I mean, there are certainly ways more narrowly targeted than "any crime(s) this person may or may not have done over the last decade."
Attacking EU corruption is an easy ploy for nationalists - despite the fact that the EU is unlikely to be significantly more corrupt than their own home nation, and in many cases significantly less corrupt.
no, there's a difference between mediating between preferences and assigning reasonable priorities to them (especially in cases when some of them don't even exist) and on the other hand defining a universal morality based on one person's preferences.
of course. trivially, even; one person might have a different (and incompatible) preference from another person whose preferences are clearly more relevant.
That's not a question this framework asks or answers, as it is more meta-ethical. So it is far better at explaining why we even have morality (and notions of 'rights') in the first place-- to mediate between the preferences of persons (and any other entities) capable of communicating preference-- than prescribing any action in particular as "the morally correct action". But what we can say is that the one that is most deeply affected and actually has a preference is the one that should be empowered to decide. So indeed, exercising a right can be wrong. But that doesn't mean we should extinguish the right.
Then why reject the idea that some rules have intrinsic value? You can explain the existence of morality in this way ( though I obviously don't accept your view), while also endorsing certain guidelines we know to be expedient towards those ends. Thou shalt not kill will nearly always match your rationale, yet you dismiss the value in it.
In fact I'm sure Le Pen's core voters find it a boon that Le Pen has been defrauding them since the EU ''deserves it''.
That was the last one i have heard of :
www.lemonde.fr