Connect with us

World

French National Assembly election: What’s at stake and what to expect?

Published

on

French National Assembly election: What’s at stake and what to expect?

French voters will cast their ballots on Sunday in the first of two rounds to elect 577 members of the National Assembly, as country looks set to enter a new political era.

The elections come after French President Emmanuel Macron called for a snap vote triggered by a crushing defeat to Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (NR) party at the European Parliament elections on June 9.

Polls suggest the coming elections will confirm the trend. NR leads strongly with 36 percent of the vote, followed by left-wing bloc Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) at 28.5 percent, trailed by Macron’s centrist alliance – Ensemble – with 21 percent.

If the results echo the polls, Macron might have to cohabitate with an antagonistic prime minister, regardless of who is elected.

Advertisement

How do the French elections work?

Voting opens at 06:00 GMT and is expected to end at 16:00 GMT in most of the country, but polling stations in Paris and other major cities will stay open until 18:00 GMT.

To win a majority in the National Assembly, a party or alliance needs 289 seats — just over the halfway mark in the House. Macron’s outgoing coalition fell short of that number, limiting its ability to push through its legislative agenda.

For the verdict on any of the 577 seats to be called on Sunday, July 30, two conditions need to be met. First, the voter turnout needs to be at least 25 percent. Second, a candidate needs to win an absolute majority of votes cast.

In a multiparty system like France’s, that typically means that many, if not most, contests go to a second round of voting – scheduled this time for July 7.

Only those candidates who secure at least 12.5 percent of the vote in the first round can stand in the second round, effectively narrowing the field of contestants.

Advertisement

Why is this election so different?

Traditionally, National Assembly elections are held straight after the presidential vote, and so reflect the same popular mood. The result is a prime minister from the same political party as the president, who then can implement policies with a strong mandate.

But those power dynamics have now shifted and for the first time in 22 years, France will have a state of cohabitation: a deeply unpopular president ruling alongside a government elected in as a vote of dissatisfaction against Macron himself.

“It will mark the beginning of a new way of governing and the end of the presidential agenda,” said Emmanuel Dupuy, president of the Institute for European Perspective and Security Studies, a think tank on diplomacy and political analysis. “Macronism has already almost collapsed and it will exit the election totally wiped out,” he said.

Election boards are seen ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France, June 19, 2024. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
Election boards are seen ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France [Benoit Tessier/Reuters]

How did we get here?

Macron first came to power in 2017 riding a wave of support, as he pledged to create a centrist bloc, lacing the moderate left and right together. But it didn’t take long before his language started sounding too aloof to the ears of people in the suburbs – he got the nickname Jupiter. His economic reforms were too right wing to liberals who had previously backed him; and his way of governing was seen as too despotic by many right and left voters.

Now, the election could mark an end to Jupiter’s solo show, as France looks set to enter a new political era.

“He runs the country like a CEO of a company,” said Samantha de Bendern, associate fellow at Chatham House. “But a country is not a company and he failed to build alliances with partners – Macron is a loner,” de Bendern said.

Advertisement

One of the starkest signals of his isolation was the Yellow Vest movement – a period of violent protests in 2018. What started as workers on lower-middle incomes infuriated by planned increases in diesel taxes snowballed into a wider movement against the president’s perceived bias in favour of the elite. His second mandate was marked by a highly contested bill in 2023 to raise the country’s retirement by two years which turned into another huge domestic challenge as he faced widespread opposition.

And while he won a second mandate in 2022 – in good measure by scaring, rather than attracting, voters over the prospect of the far right taking over the presidency – the tactic seems to have tired many. “There is a feeling of anger – people are fed up with showing this scare for Le Pen while being forced to vote for Macron to keep out the far right,” de Bendern said.

What is Le Pen’s ‘dediabolisation’?

Meanwhile, Le Pen has meticulously crafted a so-called dediabolisation – de-demonisation – strategy over the past two decades, aimed at broadening the party’s base while tempering its radical discourse to distance itself from many references that had made the NR too toxic to several voters.

The party has long been associated with notorious racists, and xenophobic and anti-Semitic slurs. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, once convicted of hate speech for saying that Nazi gas chambers were “a detail of history”, was expelled from the party in 2015. Le Pen convinced the moderate right instead that she was not a threat to democracy and conquered areas traditionally close to the far left, especially in the Communist Party, promising social welfare policies and tight restrictions on migrants.

