Christian Vanneste - Deputy of the North

The Courage Of Common sense!

All this for this!

By on June 22nd, 2009 in my political ideas

Nicolas Sarkozy in Versailles (photo AFP)

Nicolas Sarkozy in Versailles (photo AFP)

One year ago, I voted with one's fingertips for a constitutional reform which appeared to me or deficient, or misleading. From now on, it is clear that it is this second qualifier which is obvious. The deputies, having accepted a scandalous limitation of power which they keep to speak in the name of the citizens, have just participated in a very successful production today undoubtedly, but that apparently undermines the dignity of the legislative power.

The separation of powers, without speaking about the balance of course broken by the Vth republic, demanded that the President who can dissolve the National Assembly could not express himself in front of her without this one having besides the means to answer him. It is in obviousness the prime minister, to which the Assembly can withdraw its confidence, who must represent executive in front of the Parliament. Constitutional reform allows to the president to speak in front of the Congress and it was possible to expect that this exercise testifies the habitual talent of his author.

Such was not case. Certainly, presidential communication aimed undoubtedly at objective to occupy one more time one of media, and the parliamentarians had in this frame only a decorative role. But it was possible to expect that event is marked by important announcements or even exceptional by their novelty or their largeness.

It is possible to be first surprised at the absence of any allusion to the international stage. Or it is because the President considers that it is about a reserved domain, and in that case it would be logical that he recalls him in front of the parliamentarians instead of the prime minister. Where he deliberately chose to dedicate himself to domestic policy and particularly to effects of crisis and to their possible cures, and in that case, he would have been more consistent than the prime minister issues this speech. The risk here is triple: that of an useless prime minister, that of an omni-president and that of a disdainful President.

On contents, nothing very new that could justify a catch of such a solemn word. Presidential speech showed itself as the synthesis of all what preceded: crisis changes deal radically and claims a policy which protects. This one must decline in three registers of reforms, economic, social and environmental. She must develop muscles of our country by dispelling useless expenses and by making more dynamic our tool of production. France must keep workers and for it, she must give an effort of investment as well as she owes, to compensate, to accomplish savings of functioning. I applauded this passage but I had already heard it in Douai six months ago. Certainly, the President has every reason to hunt useless expenses and notably those who result from verbose regions with a measure of autonomy and from their taxation. But it is there an intention which is not recent. Also, the idea of a respectful secularism of religions but faithful to the republican principles such as the equality between the men and the women is not either one first.

Finally, the only innovation domiciles in the announcement of a loan. It seems to me that Bernard Accoyer had had the same idea some time ago and that it had made laugh undoubtedly wrongly. I however fear that many people consider a new State loan as dangerous economically because he risks draining the market to the detriment of firms at the same time as he will constitute an additional risk of digging of the debt which they however want to reduce.

I expected from today's event for a breath of another largeness, for a second breath resolutely turned to future: I feel having only attended a piqure of recall.

4 Comment (s)

  1. I also even had an impression

    Sombreval June 22nd, 2009

  2. When I think that he even did not recall Iranian drama!

    Steven June 22nd, 2009 Answer

  3. One year ago, I voted with one's fingertips for a constitutional reform which appeared to me or deficient, or misleading.

    And yes All difference is, between the average citizen and his representative there. In doubt, the one refrains (from voting for), and the other vote by telling himself "come what may ". And oh well or so much the better for the country.

    The deputies, having accepted a scandalous limitation of power which they keep to speak in the name of the citizens, have just participated in a very successful production today undoubtedly, but that apparently undermines the dignity of the legislative power.

    And yes. How have the parliamentarians been able to think that a type which always despised the Parliament and the People (by not making correctly its work of deputy, by considering that the parliamentarians are the subordinates of the Ministers) could suddenly have changed the mind on question?

    The separation of powers, without speaking about the balance of course broken by the Vth republic, demanded that the President who can dissolve the National Assembly could not express himself in front of her without this one having besides the means to answer him.

