#French Senate President

[girlactionfigure]

Only in Israel.

While taking shelter in a stairwell during a Hamas rocket attack on Tel Aviv, opposition leader Yair Lapid explains (via a translator) to the visiting president of the French Senate why Europe must stop sending money to the Palestinians.

[charlesoberonn]

A quick alternate history scenario I made for the r/AlternateHistory subreddit:

In 1796, George Washington reluctantly runs for a third term as president to prevent Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans from taking hold of government. His third and final term is more rocky than the first two, with the south being especially unhappy with some of his reforms, though they associate them with his vice-president John Adams and Secretary of State Alexander Hamilton. On December 14th, 1799, George Washington dies in office. The nation is in turmoil and mourning. The Democratic-Republicans call for a special election, but vice-president John Adams is declared president instead. On Christmas 1799 a protest march on DC turns violent when federal forces clash with protestors and revolutionary war veterans. Jefferson declares Adams an illegitimate usurper. Adams calls off next year's election. Several state legislatures , especially in the South, declare Jefferson as a provisional emergency leader for the purpose of ousting the Federalist regime. The American Civil War has begun. On January 15, with DC about to be overtaken, an internal vote within the Federalist war cabinet decide to oust Adams and appoint his vice president and war hero Alexander Hamilton as president instead. The tide of the war turns, with the Federalist forces able to protect the north and much of their territory, but it is short lived. The Federalist are forced to abandon DC on April and retreat to New York City as a provisional capital. Hamilton himself refuses to go. He is captured by the Democratic-Republicans along with Adams. Jefferson is appointed president on April 19th. In July, Senator Gouverneur Morris is appointed as temporary leader of the Federalist forces in New York. The war stalls for several months as the Democratic-Republican forces fail to make inroads into the north. Meanwhile Jefferson's administration is poorly received and he is compared poorly to the Reign of Terror in France, especially after the public executions of Adams and Hamilton, and after the French Revolutionary government acknowledges him as the legitimate president. The British back Morris and the Federalists and provide military assistance in return for territorial concessions out west. Despite the Democratic-Republicans trying to paint Morris as a traitor for his British support, the public hates Jefferson more, compounded by a series of military defeats. On December 14th, during a public memorial service for the 1 year anniversary of Washington's death, Jefferson presents himself as the true heir to the venerated general. This creates outrage and leads to a 6 days siege of the White House, at the end of which Jefferson is dragged out and beaten to death by the public and some of his own soldiers. The Democratic-Republican forces subsequently surrender and the capital is captured by Federalist and British forces. Morris is appointed president and his first act is to call in a new Constitutional Convention in order to draft a new constitution, one with the primary aim of preventing another civil war.

[stupittmoran]

Top 10 headlines the media didn't tell you this week, Repost & FoIIow for more.

Hunter Biden has been indicted in California on 9 charges.

Federal judge dismisses case to remove Trump from Arizona’s 2024 presidential ballot.

Facebook and Instagram enabled child sexual abuse, trafficking; companies boycotting 𝕏 have ads on both.

Speaker Mike Johnson tells the Biden administration no new funding for Ukraine without an audit.

French farmers sprayed manure on government buildings in protest of taxes and regulations meant to put them out of business.

Senator Rand Paul says he will debate the merit of sending our troops overseas.

University of Pennsylvania President told to resign by the board of Penn for refusing to condemn the genocide of Jews.

According to an Arizona Sheriff, illegal immigrants are being Handed $5,000 Visa gift cards, cell phones, plane tickets.

Elon Musk to bring Alex Jones back to 𝕏 after Tucker Carlson interview exposed what the establishment media, CIA have done to him.

Biden Administration's defense secretary threatens to send US families to fight in Ukraine if we do not send more aid.

Who else thinks it's time to audit the funds being sent overseas? 👀

If you appreciate this Top 10 recap, remember to Repost and FoIIow me for another week in a clown world 🤡🌎

TaraBull @TaraBull808 on Twitter/X

[reasonsforhope]

"Sanofi on Thursday said it’s planning to cut the U.S. price of its most popular insulin drug by 78% and cap monthly out-of-pocket costs at $35 for people who have private insurance starting next year. 

In addition to its widely prescribed Lantus, the French drugmaker will reduce the list price of its short-acting insulin Apidra by 70%. Sanofi already offers a $35 monthly cap on insulin for uninsured diabetes patients.

The company is the last major insulin manufacturer to try to head off government efforts to cap monthly costs by announcing its own steep price cuts for the lifesaving hormone. 

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk made similar sweeping cuts earlier this month after years of political pressure and public outrage over the high costs of diabetes care. The three companies control over 90% of the global insulin market. 

... The change takes effect Jan. 1.

President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act capped monthly insulin costs for Medicare beneficiaries at $35, but it did not provide protection to diabetes patients who are covered by private insurance.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent and the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, introduced a bill earlier this month that would cap the list price of insulin at $20 per vial.

Both the president and Sanders on Tuesday directly called on Sanofi to slash its prices after Novo Nordisk announced its own cuts that day.

Roughly 37 million people in the U.S., or 11.3% of the country’s population, have diabetes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Approximately 8.4 million [U.S.] diabetes patients rely on insulin, the American Diabetes Association said."

-via CNBC, 3/16/23

[mydaddywiki]

Pierre Salinger

Physique: Husky Build Height: 5’ 6" (1.68 m)

Pierre Emil George Salinger (June 14, 1925 – October 16, 2004; aged 79) was an American journalist, author and politician. He served as the ninth press secretary for United States Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Salinger served as a United States Senator in 1964 and as campaign manager for the 1968 Robert F. Kennedy presidential campaign. After leaving politics, Salinger became known for his work as an ABC News correspondent.

An affable cigar smoker with his bushy eyebrows who he became the first presidential spokesman to become a celebrity in his own right. A piano prodigy, who spoke fluent French, had a zest for music, art, poetry, wine, women and fine food. A real cultured and classy guy who’d probably love to be broken down properly by an uncultured guy like me. And by “broken down properly”, I mean giving Salinger THE DICK. HARD. Because I so would.

Born, raised, and educated in San Francisco. He interrupted his undergraduate studies at San Francisco State College in 1943 to enlist in the U.S. Navy and command a "subchaser" in the Pacific Theater. After completing his service in 1946, he joined the editorial staff of The San Francisco Chronicle and the journalism faculty at nearby Mills College.

