MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Macron vows to rebuild the 850-year old Gothic Notre Dame cathedral
French President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to rebuild the medieval cathedral of Notre-Dame after a major fire partially destroyed the Paris landmark. Firefighters managed to save the 850-year-old Gothic building's main stone structure, including its two towers, but the spire and roof collapsed. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesQuite right, no doubt with EU money given to them by the United Kingdom. Hopefully we say to the EU, we are leaving and we are not giving you £ £39 billion and we want rent for all the massive offices in Strasburg and elsewhere.
Apr 16th, 2019 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seriously, rebuilding an iconic and historic cathedral is what you grudge giving money for?
Apr 16th, 2019 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suspect the whole world will be involved in the reconstruction. One of the wealthiest families of Chile has pledged to donate a million Euros.
Apr 16th, 2019 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DT
Apr 20th, 2019 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rebuilding NDame - a cause well worthwhile.
“Contn of Bs first 100 days....”
If people don’t bother to express their opinion, and don’t vote, might as well not have the right, or an opinion. Anyway, forming an opinion presumes minimum comprehension of the issue. And some people, incredibly, don’t understand the basics, or couldn’t even be bothered to.
“people who didn't bother voting against a socialist President probably didn't support the military either”.
BEFORE 1962 – and not long after Getúlio Vargas' presidency (considered a right-wing dictator, who passed the first labor legislation in Brazil, in 1943) - was a 'relatively' turbulent period, but the population as a whole was not all that politicized (vote was not obligatory, illiterates weren't allowed to vote) ; in 1960, Janio (considered right of centre, ‘n a fierce opponent of corruption) won the election because he was seen as change fm the previous, corrupt government (J. Kubitschek's), and because of his popularity while he was successively, Councilman, Mayor ‘n governor of SP…so there is no reason – other than speculation – to imagine they did not generally support the takeover in 64...especially if you consider the possible alternative.
“…but people being informed doesn't help when they're getting their info from tabloids full of misinformation”…that’s what a lot of the press does, nevertheless I was comparing your ignorant to ours, rgdng politics.
”Personally, I think they voted against their own interests”….that’s you, judging them based on your way of thinking. I don’t live in the UK, don’t know enough about Brexit to be able to discuss it, one way or the other...some things sound good, others bad.
While the BF helped feed people, it certainly did NOT get them out of poverty. It did the bare minimum. If Serra had won in 2002, maybe he would’ve continued / expanded FHC’s “bolsa system” to something better than today's…I don’t know. Chances are, could've been better than Lula.
“If people don’t bother to express their opinion, and don’t vote, might as well not have the right, or an opinion.”
Apr 21st, 2019 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That doesn't exactly go with your talking about the so-called 'silent majority'. If they can't be bothered to express their opinion, or even vote, then we can't even know what they want, and they've given up the right to decide.
If Janio was right of centre, why'd he have Jango as his running mate? Similar situation to Dilma and Temer? But if people had really disapproved of Jango, they could have voted to keep the parliamentary system of government in the referendum. As for no reason other than speculation, there's all the reasons I've already given: the demonstrations, the use of force, the banning of most political parties so people couldn't vote for them, and the end of direct elections. If they'd held a presidential election in 1965, do you honestly think the military candidate would have won?
“that’s you, judging them based on your way of thinking”
Aren't you doing the same, saying Lula's presidency didn't benefit anyone? Brexit can have advantages and disadvantages, it's about which outweighs the other. But the Brexit campaigners preferred to wave away potential problems rather than confronting them, and that's why I didn't trust them. Events since have showed the problems are even more insurmountable than anyone thought. Before and after the referendum, almost no one was advocating for a no-deal Brexit, yet that is what they are all pushing for now.
“While the BF helped feed people, it certainly did NOT get them out of poverty. It did the bare minimum.”
That's better than nothing. My guess is that if Serra had won, it wouldn't have made all that much difference to the wider economy, at least in the short term. Did he say he'd expand the social programs during his campaign?
DT
Apr 22nd, 2019 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That doesn't exactly go with your talking abt the so-called 'silent majority' ”…I think it does …the fact they choose to be silent, means they either don't care which way it goes, or whatever their opinion, it makes no difference. And who cares whether WE know what they want if “THEY'VE given up the right to decide”?
Janio didn’t ‘choose’ Jango as his running mate…it’s all abt party politics ‘n forming alliances, even if temporary or, to the onlooker make little sense ; just an ex : the PSDB, traditionally PT’s political adversary, was preparing to back Haddad in the 2nd round…it’s all about their “convenience”, not much more.
The Dilma /Temer situation was different - after the lid was blown off the “mensalão” scandal (2005/07), the PMDB agreed to NOT support a request for Lula’s impeachment…on the condition that the PMDB was “brought in to” govt, in 2010. Stinks, doesn’t it ? They simply betrayed the people.
For the people to have kept the parliamentary system would mean they’d have to understand it…practically no one did, so the politicians found it easy to convince them against it….much like how you consider that those in favor of Brexit were fooled. In 65, the great majority weren’t “turned on” by elections, most couldn’t vote anyway, and I’m sure no one really stopped to think about the dozens of parties ‘n how that screws governability. As to who could win, would depend on the ‘candidate’.
You’re talking of Brexit ‘n believing most ‘leavers” have shot themselves in the foot, I’m talking of Lula, after the final result ‘n seeing the consequences of PT administrations.
Sure the BF feeding the poor is better than nothing…look, I’m not against feeding the poor, but I would have liked to have seen see the program being administered efficiently ‘n honestly, and not being used as a political tool (blackmail), fraught with fraud.
Serra, being FHC's candidate, presume he’d have made promises regrdng social programs…probably far less populist than Lula's.
I don't believe in the silent majority anyway. People mostly hang around with others who are similar to them and thus have the same opinions, making their views seem more popular than the reality. Elections and to a lesser extent polls reveal the truth.
Apr 22nd, 2019 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the military didn't dare go to the polls, that's why I think they never believed they had majority support, but thought they knew better than the people what was best for the country.
Re Jango, Wikipedia says “Despite this success, the separate race for vice president was won by João Goulart, Lott's running mate.” Apparently Jango was already Vice to the previous president, of an opposing party. That's nuts, who on earth thought it was a good system?
“For the people to have kept the parliamentary system would mean they’d have to understand it…practically no one did”
That's probably true. Do you remember if it was common knowledge that the change had been made to prevent Jango having full presidential powers? And you couldn't vote back then, but did you have an opinion on it?
“I’m talking of Lula, after the final result ‘n seeing the consequences of PT administrations.”
Sure, you have the benefit of hindsight. What did you think in 2002, right after Lula's election?
“I’m not against feeding the poor”
I doubt anyone is against feeding the poor, but before Lula no president made it a priority. Serra probably did promise to improve social programs, but it would have been at the bottom of the list after a lot of other policies, same as under FHC.
DT
Apr 23rd, 2019 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are guessing (again) but I reckon the military had no intention of proposing elections in '65...what sense would it make ? so soon after 31st march 1964, 'n with the reasons why it happened, still fresh in their minds...You are just trying to interpret a vague “possibility”...'n I only say “possibility” because no one knows what was going through their minds in 65.
Re Jango, Brazilian politics never was , and still isn't based on logic and/or transparency (in that the people are able to “see” the games the politicians are up to...because to them, it IS a game, where they'll do anything to win.
TBH, at the time, I was not really all that aware of why the parliamentary system was implemented, and later rejected...anyway, the military abided by the rejection.
Right after Lula's election, end 2002, it was not my choice by any means (being pretty familiar with his record since the early 70s), but when he wrote an open letter to all Brazilians, to all segments of the economy, disavowing a lot of his campaign rhetoric (generally speaking, mainly threats against the 'elite' etc), I suspect that those who had not voted for him (like me) felt a bit of relief.... and when it soon became clear that the PT had no govt program, 'n was prepared to (or rather forced, at least initially) to continue FHC policies, people relaxed a bit more. After a while you become accustomed to the idea that there is no point in thinking about it all the time...
Lula realized a lot of people were hungry - which I'm sure others had also noticed, but had not given it due attention...other than FHC, who created the “bolsa” concept - and took advantage of the fact (hunger) to use it as his election platform...in the form of his “zero hunger” program, and which is probably the single most important reason he was elected ...when it failed (did not accomplish its target, 'n fraudulent), he resorted to expanding FHC's policy. Don't forget, Lula received a relatively healthy Brazil...
Indeed. I think the US originally had a similar system, but they got rid of it a lot earlier than the 60s.
Apr 24th, 2019 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the military abided by the rejection.”
For a short time...
Re Lula's election vs Brexit, if the negotiations had gone better I probably would feel less worried about it, even if still didn't like the idea. And that letter sounds like a positive step. The Brexiters might have had an easier time if they had been more conciliatory towards those on the losing side of the referendum and tried to unite the country, rather than pretty much doing the opposite.
“Lula received a relatively healthy Brazil...”
There was a recession before Lula's election, but Brazil recovered quickly from that one. I think that and the fact inflation had been tamed contributed to Lula's election at that point. With a biggest problems solved, people had more attention to spare for poverty and hunger, and wanted to do something about them.
DT
Apr 25th, 2019 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(me) “Lula received a relatively healthy Brazil...”
He received a Brazil with its worst problem - inflation - under control. As you said, “it had been tamed”.....this basically meant that everyone's salary, especially those of the poor, did not end before the end of the month....and I am 100% sure that had FHC not taken care of it, Lula would never have, either.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!