French presidential primaries

[Baltenstein]

IMO, there is no time for right-left arguing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39428649), especially since FN's racist past with Jean Marie Le Pen is something I can never buy if I could vote in this election. FN's racist past could come back and bite us badly if Le Pen won.

Agreed. It is imperative that all other candidates drop out and endorse the best challenger to Le Pen, that being, of course, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

With the sole exception of immigration, Melenchon's and Le Pen's platforms are broadly identical. Largely bluecollar voterbase, Nationalist, anti-US, anti-German/EU, pro-Russian, Statist.

The big difference are refugee and immigration policies, where Melenchon's views are not shared by a large majority of the French voters.

[Thermodolia]

Fuck it, gonna support Macron.

Well after Fillon went bust, he really became the only choice

[Major-Tom]

Fuck it, gonna support Macron.

Well after Fillon went bust, he really became the only choice

Not that Fillon was ever good anyways.

Juppé was alright. I'd have even considered Valls had he run.

[Novus America]

Surely you are joking, right?

I never joke about toppling capitalism and the 5th republic.

Melenchon is not going to do it. Le Pen would beat him if he made it into the second round if he somehow did, and I thought you were an anarchist, so why would you support a state capitalist tankie?

Besides as pointed out, Melenchon and Le Pen share a similar stance on most issues anyways.

[Novus America]

Well after Fillon went bust, he really became the only choice

Not that Fillon was ever good anyways.

Juppé was alright. I'd have even considered Valls had he run.

Fillon was always a Putin stooge too.
Macron will not get anything done, but he is not actively evil either. He will not sell France out to Russia at least.

So Macron it is.

[Major-Tom]

IMO, there is no time for right-left arguing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39428649), especially since FN's racist past with Jean Marie Le Pen is something I can never buy if I could vote in this election. FN's racist past could come back and bite us badly if Le Pen won.

Agreed. It is imperative that all other candidates drop out and endorse the best challenger to Le Pen, that being, of course, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

Mélenchon is a statist, Russian supporting, borderline authoritarian narcissist. Why you support him is beyond me.

[NS Miami Shores]

France needs Marine Le Pen to Make France Great Again. Like seriously.

[Thermodolia]

France needs Marine Le Pen to Make France Great Again. Like seriously.

That worked out so well for the US

[Novus America]

France needs Marine Le Pen to Make France Great Again. Like seriously.

See I would support her, if I though she could actually do that. I just do not see how she would do so.

[Kilobugya]

I know I cannot argue with market forces lest cause long queues like in Venezuela

Because there is no "long queues" when you don't "argue with market forces", did you forget how neoliberalism crashed the economies of Argentina and Ecuador in the 90s ? The current situation in Venezuela is a very complicated mess, and digging too much into it would derail the thread completely, but there are examples of "arguing with market forces" that worked very well (Ecuador under Correa, Bolivia under Morales, Venezuela until the death of Chávez, ...) and many examples of going on with market forces that ended up in total disaster (Argentina and Ecuador of the 90s, but also Brazil and Argentina of now, ...). So cherry-picking on example like that is not valid argumentation.

but that is no excuse to try and make the free market less hostile to everyone (hence social welfare), which I am hopeful both Macron and Mélenchon will respect, but for me Macron is the closest to the right choice for me.

Either you bow to market injuctions, as Macron wants to do, and the wealth will kept being siphoned from the poor towards the rich, social welfare and public services dismantled progressively, or you defy market forces, redistribute wealth towards the people and fields that necessitate it the most (the poor, healthcare, education, environment, research, infrastructure, ...) as Mélenchon wants. Either you compress wages, dismantle workers' protections, give tax cuts to the wealthy, and fire public workers in sectors critical for the country, as Macron wants, or you increase tax on the wealthy, protect workers, fight tax evasion and tax heavens, and hire public workers in the sectors which need them so much, as Mélenchon wants.

And I personally agree with allowing the state to compete with private rivals on the free market, for sake of better consumer choice.