Marine Le Pen, President of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party parliamentary group, and Jordan Bardella, President of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party and head of the RN list for the European elections, attend a political rally during the party's campaign for the EU elections, in Paris, France, June 2, 2024. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann/File Photo
Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella attend a political rally during the party’s campaign for the EU elections, in Paris, France [File: Christian Hartmann/Reuters]

“Many [by voting NR] are expressing their opposition to a system that they feel is depriving them of what they deserve in favour of people, mostly foreigners, who are getting benefits that are not due,” said Baptiste Roger-Lacan, historian and political analyst with a focus on far-right parties in Europe.

Today, the party’s candidate to be the country’s prime minister is Jordan Bardella, an impeccably dressed 28-year-old man who looks like a mix between a Wolf of Wall Street and Superman’s alter ego Clark Kent. Yet he comes from the suburbs and speaks to his tens of thousands of followers not just on the street but also on TikTok. He has no experience in governance.

Advertisement

On the other side, far to centre-left parties have united under the New Popular Front. Its most vocal cause has been its support for the Palestinian cause amid the war in Gaza, a position that has earned the grouping popularity among young voters and the Muslim community.

By contrast, the NR has firmly supported Israel condemning “pogroms on Israeli soil” and attacking the leader of the far-left La France Insoumise party, Jean-Luc Melenchon, for failing to call the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel “terrorism” – something that has caused friction within the bloc itself.

What would a far-right win mean?

The most serious repercussion of a win for the NR is going to be on the domestic front. While the party now says anti-Semitism is a problem of the left-wing party, it has shifted its focus against migrants and Muslims. France is home to Europe’s biggest Muslim community, with families settled there for several generations.

While Bardella did not specify what “specific legislation” he would push for to fight “Islamist ideologies”, he said in the past the party would work to ban the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in public spaces and to make it easier to close mosques.

The RN has also made its top priority the adoption of stringent border controls, the scrapping of birthright citizenship – a practice that for centuries has been granting citizenship to those born in France to foreign parents – and the introduction via constitutional referendum of the “national preference”, a system by which someone would be excluded benefits from social security rights unless with a French passport.

Advertisement

“Clearly the NR is still xenophobic so any foreigner has something to lose, any foreigner who has not a European heritage would have to lose something if the NR were to be elected,” Roger-Lacan said.

A woman passes by the election boards placed ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France, June 19, 2024. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
A woman passes election boards placed ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France [Benoit Tessier/Reuters]

And what about foreign policy?

With his eyes on power, Bardella has been softening or reversing some of the party’s traditional positions. He made a U-turn on Ukraine saying he was committed to keep providing military support to Kyiv, while pushing back against critics’ allegations of some party members’ links to the Kremlin.

Still, considering Macron’s unwavering stance on Ukraine and France’s role as a pillar of the European Union, a Bardella-led government not committed as much to the European project, would mark a shift.

During a news conference on Monday, Bardella said he opposes sending French troops and weaponry capable of striking targets on Russian soil.

“He is in a phase where is trying to reassure the non-NR electorate, and possibly future EU partners, but clearly the party gaining power would add a lot of tension between France and the rest of the EU,” said Roger-Lacan, who is also former deputy editor-in-chief at the think tank Le Grand Continent.

Unlike Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who had transitioned towards more Atlantic, pro-NATO, pro-EU positions years before her election victory in 2022, Roger-Lacan explains, the NR’s conversion “sounds extremely contextual”.

Advertisement

Still, should the far right win the elections, observers note, it could end up abstaining from creating too much tremor, should it win the elections, as the group is playing the long game. It’s ultimate goal: capturing the presidency in 2027.

World

Massive 11,000-carat ruby believed to be second-largest ever found in conflict-ridden country

Published

on

Massive 11,000-carat ruby believed to be second-largest ever found in conflict-ridden country

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A massive ruby unearthed in Burma is being hailed as the second-largest ever discovered in the conflict-ridden country.

The ruby weighs about 11,000 carats — about 4.8 pounds — and was unearthed near Mogok in the Mandalay region, the center of Burma’s gem industry and an area affected by ongoing conflict, according to The Associated Press, citing state media. 

The stone was found in mid-April, shortly after the country’s traditional New Year celebrations.

