Display:
Sarkozy's Louis XIV moment - Europe, World - The Independent
Parliament summoned to Versailles to hear President

Nicholas Sarkozy yesterday trod where no French president for 161 years has dared, or chosen, to tread when he spoke to parliament.

After a constitutional change, completed a few hours before, M. Sarkozy addressed both houses of parliament gathered in the Palace of Versailles to explain his vision of the future of France and of the world.

Presidential Question Time it was not. The parliamentarians were forbidden to intervene while the President was speaking. They were forbidden to ask questions. The President's 50-minute speech was followed by a debate but M. Sarkozy departed before it began.

As a result, Green and Communist parliamentarians boycotted the speech. Socialists listened in silence but boycotted the debate. President Sarkozy's centre-right supporters gave him a rhythmic standing ovation.

by Fran (fran at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 at 03:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Nicholas Sarkozy yesterday trod where no French president for 161 years has dared, or chosen, to tread when he spoke to parliament."

Is it too much to ask to stop lionizing things like that? Previous presidents were banned by the Constitution to do so, and chose to uphold it.

Sarkozy bought a Constitutional change through threats (to UMP members who, in great numbers, hated the amendments and would have rejected it with secret ballots) and promises (to people like Baillet, who pretty much sold his party's votes), so that he could do so.

It's not being brave, it's being immensely vain, and quite ready to weaken the country's stability so that one can read in some newspaper that "Nicholas Sarkozy yesterday trod where no French president for 161 years has dared, or chosen, to tread when he spoke to parliament."

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 02:58:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why was the original amendment introduced? What is gained by not allowing the (Executive) Head of State to address the Legislature?

I know the UK has elaborate rituals around the Queen's yearly address to underscore Parliament's independence from the Sovereign as a result of the English Revolution, but still...

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 05:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
was right in the Constitution from the start. de Gaulle is said not to have been happy about it, but he never tried to change the constitution just for this.

afew is right that this is just about Sarkozy being able to do a "State of the Union" lookalike.

And the most ironic thing is that Monday's speech is widely seen in France (inclduing by all the rightwing people) as extremely mediocre and empty...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 05:31:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome a Paris:
this is just about Sarkozy being able to do a "State of the Union" lookalike
That much is obvious.

But I am not asking only about the Constitution of the 5th republic - the rule was introduced in the 3rd Republic.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 05:35:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
were parliamentary regimes, with executive power in the prime minister and the President mostly a figurehead, so the rule was not that important.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 24th, 2009 at 08:58:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series