Married four times with four children (3 with his first wife and 1 with his third one), Salinger died from heart failure at the age of 79 on October 16, 2004 in Le Thor, Vaucluse, France. Apparently, President Kennedy and Salinger enjoyed a close relationship. Nothing salacious, but I like to image a sorid version where Kennedy was fucking Salinger on the DL.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

1937, World's Highest Standard of Living :: Margaret Bourke-White

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 28, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 29, 2024

On Monday, October 28, 1929, New York’s Metropolitan Opera Company opened its forty-fifth season.

Four thousand attendees in their finest clothes strolled to the elegant building on foot or traveled in one of a thousand limousines to see Puccini’s Manon Lescaut, the melodramatic story of an innocent French girl seduced by wealth, whose reluctance to leave her riches for true love leads to her arrest and tragic death. Photographers captured images of the era’s social celebrities as they arrived at opening night, their flash bulbs blinding the crowd that had gathered to see the famous faces and expensive gowns.

No one toasting the beginning of the opera season that night knew they were marking the end of an era.

At ten o’clock the next morning, when the opening gong sounded in the great hall of the New York Stock Exchange, men began to unload their stocks. So fast did trading go that by the end of the day, the ticker recording transactions ran two and a half hours late. When the final tally could be read, it showed that an extraordinary 16,410,030 shares had traded hands, and the market had lost $14 billion. The market had been uneasy for weeks before the twenty-ninth, but Black Tuesday began a slide that seemingly would not end. By mid-November the industrial average was half of what it had been in September. The economic boom that had fueled the Roaring Twenties was over.

Once the bottom fell out of the stock market, the economy ground down. Manufacturing output dropped to levels lower than those of 1913. The production of pig iron fell to what it had been in the 1890s. Foreign trade dropped by $7 billion, down to just $3 billion. The price of wheat fell from $1.05 a bushel to 39 cents; corn dropped from 81 to 33 cents; cotton fell from 17 to 6 cents a pound. Prices dropped so low that selling crops meant taking a loss, so struggling farmers simply let them rot in the fields. 

By 1932, over one million people in New York City were unemployed. By 1933 the number of unemployed across the nation rose to 13 million people—one out of every four American workers. Unable to afford rent or pay mortgages, people lived in shelters made of packing boxes.

No one knew how to combat the Great Depression, but certain wealthy Americans were sure they knew what had caused it. The problem, they said, was that poor Americans refused to work hard enough and were draining the economy. They must be forced to take less. “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate,” Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon told President Herbert Hoover. “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” 

Slash government spending, agreed the Chicago Tribune: lay off teachers and government workers, and demand that those who remain accept lower wages. Richard Whitney, a former president of the Stock Exchange, told the Senate that the only way to restart the economy was to cut government salaries and veterans’ benefits (although he told them that his own salary—which at sixty thousand dollars was six times higher than theirs—was “very little” and couldn’t be reduced).

President Hoover knew little about finances, let alone how to fix an economic crisis of global proportions. He tried to reverse the economic slide by cutting taxes and reassuring Americans that “the fundamental business of the country, that is, production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.” 

But taxes were already so low that most folks would see only a few extra dollars a year from the cuts, and the fundamental business of the country was not, in fact, sound. When suffering Americans begged for public works programs to provide jobs, Hoover insisted that such programs were a “soak the rich” program that would “enslave” taxpayers, and called instead for private charity.

By the time Hoover’s term ended, Americans were ready to try a new approach to economic recovery. They refused to reelect Hoover and turned instead to New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised to use the federal government to provide jobs and a safety net to enable Americans to weather hard times. He promised the American people a “New Deal”: a government that would work for everyone, not just for the wealthy and well connected.

As soon as Roosevelt was in office, Democrats began to pass laws protecting workers’ rights, providing government jobs, regulating business and banking, and beginning to chip away at the racial segregation of the American South. New Deal policies employed more than 8.5 million people, built more than 650,000 miles of highways, built or repaired more than 120,000 bridges, and put up more than 125,000 buildings. 

They regulated banking and the stock market and gave workers the right to bargain collectively. They established minimum wages and maximum hours for work. They provided a basic social safety net and regulated food and drug safety. And when World War II broke out, the new system enabled the United States to defend democracy successfully against fascists both at home—where they had grown strong enough to turn out almost 20,000 people to a rally at Madison Square Garden in 1939—and abroad. 

The New Deal worked so well that common men and women across the country hailed FDR as their leader, electing him an unprecedented four times. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower built on the New Deal when voters elected him in 1952. He bolstered the nation’s infrastructure with the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which provided $25 billion to build 41,000 miles of highway across the country; added the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the government and called for a national healthcare system.

Eisenhower nominated former Republican governor of California Earl Warren as chief justice of the Supreme Court to protect civil rights, which he would begin to do with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision months after joining the court. Eisenhower also insisted on the vital importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to stop the Soviet Union from spreading communism throughout Europe.

Eisenhower called his vision “a middle way between untrammeled freedom of the individual and the demands of the welfare of the whole Nation.” 

The system worked: between 1945 and 1960 the nation’s gross national product (GNP) jumped by 250%, from $200 billion to $500 billion. The vast majority of Americans of both parties liked the new system that had helped the nation to recover from the Depression and to equip the Allies to win World War II. 

Politicians and commentators agreed that most Democrats and Republicans shared a “liberal consensus” that the government should regulate business, provide for basic social welfare, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights. It seemed the country had finally created a government that best reflected democratic values. 

Indeed, that liberal consensus seemed so universal that the only place to find opposition was in entertainment. Popular radio comedian Fred Allen’s show included a caricature, Senator Beauregard Claghorn, a southern blowhard who pontificated, harrumphed, and took his reflexive hatred of the North to ridiculous extremes. A buffoon who represented the past, the Claghorn character was such a success that he starred in his own Hollywood film and later became the basis for the Looney Tunes cartoon rooster Foghorn Leghorn.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mariacallous]

The French Revolution may have been one of the world’s first experiments in mass democracy, but those governing France have long had a problem with the idea.

Throughout the 19th century, successive rulers tried to curtail democratic rights or did away with them altogether. Even the advent of universal male suffrage in 1848 did little to inflect this skepticism. A large swath of the governing classes mistrusted the masses and the elections that gave them a voice. (And most of those in power also agreed that women should not be given the vote; they were only enfranchised in 1945.)