The state competing with private rivals is an unfair competition that only leads to inefficiency and two-speed systems. Whatever the sector (banking, healthcare, education, transport, energy, telecom, ...) you'll have a private sector focusing on the lucky/wealthy, and the state sector dealing with those (too poor, too sick, geographically isolated, ...) the private sector doesn't want. The solution in all those critical fields is a state monopoly, using the surplus from the lucky/wealthy/healthy to handle the unlucky/poor/sick, as we used to do with a very high success in France for so many years in so many domains (EDF, SNCF, Sécu, France Telecom, La Poste, ...).

[Kilobugya]

Mélenchon is a statist, Russian supporting, borderline authoritarian narcissist. Why you support him is beyond me.

Being statist is good.

Mélenchon isn't at all a Putin lover, that he doesn't want to be part of NATO and opposes sanctions against Russia doesn't make him a Putin lover, no more than refusing to join Varsaw pact and opposing sanctions against USA would make someone a USA-lover. Mélenchon is a pro-peace, pro-independance of France from any foreign power, against sanctions that don't harm Putin at all but only Russian and European citizens, but yet he firmly opposes Putin on many accounts.

As for authoritarian... if you even had a slight look on his proposals for a 6th Republic, you wouldn't be able to say that without collapsing in laughter or shame. A fundamental part on his platform is abolishing the presidential monarchy of the 5th Republic for a much more democratic, parlementarian and participative 6th Republic - the antithesis of authoritarianism. He's also against "État d'Urgence" and all similar exception laws that only weaken people's individual and political rights, but don't protect us from terrorism.

Le Pen would beat him if he made it into the second round if he somehow did

Wrong, Le Pen wouldn't stand a chance against Mélenchon - like Sanders would have trampled Trump.

Besides as pointed out, Melenchon and Le Pen share a similar stance on most issues anyways.

They don't have a "similar" stance on anything. They are completely opposite about the nature and structure 6th Republic, about working rights/workers protection/minimal wage, about unions, about ecology, about immigration, about terrorism, about justice/criminal system, about tax reform, about LGBT rights, about abortion/euthanasia, about ...

The only topic on which they have "similar" stance, would be about EU, and even it's only a surface similarity, the real positions are very, very different.

[Novus America]

Mélenchon is a statist, Russian supporting, borderline authoritarian narcissist. Why you support him is beyond me.

Being statist is good.

Mélenchon isn't at all a Putin lover, that he doesn't want to be part of NATO and opposes sanctions against Russia doesn't make him a Putin lover, no more than refusing to join Varsaw pact and opposing sanctions against USA would make someone a USA-lover. Mélenchon is a pro-peace, pro-independance of France from any foreign power, against sanctions that don't harm Putin at all but only Russian and European citizens, but yet he firmly opposes Putin on many accounts.

As for authoritarian... if you even had a slight look on his proposals for a 6th Republic, you wouldn't be able to say that without collapsing in laughter or shame. A fundamental part on his platform is abolishing the presidential monarchy of the 5th Republic for a much more democratic, parlementarian and participative 6th Republic - the antithesis of authoritarianism. He's also against "État d'Urgence" and all similar exception laws that only weaken people's individual and political rights, but don't protect us from terrorism.

Le Pen would beat him if he made it into the second round if he somehow did

Wrong, Le Pen wouldn't stand a chance against Mélenchon - like Sanders would have trampled Trump.

Besides as pointed out, Melenchon and Le Pen share a similar stance on most issues anyways.

They don't have a "similar" stance on anything. They are completely opposite about the nature and structure 6th Republic, about working rights/workers protection/minimal wage, about unions, about ecology, about immigration, about terrorism, about justice/criminal system, about tax reform, about LGBT rights, about abortion/euthanasia, about ...

The only topic on which they have "similar" stance, would be about EU, and even it's only a surface similarity, the real positions are very, very different.

You are quite biased on this matter, as you clearly are a strong supporter of Melenchon.
Any source he would win? Seems like he is just as extreme but has a smaller support base.

Their foreign policy is very similar, opposition to NATO, hostility towards the EU and US, deference to Russia. Both are statists and want statists economics.

She has also called for more protections for workers and the environment, higher wages and all that.

[Kilobugya]

Any source he would win?

There are no (AFAIK) official polls of Melenchon-Le Pen yet, but on popularity polls he completely trumps her, like http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presid ... mpagne.php on the question "would you wish X to play a bigger role in politics tomorrow ?" Mélenchon is at 47% (the highest of all, even above Macron) compared to 24% (half) for Marine Le Pen.

Also, on the few times there has been local elections between FdG and FN on the second round, the FN has been atomized.

Seems like he is just as extreme but has a smaller support base.

He's definitely anywhere near "as extreme", for any significant value of that. Mélenchon and his supporters are fully part of mainstream political parties, unlike Le Pen and her supporters, and that's true since 1936 at least. And at local level (cities, regions, départements), FdG is regularly associated with the executive when it's left-wing, without that being seen as scandalous, while everytime there has been hints or rumors of a FN-LR coalition even at local level, it has created massive uproar.

Their foreign policy is very similar, opposition to NATO, hostility towards the EU and US, deference to Russia.

Being opposed to a few same things for different reasons doesn't make a "similar policy". What they are in favor of is completely different, as are the reasons of opposition. And for EU Mélenchon's plan is to change EU, widely different from Le Pen's plan to quit it. As for Russia, there is no "deference" of Mélenchon towards Putin, he has always been a firm opponent of Putin's policies and supporter of left-wing political prisoners in Russia, the only "similarity" is that they both oppose the (widely inefficient and highly dangerous) strategy of economical sanction and military threats against Russia.

Both are statists and want statists economics.

That's just handwaving and doesn't say much about the content of said economics. It's like saying that Hitler and Front Populaire were the same because they both wanted "statists economics", except that their actual policies didn't have anything in common. There are many ways for the state to intervene in economics, just wanting "the state to intervene in economics" without saying how and why doesn't say much.

And btw, Le Pen being "statist" is pretty much a thin varnish, FN always has been, and still is if you dig a tiny bit behind the empty sentences, poujadiste, which means strongly anti-State.

She has also called for more protections for workers and the environment, higher wages and all that.

No, the exact opposite. During the protests and strikes against "Loi Travail" she has been asking for... the government to ban the protests due to "terrorism threats". She is against increase of minimal wage. And she just declared a few days ago that she "always had been against the 35 hours". As for the environment, she just completely ignores the topic and doesn't care about it at all.

[Theodorex]

Major-Tom wrote:
Mélenchon is a statist, Russian supporting, borderline authoritarian narcissist. Why you support him is beyond me.


Being statist is good.

They are all statists, there is no free marlet and there never was, never will be. The politicians who are talking about free market don't want to take responsiblility. "Free market caused all this shit, that's why you are unemployed. we cannot afford welfare state and safety nets because of free market" These are lies pushed by the people who don't believe this fairy tale themselves, the ones who believe it are getting fucked mostly. The narrative is such that no one ever questions if government has money to bomb some place, these questions sound immediately when It comes to social welfare questions, health care etc. Have you ever heard in history some emperor saying that he cannot wage a war because he doesn't have money and markets don't want to finance him? Of course not, It is about real resources and skills.

And yes, socialism where all means of production are nationalised doesn't work as good for a lot of reasons. That doesn't mean we don't have state managed economies in West. They are all politically managed. The problem, with EU is that It doesn't have enough power to manage EU economy properly, yet It has taken away enough power from member states that they cannot manage their economies either. This is what I've been trying to say here, not that I am a huge Le Pen fan. Reading her program, she could do It, she understands what is holding France back. Correct me if I am wrong but I read somewhere she was talking about 5000 people a year immigration to France. That is practically zero immigration policy she supports. I don't know how French people are about immigration, that call is for them to make.

My sister lives in France, she is a dentist and she makes a decent living but I've talked to working class people there and they tell me that life has gotten worse, can't afford this or can't afford that, that they were able to afford in previous years.

Macron has notably advocated in favor of the free market and reducing the public-finances deficit.

Don't want to know anything more about him

Can you Kilobugya provide a link where I can read in English about Mélenchon's program?

[Novus America]

Any source he would win?

There are no (AFAIK) official polls of Melenchon-Le Pen yet, but on popularity polls he completely trumps her, like http://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/presid ... mpagne.php on the question "would you wish X to play a bigger role in politics tomorrow ?" Mélenchon is at 47% (the highest of all, even above Macron) compared to 24% (half) for Marine Le Pen.

Also, on the few times there has been local elections between FdG and FN on the second round, the FN has been atomized.

