Talk:The Republicans (France)

legal successor of the UMP?

What do you mean by legal in expression legal successor?

I do not understand it, because on one hand this party is not created by law, and on the other land I have no knowledge of juridic link between UMP and LES-REP!

I believe successor (without legal) is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.30 (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

illegal for him to name the party "Republicans"

«Critics of Sarkozy claimed it was illegal for him to name the party "Republicans" because every French person is a republican in that they support the values and ideals of the French Republic that emanated from the French Revolution, and as such the term is above party politics.»

The sentence look to me to much strong:

• The illegal terms makes believe critics are just limited to a legal/judicial matter, while in fact they are not such limited.
• Critics of Sarkozy is a fuzzy expression, as the critic is not against Sarkozy, but against the labeling of a party
• Critics of Sarkozy is a fuzzy expression, because it does not give a good clue of who criticize it, such as left party, centre right party and far right party, for instance. But it was also criticized within the party.
• every French person is a republican sounds false: some french person are free to not be republican but be monarchist (see Monarchism in France). The concept is less simple. For instance (1) other politicians dislike the fact that Les Républicains claims property on that word, while most of other parties claims in one way or another being republican. They might be worry about a possible future change of the meaning of that word. For instance (2) Republican marches is much more wider that this single political party.

I suggest: «Critics of this one word "Republicans" label are based on different political and philosophical views. Every French person can consider himself as a republican in that they support the values and ideals of the French Republic (concept which can be linked without being limited to the French Revolution, the Republican marches, political groups), and as such the word is above party politics, and not the property of a single party» This led to a trail case.

Another thing which can be done is

1. to give one sentence/paragraph with the reason for why this word appears in the name of the new party
   • Here is some clue: Union for the New Republic (UNR); Union of Democrats for the Republic (UDR); Rally for the Republic (RPR)
2. to give one sentence/paragraph with the reason for why this single word party name is criticized
   • See top discussion
3. To conclude with a third sentence/paragraph which clarifies the trial decision(s)

77.199.97.30 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

court ruling in favor of Sarkozy

«The general committee approved the change on 6 May and, after a court ruling in favor of Sarkozy»

• I suggest that it is a référé ruling (or summary ruling?).
• I suggest that it is not in favor of Sarkozy but in favor of UMP party or LesRép party (this might need to be checked)
• I suggest that this is not a definitive ruling, but a first ruling, the official one being planned end of june.

77.199.97.30 (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Why?

This article does not answer to the fundamental question: why this party was recreated/renamed? It should do so, because there is at least one reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.97.30 (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)