this article is 100% and you cant deny it
http://www.politico.eu/article/12-people-who-ruined-france-decay-decline-history-nationalism/
>France is being shot up by muslims every single day
>the people who want less jihad are the ones who are "ruining" it
okay lads
>Vercingetorix
Jesus, white guilt is really getting out of hand. Can't wait until Washington shows up on a list of people who are ruining America.
>>53050582
List of main traitors that need to be excuted :
- Valls
-Taubira
-Cazeneuve
-Fabius
-BHL
-Hollande?
-Najat Valaut belkacem
- and basically all peoples from the socialist party
>>53050582
>Vercingétorix
It wasn't even France back in that time
>De Gaulle
You better be fucking kidding me now, he's one of the greatest frenchmen ever
>>53050582
>that article
RETARD
A
L
E
R
T
>>53050660
>>53050702
>>53050969
>politico
You should have read who wrote it first and expected the heavy bias
>>53051051
Is it satirical or something ? Because unless you're retarded you just cannot say at all that De Gaulle ruined France
>>53050582
Blah blah nationalism bad.
Who the fuck writes such an article without irony? I dislike the French as much as most Dutchmen do, and even I want to talk shit about them with some dignity.
Honhonhon le baguette :D:D:D
>>53050582
This article looks like it was made by a highschool student.
I agree for Mitterrand though, he's one of the main reason this country is a sinking boat today
>>53050582
Holy shit I mad.
>Vercingétorix
WTF????
>Maréchal Pétain
OK it's not wrong he fucked up
>De Gaulle
This >>53050969
>Jean Monnet
Maybe
>Daniel Cohn-Bendit
He's a dirty pedophile leftist but I don't think he got enough power to ruined France
>Jean-Paul Sartre
The first french SJW
>Marcel Bigeard
He was just a good soldier, and he was in tehe resistance. (SJWs will says "muh colony" "muh torture")
>Brigitte Bardot
WTF??????
>François Mitterrand
>Jacques Chirac
Finally they got two mens who really ruined France
>Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Meh
>The Le Pens
"muh fascists" "muh racists"
>>53050582
Sounds like the writing of a retarded anticapitalist leftist
t. A leftist in 2016 France
>>53051167
No they are just lefties who like to write about how Bernie sanders will save the universe
> Vercingetorix
that thing can't be serious... this is just ridiculous omg, at least they no talk about Charles Martel.
De Gaulle is a hero desu
>>53050582
>The French far right is growing because of Marine Le Pen
not
>Marine Le Pen is growing because of the French far right/ the changes to France
>>53052889
>t. A leftist in 2016 France
are you like these guys?
https://youtu.be/PQJdofJyJZQ?t=10m35s
so according this trash the first person who have ruined France was a pagan warrior tribesmen dead in 46 BC and his wrong thing against "France" ( actually France not exist in these ancient times, everyones know that ) was just fighting against romans invaders ? fighting against invaders is wrong now ?
what the fuck vercingetorix was a fucking hero
>>53050582
Jesus.
They are absolutely right to put De Gaulle on there. I can understand Frenchies being seduced but the non-French anons ITT should know better. What's so bad about De Gaulle I hear you ask?
- fundamentally statist philosophy, which in the long-run is cancer for the economy
- he designed the 5th Republic around himself, killing French parliamentary traditions and introducing a more authoritarian system with far too much power given to the President
- delusions of grandeur, similar to Churchill when he has PM after 1951. The difference being most Brits realise Churchill was a shit peacetime PM (despite recognising him as a war hero), while Frenchies still love De Gaulle. He damaged France by pretending it was more powerful than it was (as the article says)
Now France is left with mainstream politicians who are all Gaullist at heart, because of the French public's misguided nostalgia for the Big G. And even WORSE, the French political class are straddled with a wholly unsuitable political system designed by De Gaulle to suit himself, a system which can only work properly with a President loved by the people. Regular modern politicians, who are typically not war heroes, cannot hope to fill those shoes.
Either they will let the power go to their heads and be hated for it (Sarkozy), or they will be more cautious and look weak (Hollande). The office has TOO MUCH power. Or perhaps worse you get someone like Chirac, don't get me started on him.
This is ALL the fault of De Gaulle.
>>53054317
>Now France is left with mainstream politicians who are all Gaullist at heart
Hahahaha if only
>Vercingetorix
It doesn't even make sense
>>53054427
Indulge me... I suppose Macron is not Gaullist. Any other prominent politicians?