MAN STUMBLES ONTO RARE DIAMOND TREASURE DURING ARKANSAS PARK TRIP WITH FAMILY: ‘KNEW IT WAS DIFFERENT’

Advertisement

Burma’s newly discovered ruby is displayed at the president’s office in Naypyitaw on May 7, 2026. (Myanmar Military True News Information Team/AP)

Although it is roughly half the size of a 21,450-carat ruby discovered in 1996, experts say the new find could be more valuable because of its higher quality, the outlet reported.

It has a purplish-red color with slight yellow tones, moderate transparency and a highly reflective surface.

Burmese President Min Aung Hlaing and his cabinet have already inspected the stone in the country’s capital of Naypyidaw.

ONCE-IN-A-CENTURY TREASURES DATING BACK 4,500 YEARS UNEARTHED IN LEGENDARY CITY

Advertisement

Burmese officials inspect a newly discovered ruby at the president’s office in Naypyidaw on May 7, 2026. (Myanmar Military True News Information Team/AP)

Burma produces up to 90% of the world’s rubies, mostly from Mogok and nearby Mong Hsu. 

The gem trade — both legal and illegal — is a major source of income in the country.

However, rights groups, including Global Witness, have long urged jewelers to avoid buying Burmese gemstones, saying the trade helps fund the country’s military governments, according to The Associated Press.

RARE 10-CARAT BLUE DIAMOND AMONG $100M WORTH OF GEMS GOING UP FOR AUCTION

Advertisement

This photo taken on May 16, 2019, shows miners working in a ruby mine in Mogok, north of Mandalay. (Ye Aung Thu/AFP via Getty Images)

Gem mining also finances ethnic armed groups fighting for autonomy, contributing to Burma’s long-running conflicts.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The mining regions remain unstable. 

Mogok was seized in July 2024 by the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), an ethnic armed group. Control later returned to the military under a ceasefire deal brokered by China late last year.

Advertisement

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

World

‘We need to make up our mind’: EU split over direct talks with Russia

Published

on

‘We need to make up our mind’: EU split over direct talks with Russia

The European Union is still struggling to decide if, how, and when it wants to talk directly with Russia to advance negotiations towards a lasting peace in Ukraine, as member states remain split on whether the benefits would outweigh the risks.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The absence of political unity, an indispensable precondition for such a significant undertaking, was laid bare on Monday during a meeting of foreign affairs ministers in Brussels, where several representatives urged fresh sanctions rather than dialogue.

“(Vladimir) Putin is really not interested in real peace talks yet. So we need to put more pressure on Russia in order to change the calculus and make him interested,” Sweden’s Maria Malmer Stenergard said upon arrival.

“What will we discuss? What will be our demands? Can we agree on our demands on Russia?” said Lithuania’s Kęstutis Budrys. “What is our strategy and agenda, and what’s the goal? What’s the end state? It’s not dialogue as dialogue per se.”

Advertisement

Italy’s Antonio Tajani said the EU was “not at war” with Russia and it was “important” to be part of the ongoing negotiations, while Austria’s Beate Meinl-Reisinger noted it was time for Europeans to become active participants through their own team.

“We need to make up our mind,” said Finland’s Elina Valtonen.

The only point on which ministers agreed was that Europeans themselves should pick their envoy. The Kremlin’s suggestion to nominate Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor who has worked for Russian energy firms, was unequivocally dismissed.

At the end of the meeting, High Representative Kaja Kallas acknowledged that the topic was not yet mature and required further reflection among governments.

“The EU has always supported attempts to achieve a just and lasting peace,” Kallas said.

Advertisement

“For Europe to take a more active role, we must agree amongst ourselves what we want to talk to Russia about and what our red lines are.”

The High Representative, who previously said the EU should not “humiliate” itself by seeking direct talks with Russia, has been trying to bridge gaps among capitals with a draft document outlining the concessions Moscow should make.

The confidential document will be discussed later this month when foreign ministers meet again for an informal gathering in Cyprus. However, given the considerable divergences, a unified position is unlikely to emerge any time soon.

“We are not there entering the negotiations in any way,” Kallas cautioned. “Right now, we don’t see that Russia is really negotiating in good faith.”

If, how and when

The question of whether the EU should engage directly with Russia to end its war of aggression has been popping up in and out of the conversation since US President Donald Trump unilaterally launched a diplomatic process to end the war in Ukraine.

Advertisement

Earlier this year, French President Emmanuel Macron, who last spoke with Putin in July 2025, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni publicly called on the bloc to change policy, arguing the fate of European security could not be left in American hands.

The debate lost traction after Macron’s advisor, Emmanuel Bonne, travelled to the Kremlin for exploratory talks and was given the cold shoulder.

But it has once again risen to prominence as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, which has shifted Washington’s focus and slowed down the mediation in Ukraine.

Last week, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who seems increasingly frustrated with the White House’s course of action, asked Europeans to take a more active role.

“We need to find a workable diplomatic format, and Europe must be at the table in any talks with Russia,” Zelenskyy said at a summit in Armenia. “It would be good to develop one common European voice for talks with Russia.”

Advertisement

A few days later, European Council President António Costa said there was “potential” for the bloc to negotiate one-on-one with the Kremlin.

“I’m talking with the 27 national leaders to see the best way to organise ourselves and to identify what we need effectively to discuss with Russia when it comes to the right moment to do this,” Costa said in Florence, Italy.

The European Commission also weighed in. “We can see the merit of having one single figure speaking on behalf of the 27,” a spokesperson said.

Both Costa and the Commission were quick to note that direct talks would only make sense once the Kremlin showed willingness to compromise and make concessions. Putin insists that Kyiv give up the entire Donbas region and that the West recognise the occupied territories aslegally Russian — both demands that Zelenskyy firmly rejects.

Brussels is keen to avoid creating the impression that it is attempting to replace Washington, which might give Trump a reason to walk away for good.

Advertisement

On Monday, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the EU should not pursue “alternative peace talks” but rather play a “complementary” role in the ongoing process.

Russia’s relentless bombardment of Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure, including a kindergarten last week, is another factor that makes officials and diplomats think twice.

Instead, some capitals prefer to wait and weaken Russia’s hand at the negotiating table. The country has begun to show signs of economic strain after 20 rounds of sanctions and was forced to pare down its Victory Day parade over fears of Ukraine’s strikes.

At the same time, Kyiv’s standing has been reinforced by the approval of the EU’s €90 billion assistance loan and the signing of multiple defence deals with Gulf countries.

“Russia must be pushed back to Russia,” Estonia’s Margus Tsahkna said. “Putin is not ready to talk about a lasting and just peace at all.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

What Middle Powers Fear from the Trump-Xi Summit

Published

on

What Middle Powers Fear from the Trump-Xi Summit

Poland will soon host production lines for South Korean tanks. Australia is buying warships from Japan. Canada will send uranium to India, while India offers cruise missiles to Vietnam, and Brazil builds military transport planes for the United Arab Emirates.

All of these deals were sealed in the past few weeks. Each one represents an attempt by middle powers to protect themselves as the conflict in Iran throttles global energy supplies, and as a high-stakes summit between President Trump and Xi Jinping of China looms.

Global polls show the world has little trust in the United States and China. Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi have both used their enormous leverage over trade and security to coerce or punish. And in response, smaller nations are behaving as if they are stuck in “Godzilla” or “Dune” — moving quietly in small groups, trying not to provoke the wrath of petulant giants.

“It’s fifty shades of hedging,” said Richard Heydarian, a Filipino political scientist at Oxford University. Or, as Ja Ian Chong, a security analyst in Singapore put it, “No party wants to cross Beijing and now Washington, too.”

For countries watching from afar, dread and hope hover over the Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing, which is scheduled for this week. In Asia, which has been hit hardest and fastest by oil shortages caused by the war and China’s tight control of oil-product exports, the mood is particularly grim. Interviews with officials, and statements from leaders traveling the globe to secure trade and defense deals, suggest that most middle powers feel overwhelmed by the deteriorating world order.

Advertisement

Many believe the summit carries more potential for harm than help. And Mr. Trump’s gut-driven approach to complex issues is the main source of anxiety.

For months, officials in Asia have worried that the president might be too eager to make a deal with Mr. Xi, ending weapons sales to Taiwan or agreeing to softened policy language that could make it easier for China to undermine the democratic island.

“That would be the biggest nightmare,” said one Taiwanese official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal government matters. He insisted that reduced support from the U.S. was unlikely.

