Quote from: m0gliE on January 03, 2019, 12:48:25 PM

"L'Etat qui décide de se retirer notifie son intention au Conseil européen (composé des chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement des Etats membres)"
It means the ones declaring a country goes out of EU are the president and its government.

Government =/= president. I just disagree about the fact that the president hast the actual capacity to make a bill that big pass unilateraly.
I don't see how you can say that the president has direct control of both the senate and the Assemblée nationale. The senators are not appointed by the president. And leaving the EU needs to be done by a law.

Quote from: m0gliE on January 03, 2019, 12:48:25 PM

One person controls all the different kind of powers in the state, how is that not a dictatorship? It's not because he hasn't created death camp that it's not a dictatorship...

While I agree he has too much influence, I disagree with your wording. Proof enough is that many presidents fail to pass the bills they intend. They are not allmighty.
Of course people are not ready to make decisions about the country, how could they? These decisions have been taken away from them/us for way too long. Restoring a direct democracy without a period of teaching/adjustment would be very dangerous, because a lot of people are not used to think about the long term consequences.

Quote from: m0gliE on January 03, 2019, 12:48:25 PM

This is a pretty different explanation that the ones you presented before, saying that current persons in charges are educated and know what's good for the country.

I believe you're still underestimating the capacity of a population to think and decide what must be done. In perticular, you're not taking into account the fact that each mistake made will be learnt from contrary to today's politic.
But in theory you're right, smooth transition is always better. But how do you make a smooth transition from current dictatorship to a direct democracy? It's impossible. President, hence banks and big industries have all the power, why would they smoothly give it back to the population?
The only way to change anything here is through radical, violent change. I don't see anything possible but another revolution with a whole bunch of guillotines.

Do you see any way to change, slowly, the current system towards a direct democracy?

Maybe I didn't chose the right words - apologies.

First step would be more Referendum. That doesn't mean the government has to listen to the outcome every single way for starters.
BUT I think starting actually ASKING the population will make people think about these issues and decisions. My belief is this would be a nice start which would help getting peoples interest.

I want to share one more experience I had.
I spent several years in Germany, and I was really surprised how politically engaged people are there. I am talking about people my age so students, from 20's to early 30's. These guys, from an early age on, starting at 14 or earlier, actually have a sound opinion on politics and decisions. Most of them have emancipated from their parents opinion and think by themselves. They are also ready to go to the street every time they want to be heard. Of course when they are too young, some logics are faulty, and they can be missing important points. But they are interested and learning by themselves.

I am really hoping for this to happen in France.

To me it is all about communication and the possibility to identify yourself with what the government does.

While some people might be able to do this because they spend the time and energy to understand what the government actually does, it is not the case of all. To me the case of the Gilets Jaunes is a good example.
The issue that caused the movement, social misery, is understood by everyone, and everyone would like to solve it. However most propositions the Gilets Jaunes claim they want to see happen wouldn't change much, or are not possible because the government lacks the money.

I guess we are not really from the same political side, but I believe France is pretty good socially. We are redistributing a lot of money to people who need it. The system isn't perfect tho, and yes continuous improvement is the way to go. I do not believe everything done is bad tho, and evolution is still possible without "dissolution".

"Il n'y a pas dix solutions, il y a dissolution" is not YET the way to go, at least in my opinion.

Regarding my previous post about Europe, I believe I also mentionned what kind of GDP growth it provoked. Higher GDP usually translated in better life conditions for the country. My opinion still stands that Europe was, is and will be a good thing for most countries involved in the future. I'd be happy to hear why you think it is not going to be.