georgeob1 wrote:July 1881 -- that would be about one year after the start of the Third republic. I believe the President then was Marshal MacMahon - an Irishman! Clearly it is the native Celtic remnant, augmented by the occasional Irish expatriot, that are the true sources of the greatness of France!! :wink:
Sometimes one's beliefs dont fit the reality ...
Mac Mahon was President in 1873-1879.
Here a link to
Maréchal Mac MAHON
You are correct - I missed the fall of the Second Empire by a decade, and the end of MacMahon's presidency by more than two years.
Still, it was a good try, and among friends, what is two years? .
On the other hand, I agree with you him doing a good job while president..
Yes, and I see he was born in France.
Still, even an Irish name is an advantage.
You have stimulated me to read more about him.
Francis wrote:On the other hand, I agree with you him doing a good job while president..
... not to forget the many rues/avenues Mac Mahon, which were named after this president :wink:
He was born, btw, in this nice "Irish cottage"
Walter, It's the lyric quality of the Irishness that does it. This was a thought that occurred to me while strolling down O'Higgins Boulevard in Santiago Chile.
On the other hand, the French have such pleasant-sounding names. At the Naval Academy we had to study the 17th and 18th century naval wars between Britain and France quite extensively, and I always found it somewhat sad that fortune so favored the British, whose Admirals had such guttural sounding names - Hawke, Jarvis, Howe, over the French who not only had better-built ships and gunnery, but Admirals with names like de Grasse, Sourcouf, Villeneuve, and others.
That was good, Walter !
I'll pay you for it later.
georgeob1 wrote:
I'll pay you for it later.
D'accord, mon commandant. :wink:
" I always found it somewhat sad that fortune so favored the British"
favoured. Get it right please.
perhaps Monsieur Nelson was bravoour and bettooor.
Thanks Walter (Mr. Google) for your explanations. You sure you are not a lawyer?
This question is not "in the flow" of the above discussion, but I have a pressing curiosity ... How is the EU apparatus funded? Is there a special EU tax imposed on each citizen in the EU? How do the countries contribute their share (on what basis if the calculation made, e.g. on GDP, population number)? How much more will it cost to put the new EU constitution in place (i.e. with the added powers to be, etc.)?
Bram wrote: You sure you are not a lawyer?
Only studied law :wink:
Bram wrote:
How is the EU apparatus funded? Is there a special EU tax imposed on each citizen in the EU? How do the countries contribute their share (on what basis if the calculation made, e.g. on GDP, population number)? How much more will it cost to put the new EU constitution in place (i.e. with the added powers to be, etc.)?
The money comes from taxes of the various member states and the spending is controlled by the #Court of Auditeurs' (two instances).
EU budget
I don't think that the constitution will cost really more money (besides all the actual 'activities' now), but I'll try to look for that question later.
Today, the European Parliament voted 497-93, with 71 abstentions, in favor of Romania's accession to the European Union and 522-70, with 69 abstentions, on Bulgaria's entry into the EU.
Quote:EU backs Bulgaria and Romania bid
The European Parliament has voted to allow Bulgaria and Romania to join the European Union in 2007.
Their eventual membership still depends on both countries reforming areas such as farming and security, as well as making efforts to fight corruption.
The vote opens the way for an accession treaty to be signed later this month.
Some MEPs tried to postpone the vote until after the next European Commission report on the two countries' progress, which is due in November.
A disagreement over how much money is to be given to the countries was also resolved last minute, allowing for the vote to take place.
Romania and Bulgaria are both are poorer than all 25 existing EU member states.
The two Balkan countries missed the first round of EU expansion into Eastern Europe because they had failed to implement democratic and market reforms.
Opponents of the accession cited Romania's lack of press freedom as well as corruption as obstacles.
Bulgaria has been criticised for failing to adopt a new anti-corruption penal code and insufficient efforts in combating organised crime.
No guarantee
The European Commission report tracking the countries' preparation for membership will be published in November.
Romania is required to reform its justice and law enforcement, curb industrial state subsidies and improve environmental records.
It must also secure rights for its Roma minority.
Bulgaria's parliament speaker Borislav Velikov said he was "grateful to our colleagues in the European Parliament for their support for Bulgaria on its road toward the European Union".
The accession treaty does not absolutely guarantee the countries EU membership in 2007.
If either country fails to meet the agreed criteria, their accession could be postponed until 2008.
Source
EU press release
"Favoured" yes, but "auditeurs"??
Got to check that fantastic link, Walter (thanks!), I wonder how they balance their budget.
When I visited the Balkans last year, our tour director is from Bulgaria. He was quite pleased with their bid into the EU, and mentioned it more than a few times during our trip.
Interesting how the EU is increasingly becoming an authoritarian rule-making body, busily telling Europeans how to live and how their kitchen appliances and other like devices should be made. Even braqgging about it as though new rules necessarily make for a better world.
I prefer freedom.
Walter,
I know the budget is expressed in Euros. Does 92.098 indicate 92 million Euros.
Mapleleaf wrote: Does 92.098 indicate 92 million Euros.
I can't find that number right now ...