The catastrophic defeat of 1940 at the hands of the Germans and France’s experience of authoritarian rule under Marshal Philippe Pétain ensured that, after the liberation of France in 1944, most anti-democratic voices were silenced. But French politicians did not suddenly embrace the democratic process.

On the contrary, the reconstruction of the country after the war was led by unelected technocrats, and when Charles de Gaulle returned to power in 1958, he changed the constitution to ensure that the democratic urges of the French were firmly kept in check. His new constitutional settlement—known as the Fifth Republic—bypassed parliament by creating one of the most powerful directly elected executives in the world. It also instituted a two-round electoral system that was designed to allow voters to express their frustration in the first round before making a “sensible” choice in the subsequent runoff.

As for the French themselves, they have long been aware of the various attempts to keep their political urges at bay. That is why the power of protest and the fear of the angry mob have been powerful driving forces in French politics. Even today, every minister knows that their days are numbered if the street turns against them, regardless of the result of the previous election.

With all of this historical baggage, it is not hard to see why almost everyone was completely taken aback by President Emmanuel Macron’s unexpected announcement on June 9 that he would be dissolving parliament. Only an hour before, the first estimations of the results of the European Parliament elections had been released. There was little in the way of suspense: Opinion polls had predicted for months that the far-right National Rally party would do very well. In the moments before Macron spoke, people were more likely to be worried about finishing their washing-up than the composition of the European Parliament.

But Macron had other ideas. His decision to call an election flew in the face of two centuries of French political history. Every single one of his predecessors would have told him the same thing: When the chips are down, the very last thing you do is ask the French people to decide. They will punish you—not simply because they don’t like you, but also because you had the temerity to ask them what they think.

How, then, can we explain such a momentous and uncharacteristic decision?

In the days since Macron’s announcement, even the most experienced political journalists have struggled to answer this question. It appears that there was a special group of advisors working on the possibility of dissolving parliament. There were also members of Macron’s coalition who were recommending this course of action—especially a cluster of right-wing senators, whose mandate is not dependent on the outcome of direct elections.

But this is hardly an adequate explanation. Presidents always have teams whose job it is to game different political scenarios, and they also have to deal with incessant lobbying from their allies. If we want to understand Macron’s logic then we need to probe deeper into his worldview and his vision of French politics.

We might start with the historical precedents that exist for Macron’s dissolution of parliament. There have been only three preemptive dissolutions of the parliament under the Fifth Republic: In 1962, de Gaulle needed parliamentary support for his decision to create the directly elected presidency. In 1968, he sought a new mandate in the wake of the huge student and worker protests that had taken place in the spring. And in 1997, Chirac hoped to confirm his success in the presidential elections of 1995 by renewing the right-wing majority in parliament.

It is clear which of these precedents is in Macron’s mind. In 1962 and 1968, de Gaulle’s party was massively reelected, and he came away with renewed legitimacy for his policies. In 1997, by contrast, Chirac was severely punished. The left gained more than 200 seats and formed the majority in parliament until 2002. Given how much more fragmented French politics is in 2024—and given the collapse in party discipline since the 1990s—the dissolution of 1997 seems to be a far more accurate guide to what might happen in a few weeks’ time.

Of course, Macron knows his political history; he knows the risks. He might believe that he has the charisma and stature of de Gaulle, but he will be aware that the general himself was punished by the popular vote. When de Gaulle called a referendum on decentralization only a year after his spectacular success in the 1968 parliamentary election, he told the French that he would resign if he lost. And he still lost.

Even the most formidable French leader of the 20th century was ejected from power by a dissatisfied electorate. What makes Macron think he can do better?

The only credible answer, it seems to me, is that he has belatedly embraced the power of chaos. After telling the French incessantly since his first victory in 2017 that he is the guarantor of stability and the only bulwark against the political extremes in France and Europe, he has decided that his goals can be most successfully achieved by utterly destroying the existing system of political parties and coalition.

Already in the past few days, profound realignments have taken place on the left and right of the political spectrum. It is not impossible that the French center right—the political heirs of Gaullism—will all but disappear. On the left, the real fear of a far-right government has forced entirely incompatible politicians, from Trotskyists to centrist social democrats, into an ad hoc alliance. In the best-case scenario, Macron emerges from this turmoil as the only credible figure of government, like a revolutionary leader left standing after a purge.

But the risks of unleashing chaos are huge. Macron could lose his parliamentary power and his party. He could suffer a crushing defeat at the hands of an angry electorate. Most of all, he could permanently tarnish his legacy by being the first French president to swear in a far-right prime minister who is supported by a far-right majority in parliament. The symbolism of this would be almost as powerful as the notorious picture of Pétain shaking hands with Hitler in 1940.

Many people have compared Macron’s gamble to former Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union in 2016. But Cameron was naive: He was told he would win, and he had not drawn any lessons from the near-miss of the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014.

Macron is not naive; he understands exactly what he has done. He may, in time, be vindicated. But if he fails, he alone will bear the responsibility for tearing France apart.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

Robespierre, a central architect of the French revolution, may seem like an unlikely reference point for modern American politics, and Donald Trump in particular. But in one way he articulated a theory of governing that Trump is enacting today:

"If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie [homeland, fatherland]"

Trump won’t use the word terror in such a way. But when he labels his opponents to be enemies of the people, fulminates against the deep state, and declares “I am your retribution” the ethos is the same. Set aside how much the retribution is driven by his interests, versus those of his supporters. The key point is that Trump has normalized retribution as a proper scope of presidential action and the use of political power. Terror becomes the perverted populist funhouse mirror of patriotism. Far more than his first and second campaigns, Trump has made vengeance the central theme of his re-election platform, even reposting an wordcloud analysis of his campaign speeches that highlighted this theme.

Trumpism hastened a new version of right-wing politics, one that is not conservative nor libertarian in a meaningful sense, but one that urges the embrace of state power to go after their movement’s perceived enemies. Terror is chiefly directed towards public officials who stand in the way of Trump’s goals and interests. These include other politicians, educators, public health officials, election officials, judges, and other parts of law enforcement.

[...]

