who cares, even if that very hypothetical situation should occur, we would still be largely ahead in the olympic winter games medal tally....
I don't particularly care either way! I just recieved this via e-mail, entitled "We WON the Olympics.....they did'nt!!!!"
the rest of his comment was about trust... The French passed a law recently barring proosecution of a sitting president..This was because of the Elf Oil corruption trial. Basically, who trusts what any politixian has to say? Trust- yeah sure.
There wasn't a law barring prosecution of a president, but a decision by the constitutional court which decided that a president in function cannot be set on trial. There are indications that Chirac may be involved in several illegal party financings, but as long as he is president, he cannot be judged.
Contratulations on London winning as the site of the Olympics. I understand London hasn't hosted the Olympics since 1948. I really didn't think New York City had a prayer once Hillary Clinton made her empassioned-plea. (BIG smile.) Tim
5 candidates, but there can only be one winner, so congratulations to London. I would have liked to see the Beach Volleyball tournament under the Eiffel tower tough, or athletics on the Champs Elysées....
on Bastille Day here in Washington they have a 'waiter-a-thon' where locals race with a tray full of champagne flutes...
I hear Roast Beef and Deep Fried Mars Bars are on the menu at Gleneagles. And ohh bugger,should have read all the posts first!! :kill: :bang:
That is only because we are crap at sport. We keep inventing sports then everyone else becomes better, so we invent a new one, unless it is darts or snooker you know the games where drinking is compulsory. Then we might have a chance.
if the British call the station where the French arrive on the shuttle waterloo, what is the name of the station where the British arrive in France?
It may seem that Chirac has been president for very long when in fact he's been president for only a few years, before which he was Prime Minister for quite a while (am I right?). In many European democracies the two offices are not in many ways inferior to one another, the presidency being often more ceremonial and the premiership more mundane.
Chirac was prime minister, but that's a while ago, from 1974 till 1976 (or 77?, not sure), under President Giscard d'Estaing. Later, he was mayor of Paris till he was elected President in 1995. Got his second mandate in 2002 which lasts till 2007. Many european presidents have fewer power than their prime ministers. This is for example the case in Germany, or Italy whose presidents have similar power than the Queen of England.(Which means not very much...., honestly I couldn't even name the presidents of Germany or Italy without googling....)Tough officially heads of state, they have no real power. They are indeed more ceremonial while chancellors or prime ministers(Heads of governement, not heads of state)lead the country. In France however, the President has real power.French political system is closer to the US political system in this aspect. There's a prime minister in France tough, but the President clearely is the "Boss". The prime minister(nominated by the president) has more a tactical role, and is responsible for interior politics, and the smaller every day decisions, while the President decides the great political strategy, and cares about foreign policy.
So the French Prime Minister is somewhat like our Vice-President? He's chosen by the President and hadles the things the President doesn't want to deal with. If the President is incapacitated by some means, does the Prime Minister take charge?
No, in case of incapacity of the President, the President of Senate takes charge, until a new President gets elected.
Thanks Castelot for the explanation. The Prime Minister usually heads the Cabinet, which consists of all ministers and secretaries of state.