
French election: Macron defeats Le Pen - galvin
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39839349
======
orf
As a European this comes as a huge relief, especially given the poorly-timed
email leak (with Russian names in the metadata).

Here's to hoping that Europe can continue working together and begin to reform
itself, and not tear itself apart like some of our American 'allies' on the
(alt-)right would like.

Lots of challenges ahead, but we wouldn't want it to be too easy now would we?

~~~
wsc981
As a European I see this as a huge concern. Choosing Macron means keeping the
status quo, which means continued mass immigration, continued bad economic
policy, etc... in Europe. I am sure the bankers will be glad as will the
European Commission and the multinationals, but the common people will become
disillusioned in a few years as more and more terrorist attacks will happen
into Europe and the problems with the economic policy if the EU will become
more visible (the mass printing of money by Draghi and forcing countries buy
bad bonds to cover this pyramid scheme).

But -for me personally- I'd say it's a good thing. As I stated before,
choosing Macron means keeping up with the status quo and I intend to leave
Europe for Asia next year (I have an Asian girlfriend and daughter). I do
realise that if Le Pen would be chosen now there would be unrest in the
Economic markets, the EU, etc... So for me personally it will be a good time
to just make a bit more money before leaving permanently.

In the end the choice for Macron will only delay the inevitable though. The EU
is dead, it just doesn't realise it yet. The only problem is: the longer it
takes for the EU to collapse, the messier it will become.

~~~
orf
I don't agree with the downvotes you are receiving, you make some good overall
points (but also some bad ones).

Nothing is dead until it is entirely dead, and the EU idea still runs strong
in people. Things need to change, as Brexit and the recent problems faced by
the union have shown. Now it's down to the time to reform.

I don't think Macron is choosing the status quo though, hes as much as a
political outsider as Trump and I hope he will make some progress in achieving
reforms.

~~~
mtgx
What exactly "needs to change"?

When I see people complain about the EU it's usually about "the EU taking
their sovereignty and imposing stuff on them".

So if "things are going to change" that means the EU would have to become
_less_ like the U.S. (a federal entity), and more like an aggregate of wildly
different cultures and regulations (so more like the pre-EU Europe).

Is that really a good thing? And do things "need to change" _that way_? Or is
more education necessary about why the EU needs to become more homogeneous and
less heterogeneous?

I can say one thing - if EU states remain wildly different from each other in
culture, language, and regulations, the EU will continue to remain a much less
appealing market than the US. And it's not so much that the laws are
"stricter" (like say the privacy ones), as it is about the laws being
different in each country, and making it hard for a company to be compliant
with all of them. And I think that means fewer options and fewer quality
products for Europeans in the end (you'll be stuck with your locally-made
products).

~~~
sparkling
What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed. The
EU as it is right now is becoming the next Sovient Union. A undemocratic,
centralised, bureaucratic superstate that strips the people from their
sovereignty, independence, cultural and ethnic traditions.

Further, you seem to assume that without the EU, trade between countries would
somehow radically decrease, i don't see that happening. The European Economic
Area (EEA) and the Schengen treaty exist independently from the EU. Norway and
Switzerland are not members of the EU, yet they trade perfectly fine with
others. The EU is not necessary for free trade.

PS: Feel free to downvote, but at least make an argument.

~~~
d215
> What the EU is trying to do has been done in the past and it has failed.

First, If we would never try what in the past has failed then we would be
really in a very stagnant state. Second, the EU has not failed, the EU is
still the main reason for the prosperity most of its members have gained and
still continue to gain after WWII. That it has had some backlashes recently
does not mean at all that it has failed.

> The EU is not necessary for free trade.

It is not. It is however necessary for a internal economic market that
guarantees the free flow of capital and labor, which is much wider/different
in scope than free trade. Free trade can be arranged with a few trade treaties
in neo liberal style.

~~~
petre
Austria Hungary has failed. The Soviet Union has failed even though everybody
in it was speaking Russian, which is not the case with the EU. The EU will
fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of power. The
difference is that unlike Austria Hungary and the USSR, it does not have a
standing army to back its power and member states will leave when economic
crisis hits and it's no longer in their best interests to stay.

~~~
sangnoir
> The EU will fail if it continues like this, with massive centralization of
> power.

I keep hearing this argument, but I've never heard any supporting arguments.
What evidence is there that "sovereignty" is optimal at the administrative
scale of modern-day nation-states and not EU-sized scales, or going the other
direction, at provincial, city or district levels?

