HOME > SOCIETY > POLITICS
Éric Zemmour on politics
The proposals of the politician Éric Zemmour on subjects related to politics, such as the citizens 'initiative referendum, proportionality, decentralization, blank votes, the citizens' convention, during the debates around the French presidential election from 2022.
Politics :
Political editorialists should not be counted in speaking time during a presidential election. We can count the word of politicians who have already been elected even if they do not pronounce themselves candidate.
We must stop the referendums in New Caledonia and Polynesia, which have a geostrategic importance, to prevent these islands from falling into the hands of China.
Births in France are on the decline, with skewed birth rates. If we continue with the current policy, France in 2050 will be a Lebanon on a grand scale, that is to say a country with communities that were side by side and will be face to face, as the former minister said. from the inside Gérard Collomb.
There is more poverty, more misery, more disorder, more violence. The French people will have been gradually replaced by another people. To avoid the libanization of France, we need a great political, legal, and even philosophical revolution. We must abandon the principles that have deconstructed and destroyed us for 40 years. We must allow the French people to no longer feel colonized, invaded, expropriated from their own territory.
To have solidarity, you need people from the same people. There is no solidarity between people who are not from the same people, who do not defend the same culture, not the same civilization. Before saving the planet, we must save France and that is already a lot.
We do not need a recall referendum, this idea comes from revolutionaries of the extreme left.
Decentralization of powers undoubtedly increases the number of civil servants. It was the constitutional reform of Jean-Pierre Raffarin in 2003 that made France a decentralized nation. However, decentralization has increased administrative structures and expenditure. We must denounce this process of decentralization and return to a centralized system that came from the French revolution, with Jacobin centralization which makes France one and indivisible.
The public service today has an inverted salary scale compared to the private one. The lowest categories in the hierarchy are better paid than in the private sector. Senior executives are paid much less than in the private sector. There is a big problem with the attractiveness of the public service. People who are highly educated, competent, prefer the private sector to the public service. It is not the abolition of the national school of administration that will fix this situation, because this establishment had a prestigious side. Polytechnics are heading en masse to finance to make a lot of money. Before the state in France attracted the best, which is no longer the case today. The power of the state has nothing to do with the number of civil servants, it is a French Colbertist tradition. Colbert had at his disposal an ethical administration. Today we decide to reduce the number of civil servants in the name of the unbearable burden of debt and taxes.
The massive abstention which has been growing slowly and gradually for 30 years, except for the presidential election, comes from the fact that the French think more and more that there is no point in voting. The policies applied for 30 years are very similar. Philippe Séguin said that the right and the left are retailers who buy from the same wholesaler, Europe. All this since the famous Maastricht Treaty. Emmanuel Macron is the child of Valérie Giscard d'Estain and Michel Rocard. That is to say the child of the liberal right and the liberal left, that is to say the product of the disintegration of the political landscape which has lost both the Gaulists and the Communists. It is the quintessence of standardized policies, decided by Europe, controlled by the judge and which no longer concern the French. It doesn't matter what the French vote for, in the end the policy is the same.
The French have the existential fear of disappearing, of being expropriated from their own country. When we look at the polls, more than 70% of French people say they are concerned by these themes. First of all, we need the sovereignty of the people. This is the principle on which the 5th republic was established, unlike the 4th republic which by dint of parliamentary games had completely obscured the sovereignty of the people. The 5th republic handed over this sovereignty thanks to the election by the people of the president of the republic, and the referendum. General De Gaulle often used this referendum tool, then later the other presidents used it less and less, and since 2005 not at all. We have to reuse the referendum again.
The major problem today, the one for which there is no longer any popular sovereignty, apart from Europe, is the government of judges. We have the Constitutional Council, the Council of State, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union Court of Justice, which impose their ideological vision and their policy. The Council of State broke a reform of the unemployment benefit funds, because it felt that it was not the right time. The European Court of Human Rights prohibits France from expelling an Algerian terrorist because he would be martyred in his country. Power must be taken back from the judges. By referendum, by constitutional reform. We must not go back to crazy parliamentarism, to the assembly system, and therefore to the 4th republic.
The proportional a priori is contrary to the 5th republic which is linked to the majority ballot in two rounds to contain the abuses of the assembly system of the 4th republic which was governed by the proportional and which multiplied the groups, the parties, etc. It was disorder, there was no longer a majority to govern. It is the spirit of the fifth republic at the beginning. The best-known voting system is the English one-round ballot system, which results in the British bipartisan regime with, the Conservatives against the Labor Party. Proportionality gives ungovernable regimes, as in Israel and Italy.