>>53054317
>introducing a more authoritarian system with far too much power given to the President
But anon, isn't the centralisation of power in a leader, accompanied with a system of checks and balances not proven to be the best governing system by the USA?
When you give too much power to too many people you get feudalism, the decline of Byzantium is the most glaring example.
Full on parliamentarism only works for the UK and Switzerland because of your geographic locations
>>53054589
Gaullism is a meme
![2000px-Forms_of_government.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/AKA4YqJ.png "2000px-Forms_of_government.svg[1].png")
>>53054832
>But anon, isn't the centralisation of power in a leader, accompanied with a system of checks and balances not proven to be the best governing system by the USA?
France has a VERY different system to the USA. Like Russia, France has the Semi-Presidential system. It's the yellow one on this map. Red/orange is parliamentary democracy with monarchy/republic (essentially the same shit, different figureheads). So you are clearly wrong, parliamentary democracy works for MANY countries in the world. Blue is the full Presidential system, which the USA uses.
I don't like the USA's system either, but it does NOT have the problem of a powerful President. The US President is quite weak especially on domestic matters. The French President is definitely the most powerful leader (in his own country) in the G7.
Google "semi-presidential system" and read about it, you will find it's completely different to what happens in the USA, or indeed the UK.
Is leftist multicuck media changing at all in Europe?
>>53054832
Also, why on earth do you think the USA's governing system is the best? That's a fucking joke of an opinion. The Americans regularly have serious trouble passing a budget. A budget! One the most basic tasks a government should do.
The US full Presidential system is seriously dysfunctional. Moreover, is is VERY hard to get rid of a sitting President, as Brazilians are now discovering.
In a Parliamentary democracy, an unpopular PM can be disposed of very quickly and easily with a vote of No Confidence. The American system is terrible
>>53054988
No it's real, you are just used to it
What about this guy?
>>53055179
Our system has lasted nearly 250 years and shows every sign of continuing to endure indefinitely, so you really need to present a better argument than lazy anti-Americanism.
>>53054317
>he designed the 5th Republic around himself, killing French parliamentary traditions
the 3rd and 4th republic were fucking failures man
the 5th is a godd system. The only issue is that intelligent people don't wan't to do politics anymore.
>>53055073
I know, i'm saying that the 5th republic was a spet twoards a presidential system.
I wouldn't call any orange country, bar Germany "successful".
The US president, does have a great deal of power, mind you, not necessarily in passing laws.
The inherent shortcoming of the gridlock stems from the two parties that developed, not the executive.
>>53055272
No one is a gaullist anymore.
>>53055417
IIIe République = republican glory years of France
You are wrong
>>53055406
I never said it wasn't stable. Your system is stable, but dysfunctional. They are different things. My argument was not "lazy anti-Americanism", it was based on things that actually happen. You are so used to gridlock in Washington that you just shrug it off. In the UK, the inability to pass a Budget is enough to topple a government. In the US it's business as usual.
>Our system has lasted nearly 250 years
Big fucking deal, ours has lasted longer. Don't play the longevity game with me because you will lose.
However, despite its faults, your system is at LEAST better than the car crash that is the Semi-Presidential system in all its myriad and disappointing flavours
>>53055517
For a few periods of time. But not always. The two decades before the world wars were fucking ridiculous.
>>53055406
>Every sign of enduring indefinitely
>USA declared by president Jimmy Carter in 2014 as "no longer a function democracy"
>>53055437
>I know, i'm saying that the 5th republic was a spet twoards a presidential system.
I don't think so. The 5th Republic is very centralised, and has major differences to the classic Presidential system which the Americans use.
Consider this. The French President actually has the power to choose the Prime Minister, which is a direct influence on the legislature. This is not such a big deal during "cohabitation", but otherwise it's huge. Imagine if the US President appointed the Leader of the House of Representatives.
>The US president, does have a great deal of power, mind you, not necessarily in passing laws.
Only regarding foreign policy is the US President powerful. Otherwise Congress holds most of the cards, and the key difference is that the legislature and executive are clearly separated in the US system. This is the reason for gridlock but also the reason the President is domestically weak.
