anyway? The state cannot because it has to be inpartial in the elections; their opponents have a clear agenda (they want to be the president) so it's easy to dismiss their case. So that leaves no one with standing. > If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse. If the result is that a convicted criminal will not be elected into the highest office of the state, that's not a worse outcome, that's a perfect outcome.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    Allowing some people to be above the law is a bad idea in general. Selecting elected officials to be above the law in particularly is ill-thought-out, IMO. Perverse incentives abound . Elections shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail card.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  Only when the rules are followed. For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules.
  - glandium 1y ago
    The problem is when rules don't apply the same to all politicians.
    - surgical_fire 1y ago
      That's a claim. You should back it up. In the case of EU are there other politicians who embezzled funds that were let off the hook?
      - glandium 1y ago
        Here's one: Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011 to 2 years with suspension (so, less than Le Pen) for something very similar (party members paid for fictitious jobs at the Mairie de Paris when he was mayor), and no ineligibility (so again, different consequences).
        matthewdgreen 1y ago
        So it sounds like other politicians have indeed been convicted of similar things. The difference in punishment would then require you to examine the difference in the severity of the actions, which is beyond my pay grade.
        surgical_fire 1y ago
        Your example was of a politician being condemned. It seems that the system does work as intended after all. As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in detail what each did. Two murders may result is different length of imprisonment.
        glandium 1y ago
agumonkey 1y ago
Well if that media is biased toward far-right they will push for disagreement.
mike_hearn 1y ago
[flagged]
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > The official position appears to be that a political party is given money by the EU but can only use it if they're pro-EU. A party that wishes the EU to be smaller or for their country to exit is then considered to be engaged in "national" politics rather than "European" politics, which makes their spending the money they were given as a political party, to do politics, "embezzlement". No need for the scary quotation marks. This was plain embezzlement, as you very aptly described.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Are other parties allowed to use the funds for staffers and was it considered embezzlement in this case based on a determination of party policy? If so, this seems crazy to me.
    - mike_hearn 1y ago
      There have been other cases like this one yes, the EU fined UKIP for the same reason iirc. UKIP of course was a party that had only one policy: getting Britain out of the EU. Therefore any political activity by them was considered illegal under this policy. In other cases the same things have been done without fines, I think, e.g. the German Greens. Because their policies align with the Commission their campaigning in Germany isn't considered "embezzlement". The basic issue the EU has is that the Parliament isn't actually a Parliament. It's not genuinely the legislative branch because it can't change the law, which is the dictionary definition of Parliament. As a consequence it fills up with anti EU parties put there as a protest vote. These parties then want to spend their time advocating against the EU back home which is embarrassing to the EU as there is no other so-called Parliament in the world with so many members who think it shouldn't exist. These kinds of legal actions were conventionally about that. This one has gone further because it's a way for the left to continue locking down mass immigration policies. Although you will read that Le Pen is far right in reality she is a classical left wing socialist with the policies typical of such a person, she is just against the EU and its migration policies. It's a purely ideological action, hence the ankle bracelet.