We therefore have the majority system which makes it possible to govern, the proportional system which gives fairer representation. But this dichotomy is outdated. Germany has a proportional ballot, there is stability, everyone is well represented thanks to an institution which manages to manage the matter well. Today with the election of the President of the Republic by universal suffrage, the five-year term, rationalized parliamentarism, the reversal of the calendar (legislative after the presidential election), mean that the parliament has become an empty shell. It is not normal that the party of the national front has only a handful of deputies while this political party is 20 or 25% in the presidential election. It is not reasonable and it is not democratic.
The majority vote has become an extra weapon. While it was to make up for the clutter, it became too much to tidy up even more order. Today national democracies are governed in Europe by the Brussels Commission and its famous directives to which governments must submit and judges who in the name of the rule of law interpret the declaration of human rights, transform principles philosophical in legal principles, and ultimately make the law in place of the legislator. Proportionality would be good for a democratic representation of all currents of thought. Unfortunately, even a more representative parliament would not have more power. It would still be headed by the judges and the Brussels commission. Parliamentary democracy would have taken on its colors but it would still be governed by a judicial and technocratic oligarchy. It wouldn't change anything, it would give a little life, a little color to the shadow theater of national democracy.
In 1940, General de Gaul was sentenced to death in absentia. We are not under the same regime but we are in such a tragic period.
The themes in the citizens' climate convention are housing, consumption, transport, and work. These are social and leftist themes. We must go further and imagine a convention of themes such as immigration, security, identity, demography. With 150 people drawn on this subject.
We must recognize the blank vote, because abstention has a legitimate political meaning.
We need the popular referendum. The people must be allowed to speak out against the notables and notorious people who have regained power through the rule of law. The political correctness of the government of judges has imposed values on borders, on immigration, on social issues, on the death penalty.
We have to get out of the European court of human rights in order to be able to apply our immigration policy.
Politics :
Political editorialists should not be counted in speaking time during a presidential election. We can count the word of politicians who have already been elected even if they do not pronounce themselves candidate.
We must stop the referendums in New Caledonia and Polynesia, which have a geostrategic importance, to prevent these islands from falling into the hands of China.
Births in France are on the decline, with skewed birth rates. If we continue with the current policy, France in 2050 will be a Lebanon on a grand scale, that is to say a country with communities that were side by side and will be face to face, as the former minister said. from the inside Gérard Collomb.
There is more poverty, more misery, more disorder, more violence. The French people will have been gradually replaced by another people. To avoid the libanization of France, we need a great political, legal, and even philosophical revolution. We must abandon the principles that have deconstructed and destroyed us for 40 years. We must allow the French people to no longer feel colonized, invaded, expropriated from their own territory.
To have solidarity, you need people from the same people. There is no solidarity between people who are not from the same people, who do not defend the same culture, not the same civilization. Before saving the planet, we must save France and that is already a lot.
We do not need a recall referendum, this idea comes from revolutionaries of the extreme left.
Decentralization of powers undoubtedly increases the number of civil servants. It was the constitutional reform of Jean-Pierre Raffarin in 2003 that made France a decentralized nation. However, decentralization has increased administrative structures and expenditure. We must denounce this process of decentralization and return to a centralized system that came from the French revolution, with Jacobin centralization which makes France one and indivisible.
The public service today has an inverted salary scale compared to the private one. The lowest categories in the hierarchy are better paid than in the private sector. Senior executives are paid much less than in the private sector. There is a big problem with the attractiveness of the public service. People who are highly educated, competent, prefer the private sector to the public service. It is not the abolition of the national school of administration that will fix this situation, because this establishment had a prestigious side. Polytechnics are heading en masse to finance to make a lot of money. Before the state in France attracted the best, which is no longer the case today. The power of the state has nothing to do with the number of civil servants, it is a French Colbertist tradition. Colbert had at his disposal an ethical administration. Today we decide to reduce the number of civil servants in the name of the unbearable burden of debt and taxes.
The massive abstention which has been growing slowly and gradually for 30 years, except for the presidential election, comes from the fact that the French think more and more that there is no point in voting. The policies applied for 30 years are very similar. Philippe Séguin said that the right and the left are retailers who buy from the same wholesaler, Europe. All this since the famous Maastricht Treaty. Emmanuel Macron is the child of Valérie Giscard d'Estain and Michel Rocard. That is to say the child of the liberal right and the liberal left, that is to say the product of the disintegration of the political landscape which has lost both the Gaulists and the Communists. It is the quintessence of standardized policies, decided by Europe, controlled by the judge and which no longer concern the French. It doesn't matter what the French vote for, in the end the policy is the same.