>>53055559
Your "constitution" has been modified, reformed, and radically altered so many times over the past 250 years that it's really cute that you think your "system" has "lasted" as long as the U.S. constitution
In the last century alone you lost 25% of your country to an armed rebellion that you failed to quell and still had to occupy another chunk of it militarily to manage sustained guerrilla warfare and domestic terrorism
Just last year you only very narrowly managed to keep your country from completely falling apart
>>53054317
don't expect frenchies to be honest about de gaulle
this nigger is seen as a demi god here ever since he made that radio call
>>53055713
>His """"""""country"""""""" exists because of a law passed by the legislature of another country
>His head of """"""""state"""""""" is a foreigner
>>53055880
>Consider this. The French President actually has the power to choose the Prime Minister, which is a direct influence on the legislature. This is not such a big deal during "cohabitation", but otherwise it's huge. Imagine if the US President appointed the Leader of the House of Representatives.
Holy shit. Just stop talking.
>>53055880
>This is the reason for gridlock
You obviously have no fucking clue as to what you're going on about
the bardot one was dumb
>>53055896
You completely lack any understanding of how the British constitution is meant to function (which is NOT like the US constitution at all). Also the ability to peacefully hold a plebiscite on secession is something only the most mature democracies could ever dream of doing. You lot had a civil war last time states wanted to secede.
>>53055984
Where am I wrong? If the executive comes from the legislature, that kind of gridlock is impossible. The separation of powers in the full Presidential system is what allows it to happen. Do you even know how other political systems work? Have you heard of Fusion of Powers?
>>53051167
He did turn into a fag around the 60s
>>53055880
>a spet twoards a presidential system
>a spet
I'm not saying it's a presidential system
And the US president, does appoint all officials, from the the judges, to the secretaries of defence/state etc.
>>53056055
>You lot had a civil war last time states wanted to secede
Uh, are you forgetting that Ireland used to be a part of the UK, numbnuts?
I don't lack an understanding of the British "constitution." The fact is that, through very un-democratic means, the British government has been dramatically altered many times over the past two centuries. Even now, your elected government was forced to abandon a major policy proposal by an arbitrary collection of geriatric, coked-up pederasts. It's laughable to call it a "system," and the fact that you are able to convince yourself that it resembles anything other than chaos is a testament to British civic indoctrination.
>>53056139
>a step*
I understood what you were saying, but I'm trying to say it's not really a step, despite the name "semi-presidential" it's very far from the checks and balances of that presidential system
Appointing the Cabinet is completely normal for the executive. I suppose you have a point with the judges, that's quite a significant power. However the fundamental weakness of the US President is lack of power over Congress and therefore the Budget. Controlling the Budget is where the real power lies.
>.eu
russkie disinfo shit
move along
>>53056055
There are so many things about what you are saying that are downright stupid that I'm not sure where to begin.
>in a parliamentary system, gridlock is impossible
This is clearly wrong.
>gridlock in the US political system is caused by the separation of executive power from legislative power
No, it's caused by there not being a sufficient consensus in the legislature for major policy proposals. There are many reasons for this lack of consensus, none of which have to do with the presidential system.
The worst part about how wrong you are is how confident you seem to be in your obviously incorrect beliefs.
>>53050582
De Gaulle is the greatest frenchman who ever lived since Napoleon.
This article is garbage.
>>53056314
Now we're beginning to see eye to eye.
Also, can't believe i didn't notice the typo
>>53056314
>However the fundamental weakness of the US President is lack of power over Congress and therefore the Budget. Controlling the Budget is where the real power lies
You do realize that Congress cannot pass a budget without the President's approval, don't you?
You are really fucking dense.
>>53056278
>Uh, are you forgetting that Ireland used to be a part of the UK, numbnuts?
What the fuck is your point with that? Did our system of government change or continue? In fact you are HIGHLIGHTING the stability of the British political system to stay stable throughout that period.
>the British government has been dramatically altered many times over the past two centuries.
You need to get to the point pretty soon, if you have one at all. None of the changes to our system of government have been dramatic except for the increase in liberties that we've seen in all western countries, such as expansion of voting rights, killing the power of the Lords, etc. The US has also had structural changes such as the Senate becoming an elected chamber. Also your constitution has plenty of *major* amendments.
>Ctrl-F "Daladier"
>0 results
REEEEEE
>>53055517
Please stfu
>>53056583
>The fact that we lost a quarter of our country to an armed rebellion and had sustained guerrilla warfare and domestic terrorism for decades afterwards PROVES that we are STABLE!
Brits, everybody
>>53055179
>In a Parliamentary democracy, an unpopular PM can be disposed of very quickly and easily with a vote of No Confidence
Giving too much power to remove them though IMO would invite too much partisian focus on taking down the leader at least here in the US. Again I don't know how often it happens in the UK but if that system happened here, the opposition party would be spending non-stop focus trying to tear the opposition head down
I think it's alright most of the time that impeachment is hard. Look at Clinton in the late 90's. Republicans wasted political capitol trying to impeach him over perjury, and it failed
>>53050582
Vercingetorix was not a Franck but a Celt.