~~~
polotics
The evidence is to be found in the study of monetary policy. Depending on your
political inclination, I suggest a web search for late Thatcher speeches, or
Varoufakis books. Ideally, both.

~~~
sangnoir
Thatcher only convinces me Manchester would have been better off as a city-
state, setting it's own monetary policy instead of Thatcherism.

------
lindbergh
HN will likely rejoice. Macron is putting a lot of faith in startups to
jumpstart back the french economy. I think it's wise: France has great schools
to train great engineers, but there's still this stigma that it's almost
impossible to have your own tech company in France unless you're ready to deal
with massive paperwork. I have no idea how true it is, but Macron clearly
wants to change this mentality.

It also goes to another level. Traditionally (since the 50s), engineering in
France has largely been lead by large, ambitious and state funded projects and
organizations. Think for instance Concorde, TGV, EDF, INRIA, etc. I have
always liked this gaullist mentality: it has benefited the majority of the
population and I tend to believe it has been helpful in making France a major
post WW2 superpower.

But lately it may not have worked so well: for instance, many regional
airports have been built at high cost, and yet many of them are almost empty.
Perhaps then, resource allocation is the problem. In this regard, Macron is
influenced by the american model where eg. Bell Labs, Elon Musk, Silicon
Valley behemoths, etc. decide by themselves what shall be built and the state
has little to no regard in the orientations of these organizations.

We'll see. I'm glad Macron has won and hope his plan works out.

~~~
song
Speaking as someone who has had companies in various countries (Japan, China,
Hong Kong and France). The paperwork and complexities in France are by far the
worst. Even China with it's love of red tape is at least relatively well
organized and not to difficult to navigate.

In France, you get to deal with organizations like the RSI and URSSAF which
are incredibly incompetent, frequently make mistake, do not have phone numbers
that can be called from abroad (which is extremely inconvenient when traveling
for business) and have Bizantine rules.

I would never create a company again in France because the system is
completely broken. I really hope that Macron follows through on solving this.
I believe that it's a priority.

~~~
lindbergh
Interesting. Out of curiosity, why then did you chose France over any other EU
country to have your company?

~~~
song
Only because I lived there at the time.

------
agumonkey
I can't deny it uplifted my mood quite a bit. The nationalist wave didn't flip
France head enough, which is always good. It's just a start, a new hope.

~~~
jstoja
A new hope would have been to start having a decline in the far-right votes.

~~~
agumonkey
Yeah totally. I wished for a 20%. Alas time moves quick and I couldn't act to
ensure this locally. 35% is still way too high, but the worst is avoided.

~~~
enraged_camel
The worst isn't avoided - just postponed. Le Pen's father received half the
vote she did back in 2002. That means nationalist sentiment has _doubled_ in
just 15 years. If things go the way they are (which they will under Macron) we
should expect a nationalist landslide in about a decade.

~~~
agumonkey
JMLP had a different game to play. Since, MLP spent years softening the FN
image. Then wars and terrorism striked. Not long ago it was given that
considering the context she would win. My opinion is that the 34% is peak
nationalism and people will go back to normal parties.

~~~
remy_0
> normal parties.

The matter is not the parties. It's ideologies. FN is prospering because of
the remanent xenophobic culture of France. There is always a reason for
hatred, it does not fade so easily

~~~
agumonkey
I don't think people are that xenophobic in France. Not like core FN.

------
easilyBored
Had France "fallen," EU would have been toast. Together with Germany they are
the main pillars of EU.

As bad as EU is, eventually they will get along just fine...or a least just as
United States of America do.

~~~
AlexeyBrin
> As bad as EU is, eventually they will get along just fine...or a least just
> as United Sates of America do.

The difference is that in USA they speak the same language and even this way
they are not as homogenous as they seem from outside.

In Europe you have huge economical and cultural differences between certain
states, bad blood for historical reasons between some nations and so on.

~~~
tobltobs
In Switzerland they speak four different languages and that doesn't seem to be
a problem.

~~~
AlexeyBrin
You should try to live for a few years in different European countries like
Hungary, Romania and Germany. Most importantly see how each of these people
see each other and their neighbours.

I bet that people in Switzerland have more in common (economically and
culturally) than people from Bulgaria and France have for example.

~~~
tobltobs
I guess the difference would be similar to NYC vs. Kentucky or Alabama vs.
California. Those differences (economically and culturally) don't seem to be a
too big problem for the US.

To come back to the example of Switzerland, the economically and culturally
differences between a mountain farmer and a Banker in Geneva shouldn't be
underrated also.

~~~
tjalfi
Regional inequality is pretty bad in the US[0].

The following paragraph is an excerpt from the linked article.

Yet starting in the early 1980s, the long trend toward regional equality
abruptly switched. ... In 1980, the per capita income of Washington, D.C., was
29 percent above the average for Americans as a whole; by 2013 it had risen to
68 percent above. In the San Francisco Bay area, the rise was from 50 percent
above to 88 percent. Meanwhile, per capita income in New York City soared from
80 percent above the national average in 1980 to 172 percent above in 2013.

[0] [http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-
and-...](http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/novdec-2015/bloom-and-bust/)

------
RobertoG
Those results are an improvement for the Front national.

If the current policies at the French and European level don't change, we are
just winning a few years.

Macron is probably the candidate less inclined to change those policies.

------
mlcdf
11M people voted for Le Pen. This number is terrifyingly high.

