France PM Valls Survives ‘No-Confidence’ Vote, Pledges To Pursue Economic Reforms


Wikipedia states that a vote of “no confidence” is a statement or vote which states that a person in a superior position is no longer deemed fit to hold that position.

This may be based on the person falling short in some respect or failing to carry out obligations, or making choices that other members feel are detrimental. As a parliamentary motion, it demonstrates to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in (one or more members of) the appointed government.

“No Confidence” leads to compulsory resignation of the council of ministers whereas “Censure” is meant to show disapproval and does not result in the resignation of ministers.

The censure motion can be against an individual minister or a group of ministers or a prime minister, but the “no-confidence” motion is directed against the entire council of ministers.

Censure motions need to state the reasons for the motion while “no-confidence” motions do not require reasons to be specified.

The French government has survived a no-confidence motion in the lower house of parliament, triggered by its use of decree to bypass opposition to an economic reform bill.  Those for the no confidence vote did not get a majority.

Poland Has New Woman Prime Minister

WARSAW — Poland’s incoming prime minister, Ewa Kopacz, said Friday that she intends to take a somewhat different, more feminine approach to the job.

At a news conference to introduce her new cabinet she was asked whether Poland should be sending weapons to aid the Ukrainian government — as the country’s leading opposition party has advocated. Ms. Kopacz (pronounced co-POTCH) replied that Poland should act only in concert with other European Union nations, not unilaterally.

“Poland,” she said, “should act like a reasonable Polish woman.”

Ms. Kopacz and her cabinet will be sworn in on Thursday.

The Idiocy of Washington Forcing al-Maliki To Step Down

maliki1Iraq’s president named a new prime minister to replace Nuri al-Maliki on Monday.  However, al-Maliki has refused to go and deployed militias and special forces on the streets, creating a dangerous political showdown in Baghdad.

The Bush administration helped install al-Maliki following the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.  The newly chosen prime minister will be Haidar al-Abadi, a former Maliki lieutenant who was named by President Fouad Masoum to replace him.

Al-Maliki said in a televised speech that Masoum’s decision to name a replacement for him was a “dangerous violation” of the constitution and he vowed “we will fix the mistake.”

In 1944, U.S. President Roosevelt had an election campaign while World War II was still raging.

As part of the campaign, he urged voters not to “change horses in mid-stream.”  In other words, “don’t make the situation less stable by electing a new leader while the war is still going on.”

Iraq is finding itself in the position of being forced to create a more inclusive government at a time of war against radical Sunni Islamic fighters.  I.S. militants are supposedly holding areas 60 to 70 miles north of Baghdad.  Some reports claim they hold positions south of Baghdad also.

The question is:  why is Baghdad being forced to “change horses in mid-stream?”  Such a large change to the government is coming at an outrageous time.  There is an urgent need to fight I.S. and to protect Baghdad and northern Iraq.

U.S. President Barack Obama said the naming of a new prime minister was an important stride for Iraq toward rebuffing Islamic State militants, who have overrun large swathes of northern Iraq.

This website, OK, Fine-reasonably liberal, is one of Obama’s biggest fans.

But is removing a prime minister when I.S. is near the outskirts of Baghdad really the best course of action?  Or is it idiocy and adding fuel to the instability?