Petain did what the French wanted: to work with the axis.
>De Gaule
All of my What? He made us relevant again in a bipolar world. He made us the equal of the USA and not a laquet. I smell some salt here.
>Marcel Bigeard
Fought for the colonial empire and kept the immigrants away, giving us one more decade of civilisation. Why he is on the list?
>Brigitte Bardot
Actress with no importance outside cinema. Why do you even like her to the history of France? Now it doesn't even make any sense.
>Le Pens
Last hope for a decaying country. Again, why are they on this list? Because they don't get elected?
>>53050702
this
>>53056772
Just look at Australia, they've had like 20 PMs in the past five years. If they were actually an important country, it would be global chaos
>>53056571
>You do realize that Congress cannot pass a budget without the President's approval, don't you?
Yeah I do. Can you read, you dumb fuck? The President doesn't control the Budget. Congress has to give permission. The President has little influence over Congress, unlike in a Parliamentary system where the PM has huge influence over the Budget process and where he commands a majority in the legislature. The difference is *massive*.
>>53056419
>No, it's caused by there not being a sufficient consensus in the legislature for major policy proposals. There are many reasons for this lack of consensus, none of which have to do with the presidential system.
You don't understand the difference between our systems. The PM can only be the PM if he commands majority support in the legislature. It's THAT simple. That means "sufficient consensus" is a necessary ingredient for a functioning government in a parliamentary system.
In your system, it is not. You can have a government which exists despite no consensus, hence the possibility for gridlock and these situations where budgets don't get passed.
>>53056862
The President has about as much influence over Congress as Congress has over the president. They are constantly in negotiation with one another. The President does control the budget (christ you are so fucking stupid) because the President submits the budget request and is the one who knows what needs to be funded, how much, etc. Moreover, the President can threaten to veto a budget that he doesn't like. This means that both branches must negotiate what they want and come to a mutually agreeable resolution.
Moreover, a president whose party has majority in both houses can basically do whatever he wants so long as he is popular in his party.
The only thing that's *massive* is your inability to see how retarded you are.
>>53056958
>That means "sufficient consensus" is a necessary ingredient for a functioning government in a parliamentary system.
Having a majority is only half the battle, you have to manage factions within your party, grease palms, make strategic choices that fuck over one group while rewarding another, etc., and that it's not as simple as what you're proposing. A majority is by no means a consensus and the UK regularly experiences governmental crises just like any other country.
You're a real dumb cunt.
>>53056772
>Giving too much power to remove them though IMO would invite too much partisian focus on taking down the leader at least here in the US. Again I don't know how often it happens in the UK but if that system happened here, the opposition party would be spending non-stop focus trying to tear the opposition head down
It does not happen often, because the party knows that stable government is what people want, and if the PM lead a party into an election and they won said election, the PM is considered to have a popular mandate. The party might make themselves less popular by removing the leader.
ONLY if the PM becomes very unpopular, or the government can't govern, does a party act. This is how the Tories brought down an unpopular Thatcher, replaced her with Major, and won the next election.
>>53056829
>Australia
They have a pretty... "unique" political culture. In most countries if a party played those games all the time, the public would get tired very fast and move on
lol these buttmad leftists
>>53050582
>Daniel Cohn-Bendit
>>53057040
>The President does control the budget (christ you are so fucking stupid) because the President submits the budget request and is the one who knows what needs to be funded, how much, etc.
Can't you see the contradiction in your ridiculous argument? You are telling me the President "controls the budget", then you tell me the President "submits the budget request". Which Congress can, and often does, reject and change
The US President does NOT "control" the budget. Get over yourself and learn about your own country. "Separation of powers" is a big clue.
>>53057133
>all parties are coalitions
No shit, sherlock. Who the hell asked you to come here and state the obvious? Find a better hobby
>>53056795
Zemmour pls
>>53056726
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed. If a political system continues through upheavals then it is stable. The system of government in the UK was broadly unchanged before and after the foundation of the Irish Free State.
An example of an unstable system of government is something like Tsarist Russia, which was toppled after setbacks in war
>>53055179
says the country with no separation of powers
>>53057133
>and the UK regularly experiences governmental crises just like any other country.
Be more specific. Why don't you compare the number of times the British and US governments failed to pass a Budget? There's a nice exercise for you.
