Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
ET (or any other forum) is not without position

But that is not the contention. Obviously, the European Tribune community has a conventional wisdom, and obviously that does influence editorial decisions. If nothing else then because consistently ruling against the strongly held views of significant contributors may prompt those contributors to go elsewhere and take their contributions with them.

This does not mean that there is an editorial line, or even that the conventional wisdom of the community can be articulated concisely. It does mean that if you are operating outside the conventional wisdom of the community, the site will be less tolerant of actionable behaviour than if you are operating within the conventional wisdom (pro-Palestinian spammers and astroturfers will have a longer shelf life than pro-Apartheid ones, for instance). Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I do not pretend to know, but it is the reality of things.

Did Sarco or Berlusconi ask parliaments before they engaged your countries in war in Libya?

I believe Sarko did. France does not yet have an enabling act or a Führerprinzip "unitary executive." In Corruptioni's case it makes little matter, because the Italian parliament is almost as corrupt as he is.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 at 04:48:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:

vbo:

Did Sarco or Berlusconi ask parliaments before they engaged your countries in war in Libya?

I believe Sarko did. France does not yet have an enabling act or a Führerprinzip "unitary executive."

Not before, it actually happened 3 days after the military operations started: a parliamentary debate took place on March 22 without a vote. This is all allowed by the article 35, clause 2, of the 1958 constitution put together by de Gaulle:

Legifrance - La Constitution du 4 Octobre 1958 Legifrance - October 1958 Constitution
Le Gouvernement informe le Parlement de sa décision de faire intervenir les forces armées à l'étranger, au plus tard trois jours après le début de l'intervention. Il précise les objectifs poursuivis. Cette information peut donner lieu à un débat qui n'est suivi d'aucun vote.The Government informs the Parliament of its decision to engage the armed forces abroad, three days after the beginning of the operations, at the latest. It must precise the objectives pursued. This information session may be followed by a debate that will not lead to a vote.

So the answer to vbo's question is 'no' regarding France; and this is all legit, thanks to de Gaulle and his successors who didn't see fit to renounce this 'presidential' prerogative.

by Bernard on Sat Sep 3rd, 2011 at 04:56:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series