The Duran Podcast
Macron names EU loyalist Michel Barnier as new PM
All right, Alexander. Let's talk about the new prime minister in France. Maybe the new prime minister in France. We will see how National Rally and Le Pen votes because that's going to be the deciding factor. At least that's how it looks. But the Barnier, the man who negotiated opposite, Boris Johnson, if I remember, EU guy, EU loyalist, globalist through and through, but over the past couple of years, many analysts say he has moved more towards conservative right viewpoints, more aligned with Le Pen. And the reporting is that Macron called up Le Pen or they spoke with each other. And they decided that Barnier, maybe the guy, and Le Pen could get behind him. And they are ditching Melashon and Lucy guest his pick. So anyway, Barnier, interesting pick. Well, what are your thoughts? Well, I think the first thing to say is that if you generally truly honestly believe that over the last couple of years, Barnier has had some great awakening. And has moved away from being a committed supporter of the EU project and the globalist project and all of that. And has become a sovereignist, a nationalist, a patriot, a person who wants to reassert France and reassert it against the EU centre. Well, I have a really, really nice bridge to sell you because I don't believe any of that. I don't think anybody in France thinks that at all. Michel Barnier, as you absolutely rightly said, is a EU official. He is EU technocrat to his fingertips. The one thing I would say about him is that he is cleverer. He's a lot more clever and a lot more capable than many of the people who run things in Brussels now. He would have made a much more impressive president of the Commission than Ursula von der Leyen has done, though it must be said that is not a difficult bar to exceed. But he is a tough, capable, extremely clever, extremely wily character. He absolutely ran rings round to raise May when she was British prime minister, was trying to negotiate Brexit. It was he who managed to get it to accept the Northern Ireland protocol, if you remember, which completely scuppered the negotiations over Brexit. And he proved as equally tough and relentless, clever and devious as when he had to deal with Boris Johnson. So we're talking about a formidable clever man. Now, for whatever reason, he decided some years ago, you know, he's in his 70s, he's 73, that he wasn't probably going to become president of the Commission. He didn't have the kind of support amongst the member states that he needed to probably the Germans wanted a German to head the Commission. So he decided to return to French politics. And his original home was on the centre right of politics. But we're talking about the very EU focused centre rights. So he ended up with the Republicans. He could see the way the wind was blowing politically in France. He understood that people were raising issues about immigration. And questionably wanted at one time to become president of the Republic and seem to be positioning himself as a potential rival to Macron for that position. And he accordingly, in a completely opportunistic way, as politicians do, positioned himself briefly and momentarily as being somebody on the more sovereignty swing of the French political system. So that's all there is to say about Barnier. Now, why has Macron appointed him? Firstly, he's been working away over the last couple of weeks, as we've discussed in many programmes, to try to disintegrate the left-wing bloc that won the most seats in the parliamentary elections in France, and which is therefore the largest bloc in the French National Assembly. To repeat again, a point we have made many times, the left did not win the most votes in the elections. It is a narrative that I see some people, especially in Britain, trying to spin that the left actually won the majority of the vote or the largest number of votes in the elections. They did not buy a strong and convincing margin. Marine Le Pen won the most votes in the parliamentary election, her party, the National Rally won the most votes in the election. But the left emerged as the biggest bloc, and they are for a lot of discussion amongst themselves, proposed Lucy Castetz, who is in some ways an even more establishment figure than Barnier as their candidate for the presidency. Now, Macron decided against her. Perhaps he sees her as a potential rival, as I said politically. They are almost the same. Castetz and Macron share very similar backgrounds, very similar political perspectives. Both have been members of the Socialist Party. Macron was a member of François Hollande's cabinet, for example. So, he might potentially see a rival there. Also, his attempts to disintegrate the left-wing bloc are taking a little longer, I think, than he is comfortable with. He's got to get a budget through the French National Assembly. Over the next few weeks, he's decided to try and find someone else to move forward with the timetable. So, this time he's gone for Michel Barnier, and the calculation this time is as follows. Barnier is one of the Republicans, who has at various times, floated the possibility completely unconvincedly, and no one should really believe it. I'm going into coalition, the Republicans going into coalition, possibly supporting Le Pen in a runoff. Something which never happened, and nobody should assume that Barnier really believes that. But because he's talked about this in the past, there is the calculation that he might be rather more acceptable to Le Pen than other alternatives, including various alternatives that Macron himself has been looking at. And if we're talking about the left, we've talked about how chaotic and disintegrated this particular group is, I suspect that Macron's calculation, again, is that if he can get a prime minister installed, who is a figure who is associated strongly with the EU, then the more EU-oriented members of the left will gradually peel off. It's been pointed out to me that if the left-wing parties who are not associated with Melanchon peeled away and formed a coalition with Macron's group, that would not be a stable coalition in the French Parliament. So let's assume that Macron had gone ahead with Lucy Castet's. The rest of the left broken from Melanchon and united with his party. It might not have had a stable majority, so it might not have worked for the long term. So he brings in Barnier, brings, puts Barnier in place, dares Le Pen to vote against him. And Le Pen has previously wanted to reach out to the