Seems like he is just as extreme but has a smaller support base.

He's definitely anywhere near "as extreme", for any significant value of that. Mélenchon and his supporters are fully part of mainstream political parties, unlike Le Pen and her supporters, and that's true since 1936 at least. And at local level (cities, regions, départements), FdG is regularly associated with the executive when it's left-wing, without that being seen as scandalous, while everytime there has been hints or rumors of a FN-LR coalition even at local level, it has created massive uproar.

Their foreign policy is very similar, opposition to NATO, hostility towards the EU and US, deference to Russia.

Being opposed to a few same things for different reasons doesn't make a "similar policy". What they are in favor of is completely different, as are the reasons of opposition. And for EU Mélenchon's plan is to change EU, widely different from Le Pen's plan to quit it. As for Russia, there is no "deference" of Mélenchon towards Putin, he has always been a firm opponent of Putin's policies and supporter of left-wing political prisoners in Russia, the only "similarity" is that they both oppose the (widely inefficient and highly dangerous) strategy of economical sanction and military threats against Russia.

Both are statists and want statists economics.

That's just handwaving and doesn't say much about the content of said economics. It's like saying that Hitler and Front Populaire were the same because they both wanted "statists economics", except that their actual policies didn't have anything in common. There are many ways for the state to intervene in economics, just wanting "the state to intervene in economics" without saying how and why doesn't say much.

And btw, Le Pen being "statist" is pretty much a thin varnish, FN always has been, and still is if you dig a tiny bit behind the empty sentences, poujadiste, which means strongly anti-State.

She has also called for more protections for workers and the environment, higher wages and all that.

No, the exact opposite. During the protests and strikes against "Loi Travail" she has been asking for... the government to ban the protests due to "terrorism threats". She is against increase of minimal wage. And she just declared a few days ago that she "always had been against the 35 hours". As for the environment, she just completely ignores the topic and doesn't care about it at all.

See I do not think you are been fair on this at all. You say one thing when I have seen quite the opposite. Like your claim Le Pen never talks about the environment.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 357a75844a
It simply is not true.

I am not sure I can fully trust what you say about her as a result. I think your understanding of her have been altered by bias and the fact you want to make her completely different when she is not.

And how is Melenchon not deferential to Russia when he wants Russia to not face any consequences for invading other countries? If Russia does something what would he do about it?

But in the end it does not matter as Melenchon has no chance anyways.

[Kilobugya]

They are all statists, there is no free marlet and there never was, never will be.

That's a "fallacy of the gray", ie, there is no absolute black nor white, so everything is the same shade of gray. Absolute free market nor absolute state control never existed and will never exist. Being "statist" means wanting more control of the state over the economy, being "anti-statist" less control. And sure since state control can take so many forms, it's not even scales of grays, but multiple shade of colors.

And yes, socialism where all means of production are nationalised doesn't work as good for a lot of reasons.

"Doesn't work" is pretty blunt when USSR managed to go from an illiterate, poor, rural, feudal country to an industrial Juggernaut able to withstand half a century of cold war and win most stages of the space race, despite two world wars and a civil war in its land. But yes sure many things in USSR were deeply broken, and since no one (even Nathalie Arthaud) is wanting to do the same in France in 2017, so invoking "socialism where all means of production are nationalised" in the debate doesn't add much.

That doesn't mean we don't have state managed economies in West. They are all politically managed.

Western economies are partly state-managed, partly free market, yes, I agree with you on that.

The problem, with EU is that It doesn't have enough power to manage EU economy properly, yet It has taken away enough power from member states that they cannot manage their economies either.

On that we agree too. But it's not just "enough power" it's also a matter of will and interests. The way the EU economy is mismanaged isn't good for most people in the EU, but it _is_ good for a tiny minority of very rich people, who are very happy of the way things are going.

This is what I've been trying to say here, not that I am a huge Le Pen fan. Reading her program, she could do It, she understands what is holding France back.

No, she does not. What's holding France back is the billions of tax cuts giving to companies and rich people with no effect on investement/jobs, while it siphons all resources from education, healthcare, infrastructure, r&d, welfare, ... What's holding France back is the 80 billions of tax evasion yearly, something she never speaks about (guess why, with her family being multi-millionaire illegally feeding on public money). What's holding France back is growing inequalities, dismantling of public services. For Le Pen, what's holding France back is Muslims and gypsies... quite a difference.