But any concession on Taiwan could lead other American partners to fear abandonment. Beijing’s push for compliance on contested territory elsewhere would be bolstered, from the border with India to the South China Sea.

Vietnamese officials said that if President Trump makes a conciliatory gesture or flatters Xi, even without bigger compromises, China will gain leeway to press harder on smaller countries.

Advertisement

Another concern being discussed across the region: that Mr. Trump might alter long-term security plans in exchange for better economic terms with China.

Mr. Trump’s decision to redirect a carrier strike group from the Pacific and munitions from South Korea for the war in Iran may have created momentum for broader redeployments. When the Pentagon announced it would pull at least 5,000 troops from Germany after Mr. Trump expressed annoyance with the German chancellor, allies in Asia were again reminded how quickly collective deterrence can be weakened.

Mr. Trump has threatened in the past to make troop withdrawals from Japan, which hosts around 53,000 American military personnel — more than any other country — and South Korea, where another 24,000 Americans are stationed. If he could get something big from Mr. Xi for a drawdown, would he turn down the deal?

Analysts noted that plans opposed by China, such as AUKUS, a pact between Australia, England and the U.S. designed to counter Beijing’s influence by equipping Australia with nuclear-powered submarines and advanced technology, could also be suddenly canceled.

“The sense that U.S. allies have to look to one another because they can no longer look to America is very real,” said Hugh White, a former Australian intelligence official who teaches strategic studies at the Australia National University.

Advertisement

That sentiment is much stronger than “the cautious public language” of national leaders might suggest, he added.

European and Asian officials often talk privately in frank terms about giving up their faith in America, prompting a no-turning-back effort to diversify away from the United States. In casual discussions with reporters, they can sound a lot like Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada, who received a standing ovation in Davos this year for a speech that declared, “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”

But in public, they’re more circumspect. Some officials admit their countries are trying to buy time and evade Mr. Trump’s fits of pique, while continuing the performance of imperial fealty.

South Korean officials have simply expressed resignation over American military diversions, after making clear they felt betrayed in 2004, when President George W. Bush announced plans to move troops from Asia to the war in Iraq. Australia, Taiwan and Japan publicly and repeatedly stress the value of American leadership without caveats — even as U.S. tariffs and the war Mr. Trump started with Iran kneecap their economies.

No one wants to be seen stepping out of line.

Advertisement

Japan’s new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, has been bolder than most in trying to foster stronger relationships with other countries. Yet even as she crisscrossed the region promoting military cooperation, officials in Tokyo worried about how Washington would view her efforts.

“The Japanese don’t want Takaichi’s security cooperation and tour, especially to Australia, to be seen as a version of Mark Carney,” said Michael J. Green, the author of several books on Japan, and chief executive of the United States Study Centre at the University of Sydney.

Others have apparently reached the same conclusion. Mr. Carney’s recent visits to India and Australia did not yield strong statements from their leaders echoing his criticism of great power rivalry or his warning that if middle powers are “not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

At the same time, many countries — including some that are benefiting from the thickening of middle-power bonds — have been careful not to anger the world’s other hegemon, China.

Nations managing their own disputes with Beijing, such as Indonesia, have done less to rally around Japan than some in Tokyo would have liked, since Ms. Takaichi became embroiled in a diplomatic crisis after telling her Parliament that if China attacked Taiwan, Japan could respond militarily.

Advertisement

Vietnamese officials even pressed Ms. Takaichi to avoid directly criticizing China in her speech at a university on May 2 in Hanoi, according to diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions. It is not clear if adjustments were made. Chinese officials later condemned her diplomatic efforts as “war preparation.”

And yet, in a sign of how middle powers are still doing more while saying less, the two countries signed six cooperation agreements, including one on satellite data sharing and another to secure deliveries for Vietnam’s largest oil refinery, potentially easing shortages.

“The U.S. has become more unreliable, so it makes sense to try to develop alternatives,” said Robert O. Keohane, an international relations professor at Princeton University. Even if what’s been formed so far is insufficient, he added, “having a weak alternative is better than having no alternative at all.”

Reporting was contributed by Tung Ngo from Hanoi, Vietnam; Javier C. Hernández from Tokyo; Amy Chang Chien from Taipei, Taiwan; Jim Tankersley from Berlin; Ian Austen from Ottawa; and Matina Stevis-Gridneff from Toronto.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending