France General Discussion IV: Yellow Fever

[windjammer]

I mean,
Parlementarism was so great, it gave us 2 wonderful and stable republics that were so stable.
So let's move to a parlementarian system like the UK!

[windjammer]

I mean,
Parlementarism was so great, it gave us 2 wonderful and stable republics that were so stable.
So let's move to a parlementarian system like the UK!

Uh, the Third Republic was the most successful regime in French history, and only fell when parliament decided to abdicate its responsibilities and empower a single Strong Man figure (sounds familiar?).

If you want to blame the Great Depression, WW2 and the Algeria War on parliamentarism, more power to you, I guess, but that's a ridiculous claim.

The most successful regime in French history? Based on what? Philippe Auguste, Louis XI and Louis XIII were far more successful than the IIIrd republic given how much they improved french's standing.

How can you say that parliamentarism is stable when president du conseils almost never lasted more than 2 years?

[windjammer]

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

I completely understand that. It’s just that there is no guarantee that he would only last two years, and your implied argument - to me - there was that magically people you don’t like would lose power sooner in a parliamentary system. Macron is capable enough to whip the left and right like horses - there’s little reason to believe any such thing would magically happen.

I understand what you mean; I know how parliamentary systems work; I’m not an idiot, contrary to the claims and personal attacks from you and Intell. Please be more respectful to me in the future, Tony - I’m not the bad guy for questioning or even disagreeing with you, which you seem to say when you attack me for doing so.

Windjammer was making the argument that the shorter lifespan of governments under parliamentary systems (regardless of whether that is in fact true or not, which wasn't the point of the argument) is a bad thing. I countered that there's nothing inherently bad about it, and that actually, I can think of at least one specific case (the current government of France) where that would be a good thing.

The only way for you to construct my argument is such a ludicrously bizarre way is either by ignoring its context or by being deliberately disingenuous about it. Whichever it is, you are in no position to complain about the tenor of my answer.

When the govt is fired every two years, this means instability and you need stability and time if you want to achieve great things.

[windjammer]

Yup. The """term""" of a chief executive is zero years. They serve at the pleasure of parliament, who can fire whenever they so desire (well, some countries have limits on how often you can introduce a no-confidence motion, but even then a parliament has informal means to oust a PM aside from a NCM).

That's the thing Kingpoleon just refuses to understand. I don't believe that the executive should be an independent branch of government. The executive, properly understood, is an employee of parliament that parliament hires and fires at will, for the sake of streamlining policy and enforcing the laws it makes. That's in the name, "executive". Executors only get to keep their job if the people whose will they are executing trust them to execute it, and not a second longer.

I completely understand that. It’s just that there is no guarantee that he would only last two years, and your implied argument - to me - there was that magically people you don’t like would lose power sooner in a parliamentary system. Macron is capable enough to whip the left and right like horses - there’s little reason to believe any such thing would magically happen.

I understand what you mean; I know how parliamentary systems work; I’m not an idiot, contrary to the claims and personal attacks from you and Intell. Please be more respectful to me in the future, Tony - I’m not the bad guy for questioning or even disagreeing with you, which you seem to say when you attack me for doing so.

Windjammer was making the argument that the shorter lifespan of governments under parliamentary systems (regardless of whether that is in fact true or not, which wasn't the point of the argument) is a bad thing. I countered that there's nothing inherently bad about it, and that actually, I can think of at least one specific case (the current government of France) where that would be a good thing.

The only way for you to construct my argument is such a ludicrously bizarre way is either by ignoring its context or by being deliberately disingenuous about it. Whichever it is, you are in no position to complain about the tenor of my answer.

When the govt is fired every two years, this means instability and you need stability and time if you want to achieve great things.

This is not an argument. It's a succession of half-baked clichés, some of which I've already refuted in earlier posts that you never addressed. If this is the tenor you want to give this conversation, there's no point in continuing it (especially since it's veering off-topic anyway).

You are very obnoxious and should try to get outside of academia.



For a job, if someone gets fired every six months there will be no possibility to make it better more functional because there is no stability. Someone holding this job for a longer time can make that happen.

I fail to understand how this is controversial. There are many tasks that need many longtime commitments, and being a political leader is one of them.

[windjammer]

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe has announced that the lockdown in France will be extended until at least April 15th.

Probably until Early May.

[windjammer]

Honestly let's force everyone to be vaccinated and that would solve the lockdown problem