Lesson 1: Terror is Used to Subvert Legal Accountability

When Senate Republicans refused to indict Trump for encouraging a mob to storm the Capitol in a bid to intimidate public officials into overturning the election, they promised that the legal system would hold him accountable. The problem is that the legal system is deeply wary of Trump’s ability to intimidate public officials.

The FBI petitioned a judge to stop Trump from lying that its employees were ready to use lethal force against him. This is not an unreasonable concern on the part the FBI. After the Mar-A-Lago raid, a Trump supporter wrote on Trump’s social media platform wrote “Violence is not (all) terrorism. Kill the F.B.I. on sight” before attempting to do precisely that at a FBI field office. Right-wing media then printed the names of the FBI agents. Within the space of a couple of weeks, three officials who challenged Trump in some fashion in court were victims of swatting: the Maine Secretary of State who sought to remove him from the state ballot, the judge presiding over his election interference case (who was placed under 24-hour protection), and special counsel Jack Smith. In Colorado, state supreme court justices that ruled that Trump should not appear on the state ballot faced four “swatting” attempts. Another judge in a different Trump case faced a bomb threat. The family of Michael Cohen, a key witness against Trump, was doxxed. [...]

Lesson 2: Terror Provides a Means of Control Over Officials Trump Has No Authority Over

Terror provides a basis of control over individuals that Trump has no direct authority over using tools such as intimidation or outright threats. Just as Robespierre and other authoritarians could call upon “the people” and assume that militant supporters would act, Trumpism out-of-office has looked to non-democratic tools to reshape politics and regain power. Many of his targets are state or local officials (such as judges and election officials). An analysis by NBC News shows that Trump strategically times his social media attacks on judges or agencies when they seek to hold him accountable for wrongdoing. [...]

Lesson 3: Terror Will Be a Feature of American Public Life Regardless of The Election Outcome, But Worse if Trump wins.

Trump has primed his supporters and much of the Republican Party to refuse to accept that any electoral loss is legitimate. Searching for alternative explanations involves conspiracies, which requires vilification of election officials, judges or other parts of the “deep state.” While Trump losing will feed conspiracy mongering and intimidation, it is, I believe a lesser threat than Trump winning, which will marry informal terror and state power. Trump has repeatedly shown a willingness to use state power to punish his perceived enemies, and has primed a second administration of lackeys willing to do so. For example, Trump allies have prioritized using federal law to prosecute Alvin Bragg, for prosecuting Trump. Even if such as case does not end up imprisoning Bragg, the point is to create a sense of fear to discourage any officials from pursuing Trump. Trumpism has normalized abuses of state power by treating efforts to hold Trump accountable as outrageous.  [...]

Lesson 8: Most of Us Will Not Resist Terror

The fearful hypocrite becomes a more prominent character in political life under terror. Members of the Republican Party, right wing media, and business interests who once denounced Trump now embrace him or remain silent. Some privately express concerns they will not attach their names to when talking to reporters. It is easy to be disgusted by such hypocrisy. But this is not just opportunism. It is partly fear. These officials generally can’t afford to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars that Mitt Romney spent on security. They are aware of Trump’s comfort with using public power to engage in retribution. [...] Faced with such harassment many will choose to withdraw, or more carefully manage their statements and actions. They will prioritize physical and psychological safety over doing what they believe to be the right thing. Such a decision may be understandable from an individual perspective, but it is a disaster from a collective point of view, since it implies that public officials will be too scared to tell the public the truth.

Don Moynihan wrote a solid piece in his Substack that the Trumpist MAGA cult seeks to rule via intimidation and threats towards its opponents to entrench their rule unchallenged.

[yougottabetheguy]

So French politics is a total mess right now.

But we need a tiny bit of backstory to fully understand why.

In 1944, France took back its' territories from invading armies. The 4th Republic was declared when De Gaulle stepped down as commander-in-chief-in-exile.

The 4th Republic tried to be parliamentary, but also incentivised coalitions, which constantly broke down. So there were massive political instabilities which came to a head in the Algerian war of independence in 1958. French soldiers, living in Algeria, threatened to invade the mainland if the head of government didn't give up peace talks with the Algerian rebels. So De Gaulle, the man who brought freedom back to France and fended off American imperialism post-WWII, was called on to solve the crisis.

He decided to form a new semi-presidential republic, that wouldn't be bogged down by giving excessive power to the elected assembly.

The President is directly elected for 5 years, and so is the lower house (Assembly). To be eligible to be president, you must have the support of at least 500 mayors or regional councillors over the entire country. (Yes, that does mean that the French people are asked to vote at least 5 times every 5 years: mayoral, regional, legislative (lower house), presidential, and European). The upper house, the Senate, is voted in indirectly by all representatives (mayors, councillors, Assembly members).

Phew.

But also, the Assembly can overturn the Presidency by a simple majority vote. And the President can, at any time, dissolve the Assembly.

This means, that since the legislative and presidential elections are very close to each other, that the presidential party/coalition has always had a majority in the Assembly, except for a few occasions. (I think Mitterrand didn't have one)

It's a presidential republic because the President has strong executive power, and can pass executive bills without the Assembly's approval: so called Article 49§3. Article 49§3 is meant to break parliamentary deadlock on critical issues, like national budgets, by forcing the Assembly to take action. The Assembly can overturn the President and block the bill by simple majority of registered Assembly members, not just those who turn up to the vote. So it is a political gamble. Mr Macron has used this to bully his party in the past: "Vote for my controversial retirement pension reform or vote me out and lose your seat."

But also, Mr Macron is a scheming, conniving bastard. He used the rise of the far right to his political gain: in 2017, he presented himself as a centrist. He was young, smart, an economist, hot, and had a wife with intrigue (they met when she was his French teacher in high school). And he won out against the far right. His party was founded in 2015, so no-one knew what to do with him.

But then, over the years, we slowly realised that he was financially liberal, socially centrist, and morally bankrupt. He was accused of putting his friends in power and generally being money grubbing. But his international appeal was pretty good.

So then he won again in 2022: hoping that the left wouldn't form a coalition (they did), that he could hold down the centre parties (he couldn't), and the far right wouldn't become larger (it did). But he still managed to get a slim majority. Thus heavy use of 49§3 to align his party.

All in all, the left were/are furious. Twice now, they did the political good deed of voting for the candidate they didn't really like to block the one they hate from getting in. So tensions were high.

