On est d'accord sur le boulot d'un journaliste.

Je sais que vous avez qualifié ça d'indécent mais pour moi ce n'est pas inaudible que l'affect entre des conscrits et des professionnels soit différent ; et très clairement quand je suis tombé sur la citation ça m'a fait pensé mobilisation générale.

Et oui je comprend bien que ce n'est pas le contenu du discours, mais bon le premier contact (et surement le dernier) c'est ça et la citation soit de la LFI du RN ou de Roussel dont la sortie sur les monuments laisse peu de doute sur l'imaginaire sur lequel il capitalise.

When i read the quote i thought about about general mobilisation of 18-25yrs old. In the complete speech it is obvious that it is a rhethorical "all soldiers are the children of the nation" figure of style. (So yes, i was actually stupid)

When i read the quote i thought about about general mobilisation of 18-25yrs old. In the complete speech it is obvious that it is a rhethorical "all soldiers are the children of the nation" figure of style. (So yes, i was actually stupid)

I was speaking about the "is not prepared to accept losing its children" of the general speech.

Cutting the Afghan government off in Doha did make things easier to sign a deal.

Sorry if it's undiplomatic, but this has been going on since Ukraine started being on the defensive after 2023 and seeing the obviously understandable political problems around mobilisation treated as just something the ukrainian need to be less childish about has a tendency to piss me off mightily.

I think your caveat mostly work if agriculture is the majority occupation and except for Syria all those example are of country were majority of the population worked in agriculture ; and in Syria SNA and HTS controlled region were centered around an urban center not a rural faction.

The US presence is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding US presence.

Even as a jest i wonder how much it is that the next US intervention happens because if it did not all the previous one would be pointless.

The crux of the matter is that if the politics of the country give you a parliament that is willing to enable the abuse of the PM it won't matter that you need 2/3, a half or even a quarter to remove him. And i don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

And to be more specific to the UK, if far-right authoritarianism is not on the menu right now it is less because of the superior functionnality of its institution but because labour won a commanding majority and the next general is in 2029 so may wait it out (if no one does something stupid).

My point still being that no constitutionnal order may survive a sufficiently bad breakdown of the underlying political system.
And if the UK may end up fine with its own far-right fever i am doubtful that it would be because of inherent quality of parliamentarism.

Except that the crisis is that a rogue president is being helped by a rogue congress and rubber stamped by a rogue court. And if you have a point for congress, the only reason a president cannot by fired by his own party is a question of politics not constitutionnal arrangement.

I think people are going to discover that political stability isn't the result of being a functionning parlementarian democracy or whatever but the reverse. (France and its constitution made to avoid the parlementarian deadlocks of the last republic comes to mind)

This is why the attempted ultimatum this week is such a baffling decision and the decision to rename lecornu is too.

And if it is for getting a budget (i tend to believe it is) it is especially pointless as a series of doomed government aren't going to help, a budget just isn't going to get through

In the end as long as for everyone involved trying to get through the crisis will look like bailing out an impopular macron with nothing to show to your base it's not going to happen.

The only negociation that are going to work are going to be done in months not days.

The problem is as bad as the polling situation is tying oneself to Macron just look like getting a big kiss of death if your at the left of RE.
It's why the PS is so difficult with the pension reform they need this stick to beat LFI on the head with if they are going to be associate with Macron.

I may be wrong but i don't think a new assembly would be much more different in division. Really this crisis seems bound to continue until the presidency of Macron ends.

I don't see the threat of a dissolution changing much to the incentives of the parties. Especially as dissolution was a possibility since Bayrou and it did not detter their action.