Correct me if I am wrong but I read somewhere she was talking about 5000 people a year immigration to France. That is practically zero immigration policy she supports. I don't know how French people are about immigration, that call is for them to make.

Le Pen keeps contradicting herself and not making any sense even when she speaks of immigration, mix up all the different figures in a scary limbo but without anything real. But yes, she wants to strictly lower immigration, regardless of it being virtually impossible (laws are already very tough), very costly, humanely unacceptable (under Sarkozy police went as far as arresting children at school doors and teargasing teachers who protested and other schoolchildren in the process, or keeping 4 years old alone in jail for days because their parents were illegals, and Le Pen called Sarkozy "laxist"), and in violation of treaties (Geneva conventions, Children Rights, ...) signed by France. And economically it would be pretty silly since France is slightly below the generation renewal (1.9 births per women, not nearly as bad as Germany, but still below) so we need immigration to help pay for retirement.

As for "how French people are about immigration" they are pretty split, recent polls show about half agree, half disagree with "there are too many immigrants in France".

My sister lives in France, she is a dentist and she makes a decent living but I've talked to working class people there and they tell me that life has gotten worse, can't afford this or can't afford that, that they were able to afford in previous years.

Yes, things have been going down for "the average joe", or at least for a huge number of people from lower or lower-middle class, since about 15 years (if not more), while the wealth of the very wealthy has been skyrocketing, due to right-wing economical policies by Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande.

Can you Kilobugya provide a link where I can read in English about Mélenchon's program?

In English will be hard to find :/ But I can translate the "10 emblematic measures" that were chosen from it (the full detailed program is much more interesting, but it's like 100 pages so...) :

- Referendum to call of Constitutional Assembly for a 6th Republic

- Right to revoke an elected representative during its mandate

- Protection of commons (air, water, food, life, health, energy, currency) which shouldn't be considered market goods.

- Revoke the "Loi Travail", reestablish the hierarchy of norms.

- Split retail banks from business banks (ie, Glass-Steagal) and creation of a state-own banking pole.

- 16% increase of minimal wage, raise of state workers pay (which has been "frozen" for 10 years).

- Green rule : not take from nature more than it can renew.

- Energetic transition towards renewable energies.

- Refuse free-trade agrements (TAFTA, CETA, TISA, ..).

- Push for a "Plan A" of democratic, ecological and social refoundation of EU, or disobey (plan B) current EU treaties in case of failure of the negotiations.

[Kilobugya]

You say one thing when I have seen quite the opposite. Like your claim Le Pen never talks about the environment.

She basically never speak about it, no. That's not a topic she and her followers voluntarily start speaking about, not one where she has strong proposals, not one she emphasis. Occasionally she might say a few things about it when asked, or when she thinks she can score a few easy points, but it's not, at all, her priority. Look at her official website, it's just all at the bottom, in the 7th chapter, https://www.marine2017.fr/programme/ , mixed in it between agriculture and housing, with just a few cheap talking points.

I am not sure I can fully trust what you say about her as a result. I think your understanding of her have been altered by bias and the fact you want to make her completely different when she is not.

And I think you understanding of her is completely bias by not having to deal with her and her party polluting the public debate since decades, and therefore not being able to see past the very thin layer of varnish she is trying to put.

And how is Melenchon not deferential to Russia when he wants Russia to not face any consequences for invading other countries? If Russia does something what would he do about it?

So not putting sanctions against USA when it invaded Iraq in 2003 was being "deferential to USA" and "pro-Bush" ?

But in the end it does not matter as Melenchon has no chance anyways.

He has more chance than MLP.

[Novus America]

You say one thing when I have seen quite the opposite. Like your claim Le Pen never talks about the environment.

She basically never speak about it, no. That's not a topic she and her followers voluntarily start speaking about, not one where she has strong proposals, not one she emphasis. Occasionally she might say a few things about it when asked, or when she thinks she can score a few easy points, but it's not, at all, her priority. Look at her official website, it's just all at the bottom, in the 7th chapter, https://www.marine2017.fr/programme/ , mixed in it between agriculture and housing, with just a few cheap talking points.