Now in 2024, the far right win big in the European Elections. They get a sizeable share of french votes (mostly from low turnout by other parties). Macron decides to dissolve the Assembly 2 (?) days later.

Huh?? Why?? What?? Tf do we do now??

So now we have a legislative election in a month that no one saw coming. Everyone scrambles. The left form a coalition in 2 weeks, their manifesto cobbled together by sleepless nights. The right, once composed of 2-3 parties, has split, the vast majority of the traditional right now have joined the far right. The centre is gutted, save for Macron's party, who's effectively subsumed their voter demographic.

The legislative elections have a 2 round system: everyone votes for who they actually want in round 1 and settles in round 2.

It's chaos.

After round one, the left have a 30% hold on the country, the centre have 20%, and the far right have 35%.

Everyone realises that the far right have a real chance at winning a majority. Le Pen pushes her electorate as hard as she can: she doesn't just want to be the biggest party and get to form the government, she wants a majority and overturn the President.

The left choose to pull out of places that they aren't going to win to avoid diluting the vote. Days before the 2nd round, Macron has said nothing similar. A few days before, his message is simple: "We're not going to do anything. We won't pull out of races we might not win." It's a kick in the teeth for the left.

The end of the second round looks like this:

Purple is the left coalition, yellow is Macron, blue is traditional right, brown is far right.

With 182 seats, the left have the most, and should form the next government. Not by law, but by convention.

Macron has 168 seats, the far right have 143.

The majority is 289 seats. No one is close, but a coalition would work.

Unfortunately, that's a problem: since no government in the past 60 years has had to form a coalition, no one knows how, and aren't amenable to it in the first place.

But the left are ecstatic. They struggled so hard to unite, they defied all odds to challenge Macron, and now they have the institutional (but not legal) right to name a Prime Minister (head of the lower house).

This all happened before the Olympics. So Macron declares that there must be political unity during the Olympics. So everyone agrees and keeps quiet for a while.

Side note, Mr Macron has called himself the "God of Time" in private meetings, since he believes that he can dictate when things happen, putting off decisions and important meeting by leveraging the might of french bureaucracy at them. But that kind of tactic wears thin very quickly.

After the Olympics, and the fiasco that was, politics can start again. The left, after an awful lot of arguing and trial and error, name Lucie Castets as Prime Minister. She's smart, female, and merely socialist (as opposed to communist). The far right immediately oppose her, declaring that they would vote to overturn her as soon as she is sworn in. "Blah blah blah not strong not good too extreme".

So they try again. And again. Until Macron, who is the person who swears in the Prime Minister, invites potential candidates from different parties to his office. So now, somehow, Macron, who didn't win the majority of seats, is choosing the PM. He invites Hollande, Sarkozy, Mélenchon, Duflot, Cazeneuve, Bertrand, Castets to try and find a leader who might not be immediately overturned.

The left insist that any extreme right candidate will be overturned. The far right insist that any candidate with an inkling of leftism will be overturned. Macron's party stays quiet.

So we arrive at today: Michel Barnier is our new PM. He's right wing. He voted against decriminalising gays in the 80s.

His inauguration speech had catchphrases like: "Access to public services, security in daily life, and immigration control". He promises to establish a "German-style" cabinet, made up of ministers from all parties. But we'll see how that goes.

So...yeah...I love how the left got the most seats of all parties and is now completely out of government.

Macron _could_ have formed a left alliance and chosen to uphold french dignity. He _could_ have chosen an ex-centrist PM. He _could_ have chosen compromise, but instead bent the knee to the right because they're more vocal.

Maybe I'll update this as time goes by. Maybe I'll be too depressed to do so.

[zvaigzdelasas]

[CNN is US Media]

France said it backs efforts by members of an African regional bloc to thwart the coup in Niger, as the clock ticks closer to a deadline for the new military junta to stand down or face possible military intervention. “The future of Niger and the stability of the entire region are at stake,” the French Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

[Premium Times is Nigerian Media]

5 Aug 23

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Blinken: US urging Israel to investigate airstrike that killed World Central Kitchen workers | Reuters

Washington has urged Israel to conduct a swift, thorough and impartial investigation into an Israeli airstrike that killed seven aid workers with the World Central Kitchen charity in Gaza, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Tuesday.

Blinken arrived in Paris for talks with senior officials including President Emmanuel Macron hours after the Washington-based NGO was struck by an Israeli airstrike in central Gaza, adding pressure on Washington to toughen its stance in the war between Israel and Hamas.

"We've spoken directly to the Israeli government about this particular incident. We've urged a swift, a thorough and impartial investigation," Blinken told reporters at a press conference in Paris, adding that humanitarian workers have to be protected.

"These people are heroes, they run into the fire, not away from it," he said of the NGO workers killed in the strike. "We shouldn't have a situation where people who are simply trying to help their fellow human beings are themselves at grave risk."

But Blinken stopped short of directly condemning the attack, unlike his French counterpart Stephane Sejourne. Speaking alongside Blinken, Sejourne voiced France's "firm condemnation" of the Israeli airstrike.

"Nothing can justify such a tragedy," he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the airstrike was unintended and tragic, and the military pledged an independent inquiry.

Biden faces pressure from foreign partners, human rights groups and some of his fellow Democrats in Congress to impose conditions on arms transfers to rein in Israel’s offensive in Hamas-ruled Gaza where health officials say more than 32,000 Palestinians have been killed, many of them civilians.

"The killing of these employees – and so many U.N. and other aid workers – is unacceptable. Enough is enough. There must be an immediate and independent investigation," Democratic U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen said.

Hours before the Israeli strike on WCK workers on Monday, Reuters reported that the Biden administration was considering proceeding with an $18 billion arms transfer package to Israel.

Asked if incidents like the killing of WCK workers made the United States think twice about its "flood of weapons" to Israel, Blinken did not address the specific question but said all U.S. arms transfers happened consistent to policy requirements.

"From Day One, we have worked to impress upon Israel, the imperative of protecting civilians, of adhering fully to international humanitarian law, to the law of armed conflict. That is something that we are looking at and review on a regular basis," he added.

CRITICAL MOMENT IN UKRAINE

Blinken was due to hold talks with Macron later in the day. "You can sense the Americans are a bit uncomfortable at the moment," said one French diplomat, pointing to the contrast between Washington's humanitarian efforts in Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.