~~~
jjcc
If Sarkozy didn't change the regime of Libya by bombing based on lies which
are still under cover by main stream media, there might be no such an
immigration wave caused by war and chaos. Today main stream media still try to
avoid to associate their bias reports with the change in public opinion. It
seems to me that main stream media is part of if not all of reasons caused
such situation today.

~~~
kingkawn
Every "civilizing" or, in the post-colonial era, "humanitarian" intervention
in the Middle East has contributed to the state we find ourselves in today.
But they blame religion, anything they can other than themselves.

------
bkjelden
It seems that Trump and Brexit may have been the high water mark for the wave
of nationalism sweeping the west. 2017 has seen nationalist candidates fade
and underperform their polls across the EU. Trump has made less actual policy
progress towards his nationalist goals than perhaps many feared/expected.

Things were quite scary a few months ago. There are still things to be
concerned about going forward, but politics ebbs and flows, and for now
perhaps the flood waters are receding.

~~~
pottersbasilisk
Condoleeza rice disagrees.
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/07/condoleezza-r...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/05/07/condoleezza-
rice-on-brexit-le-pen-and-trump/101366634/)

------
pinaceae
The most successful peace project on European soil of the last 1000 years can
continue.

Naysayers of the EU need to learn history. It is worth every penny, every inch
of inconvenience.

TWO fucking world wars were started by Europe, by nations that formed the
Coal/Steel Union after 45 and now enjoy the longest, uninterrupted period of
peace since, like, EVER.

The EU's economy is the largest in the world. You don't fuck with that. Except
if you're British and can't stomach the end of your empire.

~~~
kakwa_
It might be a little too simplistic to credit the EU for 70 years of peace.

There is no major conflict directly involving two major powers for many
decades (1945/WW2, or 1952/korean war if considering that China was a major
power at that time, which is generous IMHO).

That's not limited to Europe, this statement is valid for the whole world.

Several factors can explain it:

* Better living conditions (far less frequent famines, less large scale epidemics, etc), mostly due to industrialization of many countries and consequently less tensions inside and between countries over resources.

* For a part, economic dependencies between countries.

* MAD, but also the realization after WW2 that a major conflict, using modern weapons, even only conventional ones, can only lead to both sides actually losing.

* Better worldwide coordination through the UN (imperfect, yet it helps).

* Better education for large parts of the world population.

* More pacifist views and reject of war.

This is still oversimplifying why there is this unprecedented peaceful period,
but it shows the CECA/CEE/EU is far from being the only factor at play.

~~~
pinaceae
"For a part, economic dependencies between countries."

You think this happened by accident in Europe? It was a forced development, by
very smart people.

Coal/Steel union, EG/EWG, EU.

The US and USSR were duking it out all the time, from Cuba to Vietnam to
Afghanistan.

Funny how people assume peace in Europe is the natural order. Holy shit, one
of the key members put millions in gas chambers just years before its
formation.

Europe went from a genocidal maniac (colonialism, holocaust, etc) to peace in
no time.

------
sbose78
I'm curious how things work? This is just a prediction? Is this an _official_
exit poll?

~~~
lindbergh
Polls close at 7pm except in larger cities, but counting of votes start at
this time. It's forbidden to leak the results until 8pm, at which time the
sample is large enough to give a precise estimate, unlikely to move by much.

~~~
sbose78
If polls haven't closed yet, shouldn't exit polls be made illegal? Because
exit polls can manipulate opinions.

~~~
MagnumOpus
That is already illegal in France. Exit polls can be taken, but cannot be
published until after polling booths close.

Since the polling booths are now closed (it is 8:30pm in France), these exit
polls have been published. That is what the Beeb article is based on.

------
s_kilk
65% to 34%, mauled.

~~~
S4M
34% is way too much for a fascist like Le Pen.

~~~
sbose78
Her vote percentage has hardly gone up since the first round.

~~~
masklinn
Say what? She went from 21% to 34, that's a 60% increase.

~~~
noobermin
Of course, this is a run-off, so even comparing them without some sort of
normalization isn't enlightening.

------
zouhair
And they elected a worse person than Hollande.

------
Boothroid
Nothing juicy in the emails it seems - so what possible benefit is there for
the leaker? Could it be bragging? Increasing fear of hacking? Implying that Le
Pen was in cahoots with the Russians?

Clearly if it was supposed to help Le Pen it didn't work.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Wouldn't surprise me if some "fake news" based on the emails was getting
pushed via social media while the main media was forced to not cover anything.

If they had anything even vaguely plausible, they'd have released it earlier.

------
shafiqissani
Thank God, given Theresa we needed someone sane in the EU.

------
kazinator
The pen is mightier than the sword, but sometimes comes up dry against a
simple diacritical mark.

------
alexro
Did she set up concentration camps or plans to?

~~~
wayn3
She said that we should drop ebola on Romania as it would solve 2 problems:

\- We would gain valuable research data

and

\- Get rid of a bunch of undesirables

~~~
petre
Source?

~~~
wayn3
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/jean-marie-
le-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/21/jean-marie-le-pen-ebola-
population-explosion-europe-immigration)

was on the news a couple years ago. seems like it was her daddy. my bad.

~~~
angry-hacker
Pretty big difference. Check your facts next time and stop the fearmongering.