I am not sure I can fully trust what you say about her as a result. I think your understanding of her have been altered by bias and the fact you want to make her completely different when she is not.

And I think you understanding of her is completely bias by not having to deal with her and her party polluting the public debate since decades, and therefore not being able to see past the very thin layer of varnish she is trying to put.

And how is Melenchon not deferential to Russia when he wants Russia to not face any consequences for invading other countries? If Russia does something what would he do about it?

So not putting sanctions against USA when it invaded Iraq in 2003 was being "deferential to USA" and "pro-Bush" ?

But in the end it does not matter as Melenchon has no chance anyways.

He has more chance than MLP.

She does talk about the environment. Maybe not as much as other things but she does.
And she is not her father either.

Now thing is, I do not think I am biased towards her as I am very much against her.

The difference is you support one very strongly and oppose the other very strongly.

I oppose both.

And France was very critical of the US on Iraq, but when has Melenchon criticized Russian foreign policy?
Again what would he do besides let Russia do whatever it wants whenever it wants?

I am asking specifically about Russia, not the US.

And she will make the second round and mostly like lose yes, but he will not even get past the first.

[Kilobugya]

She does talk about the environment. Maybe not as much as other things but she does.
And she is not her father either.

It's 2017 - you can't not talk about it. But it's very down in the list of priorities, she is among those who speak the less about it, while Mélenchon among those who speak the most about it.

And the differences between her and her father are very thin, and mostly a PR issue rather than a real shift in core values. And the southern branch of FN, the one of Marion Maréchal and Bruno Golnish, as well as her allies like Robert Ménard, are much more openly close to JMLP without much retribution from Marine Le Pen.

And France was very critical of the US on Iraq, but when has Melenchon criticized Russian foreign policy?

Sure, he did, many times. Criticizing is one thing, imposing sanctions that are utterly useless from a geopolitical pov but harm workers on both side another.

Again what would he do besides let Russia do whatever it wants whenever it wants?

I am asking specifically about Russia, not the US.

You can't consider everyone who opposes sanctions against Russia to be a Russia-puppet and yet refuse to consider everyone who opposes sanctions against USA for the same thing to be USA-puppets, or you're committing double-morals. And the same goes for Saudi's repression in Yemen, for Israel's invasion of Lebanon or Gaza, for ...

And while I (and Mélenchon) aren't supporters of Russia, and we have some of our friends and allies in Putin's jails (unlike many who claim to be anti-Putin...) but we don't have double morals, with being outraged when Putin bombed Aleppo and not caring when NATO bombs Mossoul or Saudi bomb Yemen or Israel bomb Gaza or ... we oppose all wars, all invasions, and that include the "block" logic of NATO against Russia which is actually source of wars and suffering. We want a multi-polar world, ruled by a reformed UN without veto right, and we oppose arbitrary choosing a "good" and "bad" guy, and trade sanctions that only harm workers. That's a consistent, ethical position, perhaps a bit idealist, but you can't pretend rejecting both Russian imperialism AND NATO imperialism (against Russia, among others) is the same than supporting Russia, that's dishonest.

And she will make the second round and mostly like lose yes, but he will not even get past the first.

Le Pen is likely to make it to the second round, but has no chance of winning it. For Mélenchon, accessing the second round will be hard, but if he does, he's likely to win.

But Mélenchon accessing the second round, while unlikely, is not totally impossible. He's polling at 15% and Hamon at 10%, if the dynamics continue, it's very possible for Hamon to drop out (and most of Hamon votes would then go to Mélenchon, putting it near 25% like Macron and Le Pen). If not, it's still possible for Mélenchon to siphon more Hamon votes, and to collect some of those who currently plan to abstain, or just don't know. Also, Le Pen is sinking more and more into her money stealing affairs day after day, until now it didn't harm her much, but it's far from being sure. And Macron still has a huge "hype" and "bubble" factor behind him.

That makes 4 possible victory path for Mélenchon, each unlikely but possible. While I don't see any victory path for Le Pen, the best chance she has would be Fillon-Le Pen, but Fillon is at 17% and unlikely to gain much, and even then she's polling at 56-44 so 12 points below Fillon in the second round.