Earlier in the day, Blinken said Ukraine was at a critical moment in its war with Russia and urgently needs more Western support, bemoaning the stalemate in Congress over a multibillion-dollar military package for Kyiv.

"It is absolutely essential to get Ukrainians what they continue to need to defend themselves, particularly when it comes to munitions and air defences," he told reporters.

"It's another reason why the supplementary budget request that President (Joe) Biden has made to (the U.S.) Congress must be fulfilled as quickly as possible."

Biden has urged the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives to endorse the military and financial aid package, but House Speaker Mike Johnson has held up the matter for months, citing domestic priorities.

[empiredesimparte]

Presenter Julien: A week after the celebrations, it's time to take stock of the festivities for Their Majesties' wedding. Presenter Sophie: This is the third imperial wedding in Francesim history. A rare and grandiose event, which heralds the splendor of the next coronation.

Presenter Sophie: His Majesty the Emperor married Empress Charlotte, a love affair born of a long childhood friendship. The young couple were married by His Holiness Pope Benedictus XIX, the Emperor's godfather. Welcome to Mr. Arthur Thomas, our specialist on crowned heads…

Journalist Arthur: Thank you, Sophie. Presenter Julien: What should we take away from this imperial wedding, Arthur?

Journalist Arthur: A lot! First of all, Empress Charlotte has once again won over the French. She's a charming, well-educated young woman who, above all, knows the Emperor by heart. She has mastered imperial protocol to perfection this day, and I'd go so far as to say, better than the Emperor!

Journalist Arthur: Indeed, the image that amused the entire empire was His Majesty's discreet micro-nap during the mass following the Pope's blessing. If this royal somnolence amused the majority of spectators, some of us hope that the Pope or the Empress didn't take offense at such a lack of control.

Journalist Arthur: Speaking of control, as far as foreign personalities are concerned, Madame Royale de Thornolie has once again distinguished herself by her perfect self-control. The sharpest tongues may regret the usual over-rigor displayed by Her Royal Highness at every public appearance.

Presenter Julien: Isn't she nicknamed the Ice Princess back in Thornolia? I think that at a wedding, Madame Royale could have shown more sympathy for our young Emperor…

Presenter Julien: ...By contrast, the Duke of Rothsey, who had been repeatedly refused attention by the imperial family, was very smiling and exemplary. In fact, he attended the imperial banquet with the Emperor.

Journalist Arthur: Indeed, many fans were delighted to see Oliver and Hortense together again. The two lovebirds gave each other several glances during the ceremony. Is this a sign of things to come? It probably does!

Senator Aimery: I believe so too, Francesim needs to reunite around the Imperial family after these difficult times. What's more, Their Imperial Majesties have Madame Hortense's well-being at heart.

Presenter Sophie: Thank you, Senator. We'll now give the floor to Madame Gérard, president of the opposition Third Party…

Opponent Madame Gérard: Thank you for your invitation. Presenter Sophie: What do you think of His Majesty's marriage? Opponent Madame Gérard: We have great hopes for His Majesty Emperor Napoléon V. We must (…)

Napoléon V: I'm sorry about the nap, I was… Charlotte: I know, you were tired. It's all right, Louis.

⚜ Le Cabinet Noir | Emperor's private jet, 29 Prairial An 230

Beginning ▬ Previous ▬ Next

Napoléon V and his wife Charlotte leave for their honeymoon. During the trip, they watch a live broadcast reviewing the imperial wedding.

(Oliver is from @officalroyalsofpierreland, Eleanor (Madame Royale) from @theroyalthornoliachronicles, we also see Queen Viviane II of Iona from @funkyllama. Thank you! <3)

⚜ Traduction française

Napoléon V et sa femme Charlotte partent en lune de miel. Durant le voyage, ils suivent une émission en direct faisant le bilan du mariage impérial.

Présentateur Julien : Une semaine après les célébrations, il est temps de dresser un bilan des festivités données pour le mariage de Leurs Majestés. Présentatrice Sophie : Il s'agit du troisième mariage impérial célébré dans toute l'histoire de la Francesim. Un événement rare et grandiose, qui annonce le faste prévu lors du prochain couronnement.

Présentatrice Sophie : Sa Majesté l'Empereur a épousé l'Impératrice Charlotte, un amour issu d'une longue amitié d'enfance. Le jeune couple a été marié par Sa Sainteté le pape Benedictus XIX, parrain de l'Empereur. Bienvenue à M. Arthur Thomas, notre spécialiste des têtes couronnées...

Journaliste Arthur : Merci Sophie. Présentateur Julien : Que faut-il retenir de ce mariage impérial, Arthur ?

Journaliste Arthur : Enormément de choses ! D'abord, il faut souligner à quel point l'Impératrice Charlotte a une nouvelle fois conquis les Français. C'est une jeune femme charmante, bien éduquée, et surtout qui connaît l'Empereur par cœur. Elle a maîtrisé le protocole impérial à la perfection cette journée, et je dirais même, mieux que l'Empereur !

Journaliste Arthur : En effet, l'image qui a amusé tout l'empire, c'est la micro-sieste discrète de Sa Majesté durant la messe qui suit la bénédiction du pape. Si cette royale somnolence a amusé les spectateurs en majorité, certains d'entre nous espèrent que le pape ou l'Impératrice ne se sont pas offusqués d'un tel manque de contrôle

Journaliste Arthur : A propos de contrôle, du côté des personnalités étrangères, Madame Royale de Thornolie s'est une fois de plus illustrée par une parfaite maîtrise de soi. Les langues les plus déliées regretteront peut-être la trop grande rigueur habituelle dont fait preuve Son Altesse Royale à chaque apparition publique.

Présentateur Julien : N'est-elle pas surnommée chez elle, en Thornolie, la princesse de glace ? Je trouve qu'à un mariage, Madame Royale aurait pu montrer davantage de sympathie à l'égard de notre jeune Empereur...

Présentateur Julien : A côté, le duc de Rothsey, à qui la famille impériale a pourtant refusé maintes fois de lui prêter attention, a été très souriant et exemplaire. Il a d'ailleurs participé au banquet impérial auprès de l'Empereur.

Journaliste Arthur : En effet, de nombreux fans se sont d'ailleurs réjouis de voir à nouveau réunis Oliver et Hortense. Les deux tourtereaux se sont d'ailleurs lancés plusieurs regards durant la cérémonie. Cela annonce-t-il de prochaines fiançailles? Probablement!

