Constitution of the Holy Roman Empire

[J. J.]

Well, the HRE at that point really didn't have a constitution as such, excepting the Golden Bull of Charles IV and, officially, since the Treaty of Westphalia, no central power.  It was weaker that the US under the Articles of Confederation.  It also took centuries to get to that state.

I'm not sure that the same mistakes will be repeated

[J. J.]

Well, the HRE at that point really didn't have a constitution as such, excepting the Golden Bull of Charles IV and, officially, since the Treaty of Westphalia, no central power.  It was weaker that the US under the Articles of Confederation.  It also took centuries to get to that state.

I'm not sure that the same mistakes will be repeated

Actually, they are being repeated as we speak (well, not really, since it's a Saturday)

The head of the EU rotates among member states every 6 months; the huge EU parliament passes resolutions that may or may not be accepted by the commission; member states are not punished for failing to submit to a directive (France routinely ignores recommendations on agricultural production); the President of the Commission, the chief executive, is unelected and unaccountable to the Parliament; etc.

There is a greater similarity between the HRE and the EU than even I first thought. (Only real difference is the absolute secularism of the modern institution). I will need to find the 'operating procedures' for the EU to really compare the two.

The idea that the chief executive is not accountable to the Parliament is not a function of a weak government.  Both France and the US have that function, in terms of legislation. 

[J. J.]

It may well turn out that the European Union is neither European nor a Union.

Much like the Lord Privy Seal is neither a lord, a privy, or a seal.

Whether or not a union or an international organization, it is certainly European.

[J. J.]

It's a function of a weak legislative, and of a certain lack of Democratic legitimacy.
Although it's debatable whether the President or the Prime Minister ist he chief executive of France...

Very few people would declare the French Premier as chief executive of France.

[J. J.]

It's a function of a weak legislative, and of a certain lack of Democratic legitimacy.
Although it's debatable whether the President or the Prime Minister ist he chief executive of France...

Very few people would declare the French Premier as chief executive of France.

He is more important than the president in times of cohabitation, though.

Not really, since the President can dissove the National Assembly.

[J. J.]

Not really, since the President can dissove the National Assembly.
But, in such situations, never does so except after he himself has been reelected. For a reason, too - precedent from the Third Republic is that, if he does so and doesn't get a majority of his supporters in, he has to resign.

Attemping to use a precedent from the Third Republic, which voted itself out existence, with some help from the Germans, in 1940 and applying it the Fifth Republic is stretching things beyond the breaking point.  The role of the President, in terms of the constitutional aspect , is very different today.

The most notable resignation, De Gaul, was triggered by the loss of a public referendum, not by anything that happened on the floor of the National Assembly

1.  The President appoints, at his own discretion, the Prime Minister and can dismiss him.   This is not a ministerial act or a formality, but a purely personal choice (As was Chaban-Delmas in 1972, after received a vote of confidence from the National Assembly).

2.  He can dissolve the National Assembly, the only limitation being he cannot dissolve it twice during the same year.  While he must "consult" with the presiding officers and the PM, their approval is not required.

3.  Many of the legislative procedures, such as budgeting, can become law, even if not directly voted on by the National Assembly.

The National Assembly is weaker than the US Congress and certainly much weaker than the UK House of Commons or the Bundestag.

A strong legislature is not the hallmark of a strong government.

[J. J.]

I didn't know about point 3...
The thing is, though, no president has tried dissolving the assembly when he didn't have a majority in it, unless he had just been (re-)elected, because of that precedent/expectation.

Even compared to the mixed system in the US, France has a weak legislature.  Compared with most other European systems, it is very weak.

[J. J.]

The real question with EU is how it constructs itself.  Will it regarg itself as a "country", with the member states being in a "federal" or "vassal" relationship with the cental state?  Will it be an international organization with voluntary association of independent nation states?