Republicans, so she might not be willing to do that. So he gets Le Pen, sorry, Barnier confirmed this prime minister, then Barnier, who is a widely and sophisticated operator, can start working on the left and all of the others, form some kind of coalition government, might just be able to manage to get this budget through, and he's only going to be a stopgap figure anyway. At some point, either Macron or possibly Le Pen or someone else will pull the rug from underneath him, and then of course Macron can call new elections. So this is what it looks like. It's still an attempt to preserve control for the Paris-based EU-oriented globalist neoliberal centre. That is exactly entirely what Barnier is all about. But it's an attempt to do it in a way that navigates around the realities that most French voters voted for the opposite. Mostly they would not have wanted someone like Barnier once suspects to become prime minister of France, but because he's not so objectionable to Le Pen's bloc and not so objectionable to some people on the left, and he has a history of not being a complete friend of Macron. Perhaps Macron calculates that he can push this through and, as a result, get himself a government. Yes, so what does it mean if Le Pen decides to go with Macron on this? Well, we'll just go back. Does that look for Le Pen? It kind of bursts the bubble on the whole Le Pen at the EU, at the globalist narrative, doesn't it? What I think she's going to do, I don't think she's going to vote for him. I think it's unlikely she will vote for him. I think more likely she'll just abstain. Or order her party to abstain. She'll say that France needs a government. Barnier has talked about the importance of immigration controls. He seemed at various times to be open to some of the agenda that Le Pen herself and the national rally are supporting, and if we have Barnier, well, he's only going to be there a short time, and it'll be a little bit like what happened with Draghi in Italy, the Avenue Eurocrat clonked in charge, but eventually, and this is what she might say to her supporters, what that led to is the victory for the brothers in Italy and for Maloney, and it'll be the same for her in France. Of course, French politics are profoundly different from the politics in Italy, and I think that would be a very big calculated risk that she might take. It'd be interesting to see how her party holds together, and of course, if Barnier becomes prime minister, she might find that it's difficult, actually, to ask him, to pick an issue where she differs with Barnier and cause a vote of no competence, and then dares the left to vote against him, which is probably what she's calculating at some point that she will do. It might not be quite as straightforward as she thinks, but it's the calculation she's making, and we've discussed many times. It's important, in this game, to understand that Le Pen herself is not quite as clear-cut and anti-globalist and anti-EU people person as some people perhaps think she is. Like Maloney? Like Maloney, exactly. Like Maloney, yeah. So, I mean, you kind of answered my question, which is that Le Pen may actually be a Maloney type of leader. You just said it. She may not be as anti-EU and anti-globalist as many people make her out to be. I'm not saying she is or she isn't. Maybe she's not. Maybe she is like Maloney. Yes. I mean, Maloney turned out to be a big, a big bust, a big disappointment. It became pro NATO, pro EU, pro war. Don't be surprised if Le Pen turns out the same way. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, but don't be surprised if. Anyway, yeah. This is an interesting move from Macron. Once again, it shows that the EU and the globalists, they run the show in France. Oh, absolutely. Whether the voters vote one way or another way, they run the show. Well, I mean, to say it's true, quickly. I mean, we have the National Rally, which has pitched itself as a sovereignty party, winning very strongly in France, gets a third of the vote. We have Melonschon, who is, you know, the great standard bear of the left. He's anti NATO. He's anti EU many times. He wants good relations with Russia. He's even at times talked about an alliance with Russia against the United States. I mean, you know, very, very radical things. Now, the French have voted preponderately for these two people. So what do they get? They get an EU, Eurocrat. It is, as we say, as the French say, perhaps haven't understood this in that they proposed Lucy Castes, who, as I said, is a complete insider. But she lacks Bagne's, you know, nous and experience and skill and contacts and all those sorts of things. So I can easily imagine that he'll be a much more formidable figure for either Le Pen or Melonschon, or did Macron himself to push out than Lucy Castes, might it be? I don't myself think that in policy terms, they're that different. I mean, Castes pretends to be on the left. Bagne pretends to be on the right. But I think fundamentally, you're going to get more of the same. In Bagne's case, he's probably going to be even more happy to impose the kind of posterities on the French that Macron wants than Castes would. But fundamentally, I don't think you're looking here at revolutionary figures, people who represent the kind of change that many people in France now undoubtedly do want. But Bagne strikes me as a much more formidable Wheeler and dealer and operator than Castes can ever be. Given the Castes, I understand, it's 37. And Bagne is 73. So I mean, he's twice a rage and has all the experience and all the contacts that she lacks. Bagne as Prime Minister of France is the equivalent of Ursula Vadule, and that's Prime Minister of France. He might as well have a point that Ursula as Prime Minister of France, I don't see much difference. How does the EU come undone? Because I don't see, I'm coming to the conclusion. I think it's clear now that the EU is not going to come undone from votes, from democracy and voting. That's not going to happen if you even want to call what takes place in EU member states to democracy or voting. But anyway, it's not going to happen through the ballot box. It's not going to happen via the people, via protests or anything like that. Peaceful, peaceful protests or anything like that. That's not going to happen. I don't see any leader, even a leader that presents themselves as anti-globalist and the EU, having the power, the courage to initiate some sort of exit out of the EU. Even the UK, which eventually did get their Brexit, keep in mind they weren't in the Euro