Quote from: asche on January 03, 2019, 01:07:01 PM

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.

Sadly no.
The decision is announced at the European council... Council made of ministries of all the EU countries.
Senate and National assembly have no place in this decision. The "law part" would be AFTER president (through its government which he directly appoints) takes the decision. But National assembly and senate would have no choice in the fact that France is leaving.

Quote

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.

You're completely wrong again. They ARE allmighty, they just decided to not bother so much to not cause a revolution.
That can pass whatever bill they want without asking anything to anyone, that's what article 13 is all about. And previous president did it several times, including laws that no one wanted neither in the population or the national assembly.
It's just that most president are here for the money so they don't bother, but if they want they CAN.

Quote

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

-snip-

No problem on the phrasing part, political subjects are always heated and I'm not the last to write too fast.

Concerning all what you're saying, I agree with pretty much everything but you failed to mention the one important question: how do you bring those changes?
You're pretty much saying "hey wouldn't it be best to slowly give the power to the people by making them learn how to handle it and take the time to change the culture of everyone concerning responsaibilities over political discussions and decisions?"

Yeah sure it would be better than a suddent change from no power at all to all the power to the people and no representants.

But how do you handle a slow transition? People having the power right now will NOT give it willingly. That's what the yellow vest movement is all about (more referendum) and the answer from the government is obviously "get back to work little shit don't think you can decide anything".
They will not give the power willingly, we'll have to take it by force... And you can't take "parts of the pwoer" by force, you either win the battle and take it all or lose and take nothing.

If you have an idea on how to do it please be my guest, but all you've been saying was "it would be best to go slowly by more referendum and more implication" and yes, but referendums and political implications are mainly decided by the people currently holding power. Why would they accept to hand it to us little by little when they can keep it?

Quote

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.

You mentionned it but didn't show any evidence simply because it doesn't exist

Here is what Europe does and why it's a cancer:
-It's a bottom levelling tool. By saying "free market everywhere" it means that the lowest standards are competing against the highest. Why would a company accept decent working conditions in France when they can take the Eastern Europe slaves to do the same thing without any repercussion?
-By removing any border you allo all companies operating in Europe to centralize their profits on one country. The 40 biggest corporations of France pay nearly 0 taxes in France simply because they transfer their profit to Benelux or Ireland. There is nothing that can be done against that.
-You remove any kind of immigration control. This cannot be a good thing. Having people move freely anywhere without any condition means the state loses control over its population, that means it loses control on itself.
-Centralizing the power means even less people are taking decisions for even more people, that means it's even easier for big companies to use lobbying and corruption to reach their goals. Did you ever go to Bruxells' European Center? It's 4 buildings of European Union in the middle of 20 buildings owned by lobbyists. For every European Deputy there are approximately 5 professional lobbyists influencing them on a full time schedule. (https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2014/04/A/50304)
-Centralization of the currency allowed banks and big companies to take over the currency of every country in the EU... They decide, we obey, and that concerning every aspect of the currency.

And that's what I can think of in 2 minutes. Now the actual advantages I can see are:
-Ensured peace. But that can be promoted with a European Alliance, no need for a Union.
-Scientific work promotion, but again no need of a Union here. Switzerland is part of the most important scientific works groups of the EU and isn't in the EU
-Population exchanges and ability to move arround. That's cool but you just need to get rid of the Visa obligation, we do that with tons of countries already

So please if you think EU is useful, explain what can balance those montruous cons I've listed