    Error! V Republic, it is the Prime minister who "governs" and the President who "governs". The first is responsible in front of the Parliament, other one not. In that capacity, strict one respect for Constitution should have imposed on the stemming constituent that it puts down borders to presidential intervention And that the Parliament, without "discussing" necessarily could ask questions to the President on its presidential prerogatives.

    What shocks me, it is not that the President expresses himself, as such, in front of the Parliament. Nor that this last could "discuss". The ban made to the President to come in front of the Parliament is linked to a specific historical context, and the President, according to V Republic, is irresponsible front the Parliament.

    On the other hand, what is distasteful, it is that the Parliament agrees to belittle the Prime minister, to take pleasure MR SARKOZY who is taken for Obama, and who merges French presidential regime with American presidential regime, and who wants to impose his vision of things on a Nation for name with France.

    He is not however late too much. The stemming constituent can very well review Constitution, or at least organic law, otherwise Regulations, concerning this session of the President to the Congress. Still needs him a little of courage on the parliamentary benches.

    Why do not to put down borders to the intervention of MR SARKOZY.? Not to be in the spirit of V Republic? All this, without taking away his "toy" from MR SARKOZY? Why necessarily to belittle the Prime minister, while both heads of Executive can live in good neighbourhood?

    The President is not "responsible" in front of the Parliament. In that capacity, it is not necessary that he makes us, as he partly made him, a speech of general policy. This mission returns to MR FILLON, who is the Prime minister.

    On the other hand, I think that the President must come every year, in front of the Parliament, united in charged "High Court of Justice" to give him (or not) a "patent" on his application of his presidential mission.

    I mean thereabouts that the President in "duties" (artiicles 5) and of specific missions, peculiar to his mandate. If he shows derelictions of duty in exercise of his functions but that it is repairable (no one is infallible) the "High Court of Justice" could "hear the President, every year, so that it explains aforementioned determined "breaches", and so that it remedies those ci. (All deserving "breaches", naturally, not necessarily a discharge)

    I take an ex: recently, MR SARKOZY (who listened to OBAMA) told perfectly he agreed with the formulation of the American President: the Muslims must be able to carry the veil . That MR OBAMA blends religion and policy, it is everything made acceptable. That MR SARKOZY makes it, on the other hand, is not it. France is a NONDENOMINATIONAL country. In that capacity, he does not return to the President to change this fact. Security guard of Laicit , he does not return to her to pass judgment of that ci.

    Idem. In its "speech" an obstinacy towards law HADOPI was heard. MR SARKOZY did not say it of course expressly, but his purposes let think the decision of the Constitutional Council I dab . And such distances, such disrespect, demands that the Parliament reminds of some obviousness MR SARKOZY. And with Lafontaine it would be possible to say you are the most favouring of the privileged. Consequently, it is necessary you to suppose duties towards France pljus forts that towards no other one . (Words pronouncements by Lafontaine, and taken back by MR MAZARIN aimed at the young person Louis XIV ready to give France against a smile of Mary de Mancini.

    The President also missed in his external "duties". As member of the Council European he would so have been able to explain conclusions of June 19th, and as member of the UNO Iranian situation And especially explain the nuclear shield in favour of the United Arab Emirates, which in passage puts us in door in forgery from the first sign of conflict!

    All these attacks, more or less direct, towards our Fundamental Law, without going up to " the attentement " against Constitution, must be reminded, and get repairing by the President.

    Other regret. Seen the insane cost of this "Congress" for simple fad to be sarkozien (with the blessing of the Parliament: efforts towards useless expenses are flagrant!!!) the Parliament would have been able to demand the presence of MR FILLON, so that it, which "governs" the country Makes a speech of general policy, as the Constitution not only allows it him, but obliges it there. It is regrettable that the Parliament, one more time, belongs hushed up. All problem is besides there. You say that this lavish "show" belittled the Parliament. But who gave the amenity, has such farce? The Parliament has powers - and constituent power is not the least important - but it does not use it! And as the parliamentarians think "come what may ", they vote, and it is often the worst who happens.