currency, but that they did get their Brexit are now just being pulled right back in. How does this come undone? Is the only way that the EU is going to come undone through economic disintegration? Is it going to be an economic thing? Like many of these types of big globalist institutions, that's usually how they come apart, to usually just via economics and the whole thing kind of disintegrates from the core outwards? How do you see it? I think overall you're probably right. Now, I think just one thing I would say, which is that one can never completely discount politics. I absolutely agree. I mean, the way the system now works, it seems impossible that any generally anti-EU force can win in any of the big countries. And it seems all putting conceivable that any political figure can lead such a force. But one must never discount this completely. There is always the possibility in any country that some extraordinary personality might emerge charismatic and principled who can push things through. I mean, you know, people like that can emerge in politics and they can emerge in unexpected places and they can deliver extraordinary change. So without assuming that that will happen or saying that it will, I think we can just completely write off that possibility entirely. I doubt that Rapin is that person. In fact, I'm sure she's not. And I doubt that an obvious milonie is not. But, you know, maybe in five, ten years time, somebody might emerge. But in the meantime, I think you are right. I think that the collapse when it eventually comes will be as a result of the economics and social stresses, which will eventually become unbearable. A little bit like the way the Habsburg Empire collapsed. There was no single big figure and no political movement that actually came forward and challenged the empire from within. And yet it was creaking and breaking down. It took decades to happen. And of course, it took a world war to complete the process. But, you know, everybody could see for decades before it did happen that it was an unsustainable system. And it looks to me as if the EU is the same. So eventually there will be some kind of overwhelming crisis that the economic problems that will be simply become too great. That, again, like the Soviet Union, it's impossible any longer to administer the system that the officials at the centre, especially, I mean, given that they've never found a replacement for Merkel, who was, you know, very skilled at keeping it all together. As Meta Nick had been very skilled in keeping the Habsburg Empire together. At some point, the problems, the dysfunction, is going to just become too big. And then we'll start to see breakdowns and economic crisis, various states, perhaps political leaders there, faced with the crisis obliged to make decisions which go against the instructions of the EU centre and the EU centre itself in crisis, unable to enforce its well on the states and the way that it once could. But this could take a long time. And in the meantime, Europe trapped in paralysis and stagnation. We've discussed that at length with respect to the situation in Germany. That there was, we did a program with Milandesen and I with Michael Fonda Schulenburg, in which he talked about, you know, the degree of stagnation, that there has been in Germany, the way in which the country there has become completely, you know, focused on one industry, the auto industry, which is now in crisis with Volkswagen, you know, threatening to close down its factories in Germany, which is an electrifying event in a country like Germany. So in the meantime, this damage continues to be done. We spoke with Jeffrey Sachs in our light stream yesterday. He also talked about the failure of Europe to develop new industries to do new technologies. The longer the EU centre remains in place, the longer this process is prolonged, the more damage to the economic and social fabric in Europe will be done. And of course, the more difficult, the more critical it will be and the more difficult it will be to turn around. So when it finally collapses, it will be a liberating moment, but a liberating moment for nations that will have become profoundly impoverished and perhaps themselves dysfunctional and backward and left behind in the technological and industrial race that the world is seeing. So that's the danger that Europe faces. It's Europe has created this trap for itself, and it doesn't have any obvious way of getting out. Yeah, I see it in much the same way as you do, but I see it more along the lines of the USSR, Soviet Union. Eventually, the wheels are going to come off and it's going to be a result of just not being able to keep things together from an economic perspective. And you can... Exactly. Yeah, social and economic. And what follows afterwards is going to be maybe liberating, but it's going to be extremely difficult like what followed with this integration of the Soviet Union. And then Brussels to me is no different than the Politburo or anything like that. I mean, they're very, very similar. And of course, the U.S. once the U.S. pulls away from bankrolling the European Union, that's going to be a big hit. Absolutely. Yes. I mean, from an American point of view, there is going to come a point when Europe ceases to be an asset and becomes a liability. Of course, there are many Americans, as you can see, as they said, the same. There's many Americans already saying that it is. It's a liability to the world. I mean, it really is. It's a drain. It's putting the world down. And you can see that outsiders who actually, for their own self-interest, wish Europe well, they want to see Europe organize itself efficiently, because they say to themselves, well, if it does that, then that will be beneficial for us, because then we have a... We can trade with them. We can build good relations with them. They are baffled and concerned about what is happening. You see that with China, where they've made a big investment in trying to develop strong relations with Europe. You can see this with India. And of course, until a few years ago, we saw that with Russia as well. Eventually, all of these people will lose patience and they'll walk away. And with the Chinese, you can already start to see a sense of that. All right. We will end the video there at the durand.logos.com. We are in Rumbullad as he puts you Telegram right in Twitter, X, and go to the Durand Shop, pick up some merch, like these shirts that we are wearing. Today, the link is in the description box down below. Take care. [Music]