[Theodorex]

In English will be hard to find :/ But I can translate the "10 emblematic measures" that were chosen from it (the full detailed program is much more interesting, but it's like 100 pages so...) :

- Referendum to call of Constitutional Assembly for a 6th Republic

- Right to revoke an elected representative during its mandate

- Protection of commons (air, water, food, life, health, energy, currency) which shouldn't be considered market goods.

- Revoke the "Loi Travail", reestablish the hierarchy of norms.

- Split retail banks from business banks (ie, Glass-Steagal) and creation of a state-own banking pole.

- 16% increase of minimal wage, raise of state workers pay (which has been "frozen" for 10 years).

- Green rule : not take from nature more than it can renew.

- Energetic transition towards renewable energies.

- Refuse free-trade agrements (TAFTA, CETA, TISA, ..).

- Push for a "Plan A" of democratic, ecological and social refoundation of EU, or disobey (plan B) current EU treaties in case of failure of the negotiations.

What does he say about euro and government budget deficits?
Maastricht treaty?
How is he planning on solving this?

To me it is the most important question. It probably doesn't come up in election debates in this form but how are you going to solve the imbalance in between member states? If you say you continue with euro then please explain how. Demanding that budget deficits would be financed by ECB regardless of the existing rules creates moral hazard. It cannot be a solution. Central fiscal authority means goodbye to you France Republic. You cannot run the state by your own rules and be demanding that some central authority finance It. If California or Texas wanted to leave the union and not follow the rules of federal government then It would be odd if they demanded money from federal government. This is what amazes me most about the left, you cannot be a little pregnant, you either are or are not.

[Kilobugya]

What does he say about euro and government budget deficits?
Maastricht treaty?
How is he planning on solving this?

For EU/Maastricht, it's plan A : renegotiate things. Plan B, if renegotiation fails, disobey the treaties.

For budget deficits, we won't respect Maastricht criteria (see above), we will have Banque de France (or another state-owned bank) finance the state, we'll focus our efforts on fighting tax heaven and tax evasion, and we'll do a massive tax reform that will lower taxes on the poor/middle class and SMEs, but greatly increase taxes on the rich, big corporations and capital gains. We'll also do an audit of the existing debt, to see which parts are legitimate (and those will be paid) and which are not (and those will be renegociated).

It probably doesn't come up in election debates in this form but how are you going to solve the imbalance in between member states? If you say you continue with euro then please explain how. Demanding that budget deficits would be financed by ECB regardless of the existing rules creates moral hazard. It cannot be a solution.

For EU what we'll be asking for is :

1. End of independence of ECB, ECB must be under control of europarl.

2. Having ECB finance member states up to the something like the Maastricht criteria (60% of GDP, 3% per year).

3. Having an emergency debt relief to countries with high debt, and ECB buying back the rest of the debt.

4. Explicitely forbidding ECB to do what it did to Greece in july 2015, shutting down the banking system because the Greek government dared to do what it was elected to do.

5. Tax on financial transaction ("Tobin tax") and massive regulation of finance/banking sector.

6. A progressive, but planned, upward harmonisation of labor conditions (minimal wages, retirement, working hours, ...) inside the EU.

And many other things regarding tax evasion (both inside/outside the EU), protection of social systems against unfair competition, protection and development of state-owned public services, ...

Central fiscal authority means goodbye to you France Republic. You cannot run the state by your own rules and be demanding that some central authority finance It.

You can if it's within some set criteria, like instead of putting the Maastricht criteria as a limit (that basically no one respects, even Germany doesn't), having it as the ECB threshold, the ECB will finance member states up to those, and then it's up to the state to find complementary financing if needed. And that's just one idea among many.

We don't have a complete long-term vision of EU, for three reasons. The first one is that among Mélenchon supporters there are many different opinions, and the program for 2017 is what we all (more or less) agree on. The second one is that it's not us alone who will decide the future of Europe, we have to decide that together. And the third one is that the emergency is fixing what I've said above, or else the eurozone will collapse. So let's tackle the emergency, and then we'll see.