    HE Not THERE FOREVER HAD OF "RESERVED DOMAIN"! From Gaulle a serviceman of job was! He had therefore some reasons to be concerned about " the outside " all the more so as he had had a diplomatic training, and all the more so as his distinguished role, during war, made him represent France, more than ever.

    BUT CONSTITUTION, it, creates no RESERVED DOMAIN. The Prime minister GOVERNS as well indoors as outside. Without the Prime minister, there is neither domestic policy, nor foreign policy! The President is responsible for the RESPECT FOR MILKING, but if he is necessary to "ratify a treaty It is the signature of the Prime minister that hires the country, and no other one. If the Parliament wanted to hear and to expatiate on the world, EU, or inside, the legitimate interlocutor is called FRAN OIS FILLON.

    It is it which is responsible in front of the Parliament. And it is it which governs. NOTHING MAKES the PRIME MINISTER have the same thought as the President, was him elected to universal suffrage! If the thing is flagrant during "co-habitation", I remind that constitutionally speaking, nothing makes MR FILLON follow directives by the castle . A Prime minister can very well, during one year, treat on his popularity, to the Parliament and to the People, establish himself as majority leader And good chance to the President to find a motive, serious enough, to transfer the opportune.

    Left for spending 500 000 euro The Parliament would have been able to have the idea of using the day to make speak MR FILLON, and why not, institute a particular session of questions to the Government in difference loan which the Prime minister would have had only to answer, but been in a true debate: possibility for the Parliament to answer the Prime minister, as in a "cat". The day would have been able, so, prove to be useful. Instead of it, a session of comm paid by the nice taxpayers!

    MR SARKOZY still did not understand that what Frenchmen search in a "President" it is modern Cap tien. No statue of wax. But a "clown".

    I think that he should read the kings who made France of MR BORDONOVE. (He parried that he reads now)

    What share these kings? They represent France, the Kingship, with a big dignity, they are collectors (for the most famous at least) and respectable, but they are also master-builders, constructors, creators, who give "there " not both at the level of the policy of the country, and towards "vision to be attained.

    It is important all the more as France is never as much France as when it is gathered, when it is strong, and that she feels loved.

    MR SARKOZY must understand that he is not Prime minister, and that he should not act chief of party. It is not for him that I say , but for France. Because each time in "top" it goes badly, things do not go better to "bottom".

    Let us take the ex of famous Charles VII. Charles VII it is the famous "Dauphin" de Jeanne d' arc. And good, what is the Jeanne's first gesture? His fixed idea? Make bless Charles. And what says to him she? That once this accomplished ritual, the enemies of the country will be able only to move back. The Virgin is right.

    Because the problem of France, it is not to be poor, or to nostalgic. His problem, it is division. For renaitre, France needs a point of anchoring, which is collector. Yesterday the king, today the President.

    The problem of Charles VII, it is that he acted chief of party (leader of Armagnacs), in regent (Prime minister) of the Kingdom, and that he was accused of having betrayed his faith (his honour) by killing Jean Sans Peur. And good all that, consecration is going to erase it! Doubt on the legitimacy of Charles? More doubt. Inability to be gathered? Finished! Doubt on the integrity of the monarch? Finished! And how incidentally.Cinq years later, France had a legitimate, respectable king, and the most prosperous Kingdom of Europe was! Proof that the unit of the country is precondition in any "resumption"! Still would need him that " no natural anchoring " (the President) notices it

    seb June 22nd, 2009 Answer

  4. Kept nadine Morano, by - against Christine Boutin perky " Tradi " (towards Sarko): ejected. Damage for the social shutter because in the accommodation or on the topic of prisons she is very well but to the family the scandal which there would have been!!! it is a fact, even right is obliged to become progressive and to marginalise those who have the reflex easy discriminateur watered sprinklers!

    L WORD June 24th, 2009 Answer

Post a comment on the article "All this for this!"

Copyright Christian Vanneste - Deputy of the North 2007. All rights reserved.