Sénateur Aimery : Je le crois aussi, la Francesim a besoin de se réunir autour de la famille impériale après ces temps difficiles. De plus, Leurs Majestés Impériales ont à cœur le bien-être de Madame Hortense.

Présentatrice Sophie : Merci Sénateur. Nous allons à présent laisser la parole à Madame Gérard, la présidente du parti de l'opposition, le Tiers parti...

Opposante Madame Gérard : Merci pour votre invitation Présentatrice Sophie : Que pensez vous du mariage de Sa Majesté ? Opposante Madame Gérard : Nous avons beaucoup d'espoir avec Sa Majesté l'Empereur Napoléon V, il faut espérer que...

Napoléon V : Je suis désolé pour la sieste, j'étais... Charlotte : Je sais, tu étais fatigué. Ce n'est pas grave Louis

[thoughtlessarse]

France's new "top cop", the incoming interior minister, has been quick to set out his three priorities: "Order, order... and order." The government needs to expand its "legal arsenal" and build more prisons, said Bruno Retailleau. And "all measures" must be used to bring down immigration. Retailleau, 63, the only high-profile arrival into President Emmanuel Macron's new government, nailed his conservative colours to the mast just days after becoming interior minister. His appointment as the "premier flic de France" ("France's top cop") is emblematic of the rightward shift of the government under new Prime Minister Michel Barnier following this summer's legislative elections that resulted in a hung parliament. Like Barnier, Retailleau does not come from Macron's centrist movement but the traditional right-wing Republicans Party (LR) and even then from its most conservative side. Formerly head of LR lawmakers in the upper house Senate, the always crisply dressed Retailleau carved out a reputation as a hardliner on social issues. He opposed gay marriage, the inscription of the right to abortion in the French constitution and, most recently, new legislation on the right to die.

continue reading

French is effectively being governed by Les Républicains, a party that won only 8.3% of the vote, down from the 10.6% it won in 2022. I can't understand why the French are not out on the streets protesting, when normally they'd be out protesting at the drop of a hat.

[deadpresidents]

The Feuding Presidents of Westmoreland County, Virginia

Of all the Founding Fathers, it would seem like George Washington and James Monroe would have been the closest comrades.  The two men were born just miles apart from one another in Westmoreland County, Virginia.  They both were large men physically, not known primarily for their intellect, but instead for their hard work, their courage, and their devotion to the Revolutionary cause.  They were the two Presidents who saw the most action during the Revolutionary War and Monroe served bravely under Washington.  To top it all off, Washington and Monroe kind of looked like each other, too. 

On Christmas Day in 1776, Lieutenant James Monroe was one of those legendary soldiers who famously crossed the frigid Delaware River with General George Washington to engage the British at the Battle of Trenton.  Monroe led a charge in that battle to help capture some cannons that were about to be fired upon the Americans and was wounded in the shoulder, a severe injury that would have resulted in him bleeding to death if it weren’t for the fortunate presence of a local doctor in New Jersey.  Monroe’s heroism led to a promotion as Captain and he continued serving bravely during the war and was amongst those troops who survived the terrible winter of 1777-1778 at Valley Forge.  It would seem as if none of the Presidents could have established more of a bond than the two Virginians who helped fight in the Revolution.  Indeed, General Washington wrote that Monroe “has, in every instance, maintained the reputation of a brave, active, and sensible officer.”

So why did they despise each other?  And did James Monroe indirectly help kill George Washington? After the Revolution, Monroe entered politics and supported the national government being formed under George Washington despite the fact that Monroe had voted against the ratification of the Constitution in 1788.  As one of Virginia’s first U.S. Senators, Monroe continued his support of Washington, who was now President, but began to fear that too much power was being placed in the hands of the chief executive and found himself opposing Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality.  When Washington appointed Monroe as Minister to France in 1794, something snapped. Monroe, like his friend and mentor Thomas Jefferson, loved France.  He loved the country itself and, as an American Revolutionary, he found himself in love with the French Revolution.  President Washington’s Proclamation of Neutrality insisted on American impartiality towards France and the countries that France was at war with at the time – Britain, The Netherlands, Austria, Prussia, and Sardinia.  Monroe was vehemently opposed to neutrality because the French were the first and most important allies of the United States during the Revolution.  Plus, James Monroe loved France.  In fact, Monroe loved France so much that Secretary of State Edmund Randolph was forced to officially reprimand him due to his glowing compliments about France when Monroe presented his credentials in Paris. From there, things continued going downhill between Washington and Monroe.  Monroe rescued Thomas Paine – another one of America’s early Revolutionaries — who had been thrown into prison in France for criticizing the execution of Louis XVI.  Paine was very sick and believed to be close to death, so after securing his release, Monroe arranged for Paine to stay with him at the American Ministerial residence.  Paine recovered and proceeded to brutally attack George Washington verbally for allowing him to rot in prison instead of rescuing him as Monroe did.  President Washington felt Monroe should have muzzled Paine, or at least repudiated Paine’s disrespectful language towards Washington. 

