The new cabinet pulls in allies from the centre and right, despite left-wing parties winning France's election.

French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his new government almost three months after a snap general election delivered a hung parliament.

The long-awaited new line up, led by Prime Minister Michel Barnier, marks a decisive shift to the right, even though a left-wing alliance won most parliamentary seats.

It comes as the European Union puts France on notice over its spiralling debt, which now far exceeds EU rules.

Among those gaining a position in the new cabinet is Bruno Retailleau, a key member of the conservative Republicans Party founded by former president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Just one left-wing politician was given a post in the cabinet, independent Didier Migaud, who was appointed as justice minister.

France’s public-sector deficit is projected to reach around 5.6% of GDP this year and go over 6% in 2025. The EU has a 3% limit on deficits.

Michel Barnier, a veteran conservative, was named as Macron’s prime minister earlier this month.

Members of the left-wing alliance, the New Popular Front (NFP) have threatened a no-confidence motion in the new government.

Far-left leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon called for the new government to “be got rid of” as soon as possible.

On Saturday, before the cabinet announcement, thousands of left-wing supporters demonstrated in Paris against the incoming government, arguing that the left’s performance in the election was not taken into consideration.

Archive link

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    82·
    1 month ago

    Yeah I understand how time works, that’s why I gave you list of sources that show historical progress over time. Not just a single event happening, but clear demonstration of long term trends. I guess that was just too complicated for you to wrap your head around.

    But more importantly, you said civil unrest is an indication of a bad democracy and you brought up those two countries as examples of good democracy. Your excuses might explain why there are unrest, but they don’t invalidate the unrest. There’s still unrest in those countries which means a) unrest is not an indicator or b) those countries are not examples of good democracy.

    Nah, that’s just a simplistic straw man you keep building instead of addressing what I actually said.

    What if I’m dyslexic?

    What if you started addressing the actual points being made instead of playing word games.

    How do you excuse ignoring the wider context of what I was saying and focusing solely on the one thing that’s out of place?

    Except I didn’t ignore the wider context, I addressed your points and explained my position clearly.

    The sad troll here is you, getting caught with your pants down.

    Projection will always be the way of the liberal I suppose.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
      34·
      1 month ago

      Yeah I understand how time works, that’s why I gave you list of sources that show historical progress over time. Not just a single event happening, but clear demonstration of long term trends. I guess that was just too complicated for you to wrap your head around.

      So as long as I give you similar data about France your protest argument doesn’t count?

      Unless you really want to hammer in on the housing based on what you’ve shown France is doing as well as China.

      Nah, that’s just a simplistic straw man you keep building instead of addressing what I actually said.

      I’m just building on what you’ve said. If you feel like it’s a strawman, it’s because that’s the arguments you’ve given me.

      Except I didn’t ignore the wider context, I addressed your points and explained my position clearly.

      Nope. If anything you ignored what I asked and gave me, at that point, irrelevant shit that you’re now trying to make relevant.

      Projection will always be the way of the liberal I suppose.

      Does that mean you’re calling yourself liberal? Because you’re projecting I’m a liberal but I’m a socialist.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        62·
        1 month ago

        Unless you really want to hammer in on the housing based on what you’ve shown France is doing as well as China.

        That’s an imbecilic argument given that France was in a far better starting position than China. What You have to look at is the progression over time, as I’ve explained this in the last reply. Evidently that went over your head. Household income is a perfect example here incidentally:

        The raise in income for Chinese workers has been far more dramatic than for those in France. In fact, a typical Chinese adult is now richer than the typical European adult. https://archive.is/uzLgx

        And the context for this, once again, is that China started from the state of utter devastation without any outside help after the revolution.

        I’m not sure how concrete usage matters here so I’m just not going to look for that data.

        Incredible that you don’t understand how investment in infrastructure matters. Where do you think all this housing, roads, and so on, comes from exactly?

        I’m just building on what you’ve said. If you feel like it’s a strawman, it’s because that’s the arguments you’ve given me.

        It’s because you either have low reading comprehension or you’re intentionally misrepresenting what I said by cherry picking and omitting context. Feel free to reread what was said to you until you actually understand the points being made.

        Nope. If anything you ignored what I asked and gave me, at that point, irrelevant shit that you’re now trying to make relevant.

        I didn’t ignore anything you asked, but I guess you’ve already made it abundantly clear that you’re not trying to have a good faith discussion here.

        Does that mean you’re calling yourself liberal? Because you’re projecting I’m a liberal but I’m a socialist.

        No, I’m saying that you’re projecting your own behavior onto me here. The fact that you think you’re a socialist makes the whole thing even funnier though.

        • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
          24·
          1 month ago

          What You have to look at is the progression over time, as I’ve explained this in the last reply. Evidently that went over your head. Household income is a perfect example here incidentally:

          You’re comparing a country that was a developed country more than 50 years ago to a country that has been a developing country in the last 50 years. No shit one of them is going to show a lot of progress. It’s like comparing the progress a person does in the first 18 years of the life to the progress of someone from the age of 30 to 48.

          You’re not proving China is somehow doing better than the western world, you’re proving that China is reaching the same standard as the western world.

          Come back when you have an actual argument.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
            6·
            1 month ago

            You’re comparing a country that was a developed country more than 50 years ago to a country that has been a developing country in the last 50 years.

            Except, China has already caught up to the west and there is still steady progress happening. Hence Chinese people now being richer than Europeans.

            You’re not proving China is somehow doing better than the western world, you’re proving that China is reaching the same standard as the western world.

            Once again, that reading comprehension really needs work. It’s frankly embarrassing. From my previous reply.

            In fact, a typical Chinese adult is now richer than the typical European adult. https://archive.is/uzLgx

            Come back when you have an actual argument.

            Perhaps take your own advice here.