>>53057649
>says the country with no separation of powers
And?
In our system, because the executive comes FROM the legislature (the Commons), the executive can be brought DOWN by the Commons. In a single vote. And the PM literally must move out of No. 10 on the same day.
That is an incredibly effective check on power. It's the dumbest thing in the world to say separation of powers is the only method of providing checks and balances.
>>53050582
>De Gaulle of all people ruining France
For fuck's sake, this man is the very reason our country is a global power than a Poland-tier "regional power"
>>53054317
>killing French parliamentary traditions
France has always had strong leaders, the 3rd and 4th republic were a mistake
>>53057960
*rather than
>>53057960
You have to understand "ruining France" the way the author means: ruining France as a vacation place for lefty Brits.
>>53057795
>In our system, because the executive comes FROM the legislature (the Commons), the executive can be brought DOWN by the Commons. In a single vote. And the PM literally must move out of No. 10 on the same day.
except they rarely fucking do that. they are in the same party as the PM and vote with him almost all of the time. they won't remove him or check what he does if that damages their interests. good luck with the tories removing any judicial oversight, that'll surely work out well.
I think the article is meant to be "banter" and mostly comedic. Some of those like Bardot and Sartre seem to be there for a bit of a joke set-up
Except the last one which seems like earnist butthurt, but then again the author is apparently a muslim who was born in Bangladesh so I can see his beef with le Pen
>>53050582
>vercingetorix
hahaha what the fuck. WE WUZ GAULS
>>53050582
>no Foccault
>>53058160
>except they rarely fucking do that.
And that's a good thing you small foamy retard. Votes of No Confidence should only happen in emergencies. A PM who has been given a popular mandate by the British public should only be removed if something has happened to seriously damage that mandate. 99% of the time, political parties should let the voting public arrange the furniture and get on with it.
>>53058061
>France has always had strong leaders, the 3rd and 4th republic were a mistake
I might be slightly biased, but I think it is much wiser to shift power to Parliament rather than towards a President, a single person. That way, you usually get the government you deserve.
>>53057516
Nice argument. Why don't you point where I am wrong.
Does Vercingetorix or BB had a political influence in revolutionary France? Does De Gaulle made France weak by giving us nukes and a constitution not written by the US with only goal to keep us unable to deal with crisis?
>>53058513
>That way, you usually get the government you deserve.
But it's not that kind of government that we need right now.
>>53057573
>The system of government in the UK was broadly unchanged before and after the foundation of the Irish Free State
Except for the 25% of the UK that adopted a new form of government...
There's no way you can spin this one, bong.
The UK does not have an exceptionally stable form of government. It has a relatively stable one. It has been more stable than, say, Germany or Italy, and only about as stable as France. (Even with its revolutions, France never lost an integral part of its territory to separatists.)
>>53058674
>But it's not that kind of government that we need right now.
Alors
>>53051221
Dutchies hate us ?
>>53058781
Everyone is Europe hates us.
It seems that having a history of invading their "countries" and a present of being objectivelly better that them causes some jealousy.
>>53058889
This is why we are best allies
![1024px-Fourth_french_republic[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/VFB7xHK.png "1024px-Fourth_french_republic[1].png")
>>53058738
>only about as stable as France
>France never lost an integral part of its territory to separatists.
Excuse me? See pic. Actually this is a great example which demonstrates what I'm trying to explain, which you still don't understand.
The Algerian Crisis of 1958, which made it inevitable that France lost that expanse of dark green you see in the picture, had a big destabilising effect on the Fourth Republic. In other words, the Fourth Republic was "unstable".
The Irish War of Independence, where the UK lost much of Ireland, did NOT result in the end of the British system. It continued as it did before with fewer Irish MPs sitting in the Commons. There was no new model of government in London (as in France), no revolution (as in Russia), just continuity. That is why we can say the British political system is stable. It manages to survive these blows, in large part due to the flexibility of the UK constitution which allows incremental changes to happen as times change.
>>53059213
If you consider regime changes as part of the French "model of governement" (as you should), our model is incredibly more stable.
>>53059520
>more stable
>assassination attempts on de gaulle for his entire life
>the french foreign legion makes a coup attempt every 10 years or so
>hundreds killed in student riots and in massacres well into the 60s
>still executing people with the guillotine in the 80s
excellent
>>53059520
You got a small giggle out of me, at least
>>53058781
no
though you are a bunch of smug cunt as is shown
>>53058889
>>53059626
>assassination attempts on de gaulle for his entire life
What about the Brighton attack?