The French have the existential fear of disappearing, of being expropriated from their own country. When we look at the polls, more than 70% of French people say they are concerned by these themes. First of all, we need the sovereignty of the people. This is the principle on which the 5th republic was established, unlike the 4th republic which by dint of parliamentary games had completely obscured the sovereignty of the people. The 5th republic handed over this sovereignty thanks to the election by the people of the president of the republic, and the referendum. General De Gaulle often used this referendum tool, then later the other presidents used it less and less, and since 2005 not at all. We have to reuse the referendum again.
The major problem today, the one for which there is no longer any popular sovereignty, apart from Europe, is the government of judges. We have the Constitutional Council, the Council of State, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union Court of Justice, which impose their ideological vision and their policy. The Council of State broke a reform of the unemployment benefit funds, because it felt that it was not the right time. The European Court of Human Rights prohibits France from expelling an Algerian terrorist because he would be martyred in his country. Power must be taken back from the judges. By referendum, by constitutional reform. We must not go back to crazy parliamentarism, to the assembly system, and therefore to the 4th republic.
The proportional a priori is contrary to the 5th republic which is linked to the majority ballot in two rounds to contain the abuses of the assembly system of the 4th republic which was governed by the proportional and which multiplied the groups, the parties, etc. It was disorder, there was no longer a majority to govern. It is the spirit of the fifth republic at the beginning. The best-known voting system is the English one-round ballot system, which results in the British bipartisan regime with, the Conservatives against the Labor Party. Proportionality gives ungovernable regimes, as in Israel and Italy.
We therefore have the majority system which makes it possible to govern, the proportional system which gives fairer representation. But this dichotomy is outdated. Germany has a proportional ballot, there is stability, everyone is well represented thanks to an institution which manages to manage the matter well. Today with the election of the President of the Republic by universal suffrage, the five-year term, rationalized parliamentarism, the reversal of the calendar (legislative after the presidential election), mean that the parliament has become an empty shell. It is not normal that the party of the national front has only a handful of deputies while this political party is 20 or 25% in the presidential election. It is not reasonable and it is not democratic.
The majority vote has become an extra weapon. While it was to make up for the clutter, it became too much to tidy up even more order. Today national democracies are governed in Europe by the Brussels Commission and its famous directives to which governments must submit and judges who in the name of the rule of law interpret the declaration of human rights, transform principles philosophical in legal principles, and ultimately make the law in place of the legislator. Proportionality would be good for a democratic representation of all currents of thought. Unfortunately, even a more representative parliament would not have more power. It would still be headed by the judges and the Brussels commission. Parliamentary democracy would have taken on its colors but it would still be governed by a judicial and technocratic oligarchy. It wouldn't change anything, it would give a little life, a little color to the shadow theater of national democracy.
In 1940, General de Gaul was sentenced to death in absentia. We are not under the same regime but we are in such a tragic period.
The themes in the citizens' climate convention are housing, consumption, transport, and work. These are social and leftist themes. We must go further and imagine a convention of themes such as immigration, security, identity, demography. With 150 people drawn on this subject.
We must recognize the blank vote, because abstention has a legitimate political meaning.
We need the popular referendum. The people must be allowed to speak out against the notables and notorious people who have regained power through the rule of law. The political correctness of the government of judges has imposed values on borders, on immigration, on social issues, on the death penalty.
We have to get out of the European court of human rights in order to be able to apply our immigration policy.
Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.
Related posts:
Éric Piolle on politics and foreign policy
https://w3ask.com/eric-piolle-politics-foreign-policy/
https://w3ask.com/eric-piolle-politics-foreign-policy/
The remarks of the politician Eric Piolle concerning the policy, including the foreign policy during the primary of the ecologists of September ...
Éric Zemmour on foreign policy
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-foreign-policy/
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-foreign-policy/
The proposals of journalist and writer Éric Zemmour on foreign policy subjects, such as Brazil, China, Mali, NATO, the United States, Qatar, ...
Éric Zemmour on energy, ecology, carbon tax
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-energy-ecology-carbon-tax/
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-energy-ecology-carbon-tax/
The observations and proposals of the writer Éric Zemmour on the subjects of ecology, energy, the carbon tax during televised debates with ...
Éric Zemmour on health, housing, education, religion
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-health-housing-education-religion/
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-health-housing-education-religion/
The findings of polemicist Éric Zemmour, as well as the proposals on the themes of housing, education, health, religion with the prospect of ...
Éric Zemmour on the economy
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-economy/
https://w3ask.com/eric-zemmour-economy/
The proposals of the journalist Éric Zemmour on the subjects of the economy, with the gross domestic product, the relocations, the reindustrialisation, ...