by smooc 1y ago

pc86 1y ago

At the risk of just repeating a previous comment, if you actually want to live in a democracy you have to trust the electorate at some level. I don't know the specifics of this case but if it's clear cut corruption it should be easy to make that case to the electorate and absolutely destroy Le Pen in the election. If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
Weird time in history to be a maximalist on trusting electorates.
eviks 1y ago
That's what happened - some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to.
- animuchan 1y ago
  That's a very charitable way of explaining away literally anything. Let me try: It's not like Putin started a war, but rather some officials trusted the electorate at some level and decided that the rules the electorate chose to make via their representatives should be followed. The representatives being Putin and friends. Those officials also trust the electorate to change the rules if they want to. There were no actual attempts at a coup btw, so the electorate is evidently happy with this.
  - eviks 1y ago
    Your try failed due to major inconsistencies with reality, so no, turns out you can't explain literally anything.
    - animuchan 1y ago
      The list of inconsistencies you gave, while complete, is also empty.
xracy 1y ago
I mean, "trust the electorate" sounds like a nice ideal, but I think it conveniently ignores the shithose of news and information that makes its way into the public discourse. We can't agree on basic facts in most places. What hope do we have to "trust the electorate" when most people are given straight propaganda and they buy it whole cloth. If you want to live in the world where we "trust the electorate" you first have to figure out how to make the electorate informed. In the meantime, I would gladly accept equally applied and adjudicated laws as a way to remove corrupt individuals from the electable population. A lot of places do this already, so making it so someone can't run for a given election cycle seems like a relatively small slap on the wrist compared to barring felons from ever being allowed to vote or hold office.
darthrupert 1y ago
You seem to deliberately ignore how easily people are manipulated. Just rulers have a responsibility to defend against that. The marketplace of ideas as a primary political decision method was a dumb idea.
jonathanstrange 1y ago
They applied a law against corruption for which Le Pen herself voted. At some point, you need to trust the laws that elected members of parliament have enacted and also apply it to politicians.
piva00 1y ago
Counterpoint: USA's presidential elections 2024.
tpm 1y ago
At some level, yes. At the level of letting convicted criminals run for the highest office, no, that would be stupid. > it should be easy to make that case to the electorate It turns out if you have enough money for endless propaganda it is easy to make any case to the electorate. And who will be making the case anyway? The state cannot because it has to be inpartial in the elections; their opponents have a clear agenda (they want to be the president) so it's easy to dismiss their case. So that leaves no one with standing. > If it's not that easy, then banning her from running is even worse. If the result is that a convicted criminal will not be elected into the highest office of the state, that's not a worse outcome, that's a perfect outcome.
- overfeed 1y ago
  Allowing some people to be above the law is a bad idea in general. Selecting elected officials to be above the law in particularly is ill-thought-out, IMO. Perverse incentives abound . Elections shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail card.
surgical_fire 1y ago
Only when the rules are followed. For democracy to work properly politicians need to follow the rules.
- glandium 1y ago
  The problem is when rules don't apply the same to all politicians.
  - surgical_fire 1y ago
    That's a claim. You should back it up. In the case of EU are there other politicians who embezzled funds that were let off the hook?
    - glandium 1y ago
      Here's one: Jacques Chirac was condemned in 2011 to 2 years with suspension (so, less than Le Pen) for something very similar (party members paid for fictitious jobs at the Mairie de Paris when he was mayor), and no ineligibility (so again, different consequences).
      - matthewdgreen 1y ago
        So it sounds like other politicians have indeed been convicted of similar things. The difference in punishment would then require you to examine the difference in the severity of the actions, which is beyond my pay grade.
      - surgical_fire 1y ago
        Your example was of a politician being condemned. It seems that the system does work as intended after all. As for the length of punishment, we would have to look in detail what each did. Two murders may result is different length of imprisonment.
        glandium 1y ago

agumonkey 1y ago

Well if that media is biased toward far-right they will push for disagreement.

mike_hearn 1y ago

[flagged]

surgical_fire 1y ago
> The official position appears to be that a political party is given money by the EU but can only use it if they're pro-EU. A party that wishes the EU to be smaller or for their country to exit is then considered to be engaged in "national" politics rather than "European" politics, which makes their spending the money they were given as a political party, to do politics, "embezzlement". No need for the scary quotation marks. This was plain embezzlement, as you very aptly described.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  Are other parties allowed to use the funds for staffers and was it considered embezzlement in this case based on a determination of party policy? If so, this seems crazy to me.
  - mike_hearn 1y ago
    There have been other cases like this one yes, the EU fined UKIP for the same reason iirc. UKIP of course was a party that had only one policy: getting Britain out of the EU. Therefore any political activity by them was considered illegal under this policy. In other cases the same things have been done without fines, I think, e.g. the German Greens. Because their policies align with the Commission their campaigning in Germany isn't considered "embezzlement". The basic issue the EU has is that the Parliament isn't actually a Parliament. It's not genuinely the legislative branch because it can't change the law, which is the dictionary definition of Parliament. As a consequence it fills up with anti EU parties put there as a protest vote. These parties then want to spend their time advocating against the EU back home which is embarrassing to the EU as there is no other so-called Parliament in the world with so many members who think it shouldn't exist. These kinds of legal actions were conventionally about that. This one has gone further because it's a way for the left to continue locking down mass immigration policies. Although you will read that Le Pen is far right in reality she is a classical left wing socialist with the policies typical of such a person, she is just against the EU and its migration policies. It's a purely ideological action, hence the ankle bracelet.