>the french foreign legion makes a coup attempt every 10 years or so
Still beats having a monarch making friend with the nazis.
>hundreds killed in student riots and in massacres well into the 60s
Les évènements = the troubles m8
>still executing people with the guillotine in the 80s
And you bing haging in the 60s, not much different.
>>53060084
>Still beats having a monarch making friend with the nazis.
wut
>>53059626
Every ten years?
There has been one attempted coup by the FFL and it failed miserably
>>53054317
>still butthurt about De Gaulle
>>53054317
you made some valide point but you forgot that he was the man who vetoed any new nation in the EU keeping it small and functional.
Later on we acceted any european nation and decided to have a unique currency.
>>53063040
That's true, he did a good job of isolating the UK and making the EU a Franco-German project. Which was French-dominated in the early years as Germany was split in half.
When the UK joined in 1973, it was from a position of weakness as the UK had to adopt all these Franco-German ideas. It was a bad deal for us until Thatcher won the Rebate for Britain.
Despite partial success in making the EU more British, e.g. reforms to liberalise the single market, we still suffer to this day from being excluded at the beginning.
I will be satisfied if Cameron gets most of what he asks for.
>>53059213
>The Irish War of Independence, where the UK lost much of Ireland, did NOT result in the end of the British system.
The 5th Republic wasn't so much the "end" of the French system as much as it was merely a constitutional change rebalancing parliament and president. This is about as retarded as claiming the 1917 legislation for universal suffrage in the UK was the "end" of the British system.
Stop being either retarded or dishonest, it is simple common sense in every country to change something legally and/or institutionally after a crisis. I already mentioned an example: expanding voting rights in order to draw on a larger troop base.
![1280px-Institutions-cinquieme-republique.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/PwOQcMS.png "1280px-Institutions-cinquieme-republique.svg[1].png")
>>53063751
>This is about as retarded as claiming the 1917 legislation for universal suffrage in the UK was the "end" of the British system.
What a ridiculous comparison. The collapse of the Fourth Republic and the new Fifth Republic was a massive fundamental change. The constitution wasn't merely changed, an entire NEW constitution was written and put to a public referendum. You are saying the establishment of a new constitution is equivalent to an Act of Parliament which expands voting rights. That's fucking dumb.
Yes, the 5th Republic WAS the end of the French system of the 4th Republic. The French public voted to end the old constitution and adopt an entirely NEW one. Not "merely change" it.
You are the dishonest one, you are trying to pretend the adoption of a new constitution is a mere amendment.
>>53063751
In addition. Read this and educate yourself:
> General Massu, who had gained prominence and authority when he ruthlessly suppressed Algerian militants, famously declared that unless General de Gaulle was returned to power, the French Army would openly revolt; General Massu and other senior generals covertly planned the take-over of Paris with 1,500 paratroopers preparing to take-over airports with the support of French Air Force units.[7] Armored units from Rambouillet prepared to roll into Paris.[8]
>On 24 May, French paratroopers from the Algerian corps landed on Corsica, taking the French island in a bloodless action called "Opération Corse".[7][8] Operation Resurrection would be implemented if de Gaulle was not approved as leader by the French Parliament, if de Gaulle asked for military assistance to take power, or to thwart any organized attempt by the French Communist Party to seize power or stall de Gaulle's return.
>Charles de Gaulle, who had retired from politics a decade before, placed himself in the midst of the crisis, calling on the nation to suspend the government and create a new constitutional system. On 29 May 1958, French politicians agreed upon calling on de Gaulle to take over the government as prime minister. The French Army's willingness to support an overthrow of the constitutional government was a significant development in French politics. With Army support, de Gaulle's government terminated the Fourth Republic (the last parliament of the Fourth Republic voted for their dissolution) and drew up a new constitution proclaiming the French Fifth Republic in 1958.
According to you, this is the equivalent of the House of Commons passing a law to expand voting rights.
You're pretty stupid.
Leave the reckoning of france to me
>No Robespierre
>But they have fucking Vercingetorix
>>53064611
The author is some clickbait Daily Telegraph guy, seems like he's trying to be the Laurie Penny of European politics
>Open the article
>see Vercingetorix
>close de article
WTF
>>53050582
>De Gaulle
So fucking edgy.
>Oh no, you don't want to whore your country to NATO? Bad goy!
And what the fuck is bad about the Fifth Republic?
This is the faggot who wrote the article.