When the United States signed Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain, easing tensions between the U.S. and it’s former colonial power, Washington expected Monroe to be a good Federalist and support the rather unpopular treaty.  Monroe opposed it and refused to speak out in support of the treaty.  His silence on Jay’s Treaty was the last straw for Washington.  The President was furious and noting that he expected a diplomat who would “promote, not thwart, the neutral policy of the Government” recalled Monroe as Minister and ordered him to return to the United States.  When Monroe learned of his recall, he said that Washington was “insane”. Over the next few years, Monroe spent his time at home in Virginia and worked to undermine Washington and criticize the first President.  Monroe questioned Washington’s capacity as a leader and felt that he had sold out the French, who had done so much to help the Americans during the Revolutionary War.  Washington felt that Monroe was unqualified to critique his Presidency and that Monroe was a hopeless Francophile.  In 1797, long before Monroe was considered to be Presidential timber, Washington cautioned, “If Mr. Monroe should ever fill the Chair of Government he may (and it is presumed he would be well enough disposed) let the French Minister frame his speeches”.  Washington added, “There is abundant evidence of his being a mere tool in the hands of the French government.” Monroe wasn’t ready for the “Chair of Government” on a national level, but after Washington retired to Mount Vernon and handed the Presidency over to John Adams, Monroe decided to aim for the “Chair of Government” on a state level.  In 1799, Monroe campaigned to become Governor of Virginia and as Monroe’s candidacy was promoted by his friends and supporters, 67-year-old George Washington maintained his estate in Virginia in retirement and tried to do whatever he could to prevent Monroe’s rise.  If Monroe was going to be Governor of Washington’s beloved Virginia, then it would practically have to happen over Washington’s dead body. Washington wasn’t powerful enough to prevent Virginia’s state legislature from electing Monroe as Governor in December 1799, however.  On a cold and snowy day, George Washington learned of his former lieutenant’s victory and took off on horseback to tend to Mount Vernon.  When Washington returned to his home, cold and soaking wet, he got into an animated discussion with guests about Monroe’s victory and angrily denounced the newly elected Governor.  Washington continued his discussions without removing his wet clothing.  Already ill with a cold, Washington’s illness worsened.  On December 14, 1799, George Washington said his last words, “Tis well” and died. Monroe continued his public service as Governor of Virginia, a special envoy to France to secure the Louisiana Purchase for Thomas Jefferson, Minister to Great Britain, Governor of Virginia once again, and Secretary of State and Secretary of War under his close friend James Madison.  In 1817, it was finally Monroe’s turn to take the “Chair of Government” as Washington had so feared.  Supported by Jefferson and Madison, Monroe easily defeated Rufus King and became President, kicking off “The Era of Good Feelings” where Monroe’s popularity was almost unparalleled by any other President and the nation was unified and free of almost any partisan bickering.

In 1820, Monroe ran for re-election and was so enormously popular that no one dared to run against him. In Massachusetts, 85-year-old John Adams -- a stalwart Federalist and George Washington's Vice President -- even supported Monroe. Yet Washington got the last laugh. Running unopposed, Monroe was not only certain of victory, but it looked like he would become the only President besides Washington be elected unanimously by the Electoral College. However, Governor William Plumer of New Hampshire decided to deny Monroe that honor and reserve it for Washington and Washington only. Some stories allege that Plumer did it solely to prevent Monroe from joining Washington as unanimous Electoral College victors and some stories note that Plumer truly disliked President Monroe and voted for John Quincy Adams as a protest. Either way, the records will always show that George Washington was the only President elected unanimously and I think it's pretty clear that Washington would have appreciated that Monroe of all people was prevented from joining him in that exclusive club.

[he13na]

I'm already sick of people saying we're living in the Hunger Games talking about the Met Gala. No, we're not. Yes, most of us are peasants but a celebration of art in the form of fashion has always been a thing and it doesn't mean the designers or stylists or people wearing the beautiful dresses want to hurt us. They aren't the reason Gen Z can't buy houses, it's our government. "Eat the rich" just makes you sound like a hipster in an echo chamber who has no idea what they're talking about and just parroting others on TikTok. Don't be mad at people who have cooler and more fun jobs than you. Don't be mad at art or fashion. Be mad at congress, senators, those in the political power to keep us down and abusing their power. Be mad at those who won't lower rent, gas or grocery prices. Be mad at the idiots who voted for this to happen. This isn't a Marie Antoinette French Revolution thing, this isn't Suzanne Collins's fictional universe. The president and government are the ones oppressing us, not an actress in a pretty dress. If our children and teenagers aren't fighting to the death ancient Roman Gladiator style in front of the government elites and watching on national television is mandatory and not watching is punishable by law, we are not living The Hunger Games so shut up if you don't know what you're actually saying.

[steelbluehome]

1 Nov 2024

US elections: European Greens call for Jill Stein to step down

On 5 November 2024 the world will be watching to see whether Americans choose Kamala Harris or Donald Trump to be their next president. Ahead of these pivotal elections, European Greens have called upon US Green Party candidate Jill Stein to withdraw her Presidential candidacy, and endorse Kamala Harris. 

The stakes of these elections could not be higher. 

Donald Trump has promised that if he becomes President again, he will extend abortion bans, deny members of the LGBTQIA+ community their rights, and deport migrants en masse. Like other ultra-conservative politicians across the globe with whom he has close relationships such as Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, and Jair Bolsonaro he would undermine democracy. 

The European Green family, made up of Green parties from across Europe, advocates for a politics that prioritises the planet, people and peace above corporate greed, systemic injustice, and violence. 

We are clear that Kamala Harris is the only candidate who can block Donald Trump and his anti-democratic, authoritarian policies from the White House. 

This election takes place at a watershed moment in the history of our planet. We face a climate crisis that is worsening every year, with heatwaves, floods, and a loss of biodiversity at a rate never seen before. Climate policies require democratic institutions, which we fear would be dismantled if Trump is elected.

On top of this, wars are raging and authoritarianism is growing throughout the world. In this crucial moment, Europe needs Kamala Harris as President of the United States, to be a reliable partner and to take the urgent, decisive action needed on the climate crisis, and to bring about a just and sustainable peace in the Middle East. 

European Greens also highlight the divergent values and policies of themselves and Jill Stein’s US Green Party. There is no link between the two, as the US Greens are no longer a member of the global organisation of Green parties. In part this fissure resulted from their relationship with parties with authoritarian leaders, and serious policy differences on key issues including Russia’s full scale assault on Ukraine.

Right now, the race for the White House is too close for comfort. We call on Jill Stein to withdraw from the race, and endorse Kamala Harris for the presidency of the United States.

Mélanie Vogel, European Greens Co-chair and French Senator

Thomas Waitz, European Greens Co-chair and Austrian Member of the European Parliament

Groen - BELGIUM

Ecolo - BELGIUM

SF Green Left - DENMARK

Erakond Eestimaa Rohelised - ESTONIA

Vihreät - De Gröna - FINLAND

Les Écologistes - FRANCE

Bündnis90/Die Grünen - GERMANY

Irish Green Party / Comhaontas Glas - IRELAND

Europa Verde  - ITALY

Partidul Verde Ecologist - MOLDOVA

GroenLinks - NETHERLANDS

Miljøpartiet De Grønne - NORWAY

Livre - PORTUGAL

Esquerra Verda - SPAIN

Miljöpartiet de gröna - SWEDEN

Grüne / Les Vert.e.s - SWITZERLAND

Zieloni - POLAND

Partija Zelenykh Ukrainy - UKRAINE