Archived copy is here: https://archive.is/DqZ6m
The article says this:
“Immediately withdraw from NATO’s integrated command and then, in stages, from the organization itself. Reject the tribute demanded by the United States of 5% of GDP devoted to defense spending,” read France Unbowed’s 222-page program.
However, France under Mélenchon would still provide assistance to European Union countries under EU treaties, the document added
Is Melenchon right? Is it better for the EU to be the organisation of mutual defence guarantees for Europe, rather than NATO?
I’m surprised to see so much Atlantist sentiment on Lemmy.
The US has proved not only that their security umbrella means nothing, but that it in fact invites foreign aggression. And once you’re attacked they’ll probably shit on you and go back on all their commitments. What’s the point exactly?
we should continue to work with the Canadians, also guess who won the midterms.
I’ll be honest, as a European, I don’t care who won the midterms until the US cleans up all the grief it caused. Some of it is unfixable, people died.
The US does not to be the bad guy every 4-8 years and just say “hey it’s Dems in power now, we’re the good guys again”.
Throw the idiots who did this into jail, stop surveilling the world, stop enriching yourselves and causing a recession every 8 years, then on 15 years we can talk.
This means nothing and you know it. Tech oligarchs will never give up their power, and the Dems will never make them.
Yeah canadians are cool and they are already Europe’s special little friend. But i’d argue that :
So i’d be wary of any deep integration with their military. Nothing personal but strange things happen to countries that are on the doorstep of the Empire, and being too entangled with them is a long term liability.
Have a close look at Germany’s relationship with the US.
Not sure what you’re referring to
Most of the NATO members are not the US, also in terms of population. If you propose leaving NATO without a realistic alternative of a kind of NATO without the US for example all you are doing is selling out Europe.
Um, but the “kind of NATO” is called EU already. The mutual defense wording in the EU treaties is by far stronger than the wording in the NATO contract. I mean, in the end it’s all words on paper anyway, but there’s that.
He is also against the EU though.
I am all for the EU as a meanginful defense union but capabilities need to exist and they don’t yet. Blowing up the one thing while not having a working replacement at the same time means inviting hostile powers to carve up Europe.
No he’s not, what the fuck. You’re thinking of his main political opponent, Marine Le Pen, who wants to exit NATO and the EU.
FI’s platform is explicitly against exiting the Union or the Euro Zone.
LFI’s platform also states that:
This is all anti-EU and no better than the far right.
No, I am not. Mekechon’s opposition comes from a different, leftist, direction but it is opposition all the same. He is a staunch critic of the “neoloiberal European Union” and demands a fundamental renegotiation of the treaties. Are you seriously denying that?
Guess what, the far right in many member states is demanding the same. It is hard to keep track though with the far right, as the are oscilating between demanding leaving the EU, and “reforming”, ie destroying it. To my understanding Le Pen is currently demanding to “reform”, ie destroy the EU from within. As such a fundamental “reform” will fracture the Union or at least lead to a massive weakening of its political structure and its ability to act.
So your point is that any attempt at reforming the (grossly ultra-liberal) European Union would fracture the Union, and also that any criticism of its (grossly corrupt) operations is just playing the same team as the fascists ? How fucking convenient, especially for the fascists who actually spawned and bankrolled the whole Frexit movement.
How are you supposed to make something better when you’re not allowed to formulate any criticism of it ?
No, I am claiming that it doesn’t need any major treaty changes to change the political direction of the EU to a left leaning position. It would need however a left majority among voters, currently there is a clear right majority on EU level and most national capitals are right/conservative as well.
The EU’s operations are not “grossly corrupt”, corrrupt maybe but less so than most member states, certainly less corrupt than Germany or Austria, not sure about France but I would be surprised if things were different there. Most of the corruption is taking place on local level with EU funds. Fighting corruption on both levels is possible without any treaty change, as the creation of EPPO has shown. Great institution that has a mandate to fight corruption on both, European and national level, as long as it has something to do with EU institutions, policies or subsidies.
How do you know?
Which Aubry is already doing as head of the Left euro-group. There is not one single mention of treaty changes in FI’s platform. They just state that we may decline to apply some European laws if they lead to worse social or ecological outcomes for French workers. It’s called “principe de non-régression écologique et sociale” and i don’t see any great arguments against it.
It’s against leaving, everyone’s is. But they’re very much eurosceptics.
That is a very strange position to take because LFI euro-députés engage very hard with the system. There are actual euroskeptics who barely show up, vote once a year and never bring anything to the table. But that’s not LFI, I mean Aubry is leader of the European Left coalition ffs, and they don’t bullshit around. Do you have any elements to the contrary ?
FYI the party’s official line is : “we stay in the Union & Eurozone but we might disobey some treaties if they lead to worse social or ecological outcomes than our local laws”. Happy to debate all day long but i don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with this position.
It makes little difference if you demand exiting the EU or destroying it from within, maybe the latter being worse. Both serves Putin’s agenda.
Yeah but we already have close diplomatic ties with most of those countries, including some active defense treaties. There’s nothing complicated about expanding that, we have nuclear deterrence and a good-ish army it’s not like countries are going to give us shit. We certainly don’t need the US to achieve that, in fact we specifically need the US to not be involved in it if we want to keep it aligned with our interests.
That is the kind of narrow nationalist perspective Putin is counting on. Yeah, no one will try to attack France directly. Once the EU is functionally dead (either by “reform” to Melechon’s liking or “reform” to Le Pen’s liking), and NATO is gone the rest will fall in place and once Le Pen is elected, there will be no need to attack France, as it will be already under pro-Russian autocratic rule.
It is bizarre that in your comments, anything that is not abject submission to United States interests is seen as destructive nationalism that will bring about the end of everything. Come on man, the world is free to suck Donald Trump’s dick if they like the taste of it but France is a big enough player to say fuck off and go our own way. We have amazing international relationships which we’ve been cultivating for centuries. We don’t need the US payola system to intercede for us with other global powers.
You are completely misjudging my position, to absurd levels. I am actually supporting rapid emancipation from the US and strengthening of European sovereignty. I am against balkanisation of the EU, which incidentially is what both, Trump and Putin want to see and both Melenchon and Le Pen will facilitate.
I see that you are pretty much on that line as well. Congratulations, your position is more in line with what Trump wants than mine. Tragic, isn’t it?
But doing or even saying anything to that effect is “balkanization” and “carrying water for Putin”. How fucking convenient.
Oh yes i’m sure Trump would love if a country like France fell to a popular anti-american pro-socialist movement with enough parliamentary chops to rally other countries in Europe. Must be his wet dream.
Nothing convenient, emancipation needs the building of alternative capabilities first, then you can burn down bridges. As it happens, that is exactly what the EU is doing right now, even if one could argue that even more effort should be put into it. Doing it the other way round just means making it easier for enemies to take Europe apart and yes, that is doing Putin’s job then.
If Trump could choose between a far-left nationalist France that blows up the EU and more Macron with an increasingly independent EU standing, yes Trump would choose the former. Are you really believing the opposite being the case?