As for leaving euro, it's not really a solution, it would have disastrous effects on both France and the rest of EU. We should fix EU, not disband it. Even "Plan B" isn't killing the euro, but defying EU treaties, the decision to kill the euro rather than let us defy EU rules would have to be taken by Merkel, not by us. We won't back down, it's not our culture and it would be a disaster because it would kill all hope to save the euro, but we won't be the ones killing the euro.

[Baltenstein]

And while I (and Mélenchon) aren't supporters of Russia, and we have some of our friends and allies in Putin's jails (unlike many who claim to be anti-Putin...) but we don't have double morals, with being outraged when Putin bombed Aleppo and not caring when NATO bombs Mossoul or Saudi bomb Yemen or Israel bomb Gaza or ... we oppose all wars, all invasions, and that include the "block" logic of NATO against Russia which is actually source of wars and suffering. We want a multi-polar world, ruled by a reformed UN without veto right, and we oppose arbitrary choosing a "good" and "bad" guy, and trade sanctions that only harm workers. That's a consistent, ethical position, perhaps a bit idealist, but you can't pretend rejecting both Russian imperialism AND NATO imperialism (against Russia, among others) is the same than supporting Russia, that's dishonest.

You're constantly dodging the question. What would Mélenchon do in the case of actual Russian aggression against its neighbors? Russian aggression, not American or NATO aggression or whatever. What would happen if Putin was to decide to take a bite out of the Baltics (because of "sphere of influence" somethingsomething, "protect Russian minority from Western homofascists" somethingsomething), what sort of policy would a Mélenchon government put into action?

[Kilobugya]

You're constantly dodging the question. What would Mélenchon do in the case of actual Russian aggression against its neighbors? Russian aggression, not American or NATO aggression or whatever. What would happen if Putin was to decide to take a bite out of the Baltics (because of "sphere of influence" somethingsomething, "protect Russian minority from Western homofascists" somethingsomething), what sort of policy would a Mélenchon government put into action?

That's not a question you can answer in absolute without knowing all the details, therefore not one you can answer in advance.

But the mere fact of asking that question to Mélenchon, and not asking a similar question about what they would do against a US invasion of a place, or a Saudi invasion, or a Chinese invasion, or whatever else to those who have shown much more sympathy to those countries than Mélenchon ever did towards Putin, is a double standard.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Edging closer aren't we? How's it looking?

[Theodorex]

5. Tax on financial transaction ("Tobin tax") and massive regulation of finance/banking sector.

For EU what we'll be asking for is :

1. End of independence of ECB, ECB must be under control of europarl.

5. Tax on financial transaction ("Tobin tax") and massive regulation of finance/banking sector.

2. Having ECB finance member states up to the something like the Maastricht criteria (60% of GDP, 3% per year).

The financing point is kind of meaningless IMO. Solvency question is not on the table, if Greece doesn't disobey there is not any risk of Greece going insolvent. The question is political if member states budget deficits are financed. Has nothing to do with market confidence bs.
1. Legislative power for MEP-s? But you still haven't fixed It. I don't think you can.

3. Having an emergency debt relief to countries with high debt, and ECB buying back the rest of the debt.

I don't see anything wrong with the size of the debt per se other than it comes up in political debates as a moral issue and everyone is assuming it is a huge problem. Ask them why and they cannot answer. Let's try It like this: Greece or France cannot run out of money if it is politically decided so in EU. What is the purpose of debt relief and does It mean that holders of the debt get ripped off. This happened before with Greece debt private sector hair cut that caused banking problems in Cyprus. I really see nothing postive in ECB buying up member states debt since I don't see anything negative about this debt per se. There is not enough of It issued, evidence is not enough demand in economy and high unemployment.

5. Tax on financial transaction ("Tobin tax") and massive regulation of finance/banking sector.

Tobin tax is bad isea, I agree with regulation of banking sector.

6. A progressive, but planned, upward harmonisation of labor conditions (minimal wages, retirement, working hours, ...) inside the EU.

Not bad but I didn't get your answer to imbalance. You say you don't have complete long term vision. No one does, I don't either, the only way It can work in long term is United States of Europe. Considering political reality, that is not happening. Hell with the long term vision, give me some vision for Greece. Greece is not having high unemployment because of high debt, the interest payments that Greece has to make on that debt are very low. Debt relief will not sol've Greece's problems. You cannot solve the imbalance problem by letting it deficit spend more either.