Pretend compromise in a fight to the death

When I was in Russia working with the trade minister, I once said to him that trade was essentially a losing game because “partners” were actually people who wanted you to take their goods and you want them to have yours and are not interested in taking theirs.   So for all the whisky and brandy sipped, for all the bonhomie and goodwill, it still comes down to this in the end.

It was why Pascal Lamy almost tore his hair out when no one would compromise over Doha.   Why would they?   Their job is to sell their goods and not bring back anyone else’s.   That’s the whole reason they’re there.

He did not demur.

Ditto with this whole Cope/Fillon thing. It’s all very well le Figaro writing:

The founder of the UMP hopes to avoid bursting the party. The hard point, he admits, is the National Commission of Appeals (CNR). Cope believes it is the only body legally entitled to settle electoral disputes.

The Commission reaffirms that.   Rachida Dati, the one who didn’t know who the father of her child was, even confirms it. UMP knows it. So why does Juppé not accept the right of the National Commission of Appeals to hear the appeal of Fillon?

It’s because Juppé knows they will side with the elected leader, Cope. And he wants Fillon. Therefore, he’ll go all wonky on his own rules he set up and say w-e-e-e-l-l-l-l, these are only guidelines. I’ll be the impartial one in the middle, notwithstanding my support of Fillon and we’ll all be mature and overturn the elected leader and have a recount conducted by my people and then Fillon will be leader and we’ll all be mature and accept this and all come together and work for the good of UMP under Fillon.

Juppé tries a compromise. He gives Cope reason to in assume that the Commission will “hear” claims, but the Fillon political process will be in place, reserving the last word for him. And if the NRC refuses to align its conclusions on that?

“I will not continue my mediation,” says Juppé.

And that is exactly what will happen. This is not about “compromise” – it’s about who will win the leadership.  One of the other, no halfway house.

And how do you have a compromise leader when one has already been elected? This is all about overturning the elected leader you didn’t want to win and the rules of the party with it and giving Fillon the presidency. Compromise? Where? How? One is the elected leader, the other wants to be and has the PTB of Europe on his side.

And so the charade of the pretend process will go ahead today. I’ll try to keep you up to date.   Meanwhile, this hypocrisy has not fazed a French electorate who think, 75% to 25% that Juppé would make the best President in 2017.    This is hoe adrift of ethics politics has become and almost no one can see it.

One Response to “Pretend compromise in a fight to the death”

  1. Amfortas November 26, 2012 at 05:15 Permalink

    “….And how do you have a compromise leader when one has already been elected? This is all about overturning the elected leader you didn’t want to win …..”

    Julia Gillard has the answer. Just stab the leader in the back. It has been the way since, oooh, Julius Caesar. Hey… Julius…Julia…. what goes around, comes around.

Leave a Reply

Please copy the string MwMdmW to the field below: