France... Historically, it's not important

Some Britbong didn't take his analpain pills

No, I'm simply saying that France has no influence on modernity. It is obviously a meme country.

Monarchies are such a tiny proportion of expenditures that it's really more of a decorative thing than a qualitative difference between systems.

Besides, the Dutch Republic is the oldest surviving one in Europe.

Poland could have been, but they happened to be near Russia.

>France did not contribute to the formulation of modern day republics
>USA
You mean the country that literally would not exist without American involvement?

>If it did, how come USA and other "Anglo" -keyword here- countries copied largely off the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights of 1689?
You know that the Founding Fathers quote Montesquieu more than any other work except the Bible in their Federalist Papers, right?
>B-But Montesquieu discussed the English system
In name. In the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers point out exactly how Montesquieu's (ideologically driven) description of the English system differs from the actual English system. The Bill of Rights and Magna Carta were important, but that does not exclude French involvement. It's not a zero sum game. And let's not forget that the Magna Carta itself was agreed upon by the last Angevin (French!) Kings of England, after the French King had destroyed their forces at Bouvines.

As for more about the Magna Carta, THAT is something that isn't as important as it is often depicted to be. The proof is in the pudding: America and Britain use it in entirely different way to justify entirely different legal practices that are sometimes mutually exclusive.
newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/20/the-rule-of-history

>Modern day republics model themselves after America
Except for the ones not in the Americas. And let's not forget that even most countries in the Americas ended up adopting the Code Civil.

>Therefore France, did not contribute anything of note towards modern history.
Even if you were somehow right, France in some bizarre way having zero influence on the development of modern republicanism does not exclude France having a historical impact in general.

What the hell is it with this sudden wave of Francophobic shitposting on Veeky Forums lately? And why aren't the mods doing their job in filtering out blatant shitposting and /int/-tier "banter"?

Amazing strawman faggot. Nobody ever claimed France invented republics, which btw are a shitty invention but which Anglos have nothing to do with either. France did however invent modern democracy.

Along with almost everything else that defines Western civilisation.

Lol no, Anglos created modern democracy and everything else that defines Western civilization. What you are saying is simply not true.

>you mean the country that literally wouldn't exist without *French involvement

Fix'd your grammatical error, retard.

To be fair, the American republic is really dated and has problems with its electoral system.

Jefferson knew this and which why he suggested the Jefferson election system (google it) and that we have a constitutional convention to rewrite the constituion every so often.

Now we are stuck with a 200 year old system that doesn't work with first past the post and two political parties entrenched in the system.

If I were to do the system over again, I would recommend Germany's proportional representation with a parliament with a PM and then a president for the execute branch. Do away with districts simply because it allows for gerrymandering and vote simply on what proportion a party gets.

Sure we'd still have the republicans and democrats, but then they would need to deal with the Socialists, Libertarians, Nationalists, and Greens.

I mean you could argue our current system is better, but then I would just point out about the two candidates we got out of 300 million people.

>oui étranger, put your confiance en moi. Moi invented démocratie n poutain.

Nice try, Frog. Modern democracy is too wide of a thing for any one nation to invent. They may have inspired democracy but it was already proceeding to be installed in other countries around and even before the 30' and 48' revolution.

Modern democratic ideals overwhelmingly originate from French Enlightenment, and at the time of the French Revolution neither Britain nor America could be considered democracies.

There isn't even a single point in history where Anglos weren't overshadowed by France and other countries in cultural relevance up until America after WW2.

The French Revolution was in 1789. The reason democracy was spreading to the rest of Europe in the 19th century (along with every other political ideology and in fact all of modern politics) is because all of that was spread to it by French conquest during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars.

That's not true, Britain and America were democracies at the time. This is because republics are indirect democracies.

And are you forgetting the British Empire? Anglos totally overshadowed France.

>Modern day republics model themselves after America
bold faced lie

Pretty much this. There's a reason why 1848, the year of revolutions, is often called the afterbirth of the French Revolution.

>This is because republics are indirect democracies.
Saddam Hussein's regime was a democracy. You heard it here first, ladies and gentlemen.

No they weren't, barely anyone even had the right to vote.

And ruling a bunch of shit-covered streets doesn't make you culturally relevant.

The French Revolution did absolutely nothing but kill a shit ton of people. How can you say that this abomination of a historical event could EVER "spread" democracy?

Anyone who thinks this is obviously an evil person with no soul. Please kill yourself.

>republics are indirect democracies

North Korea confirmed for democracy.

agreed

only the successful ones do this

I can't tell if this is meant to be sarcasm or just really awful bait.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with democracy, he was an evil dictator, I'm just saying real republics are indirect democracies.

Stop twisting my words around, okay?

>No they weren't, barely anyone even had the right to vote.

Actually they did, which is why democratic parliament had developed before France's "invention" of "modern democracy".

Will Anglos ever get over their butthurt at being former French colonies?

Once again we reach the end game of any argument on Veeky Forums; Semantics. Fucking shitposters get out.

nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-87-number-3/declining-influence-united-states-constitution

"In this Article, we show empirically that other countries have, in recent decades, become increasingly unlikely to model either the rights-related provisions or the basic structural provisions of their own constitutions upon those found in the U.S. Constitution. Analysis of sixty years of comprehensive data on the content of the world’s constitutions reveals that there is a significant and growing generic component to global constitutionalism, in the form of a set of rights provisions that appear in nearly all formal constitutions. On the basis of this data, we are able to identify the world’s most and least generic constitutions. Our analysis also confirms, however, that the U.S. Constitution is increasingly far from the global mainstream.

The fact that the U.S. Constitution is not widely emulated raises the question of whether there is an alternative paradigm that constitutional drafters in other countries now employ as a model instead. One possibility is that their attention has shifted to some other prominent national constitution. To evaluate this possibility, we analyze the content of the world’s constitutions for telltale patterns of similarity to the constitutions of Canada, Germany, South Africa, and India, which have often been identified as especially influential. We find some support in the data for the notion that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has influenced constitution making in other countries. This influence is neither uniform nor global in scope, however, but instead reflects an evolutionary path shared primarily by other common law countries. By comparison, we uncover no patterns that would suggest widespread constitutional emulation of Germany, South Africa, or India."

I don't know how much other countries model themselves off of the French constitution, but other countries aren't modeling themselves off America anymore.

probably by watching France turn into a African colony and laugh at it like the rest of us.

youtube.com/watch?v=ju79YT_lBVI

>Modern day republics model themselves after America
No they don't. Only the ones in Latin America model their constitutional systems after the US (and even they use the Napoleonic Code). Most republics around the world are parliamentary or semi-presidential systems, like France, not presidential like the US.

That's right, because Britain was the first true inventor of modern democracy, which is why almost everyone models their government after it.

>this guy needs to go back to /int/ amiright guyz????
k

Parliament is a representation of the aristocracy first and foremost, and to a lesser extent of the wealthy bourgeoisie, and in that form it existed in every other medieval undemocratic shithole in Europe just as it did in Britain. Except almost all of Europe moved on from that and adopted French style democracy and universal suffrage during the 19th century, long before Britain which only finally caught up in fucking 1918.

you realise if the western world falls, the entire planet goes up in smoke right?

This would sound less cringey if you weren't a Brit.

No, that isn't true, if that were the case you wouldn't have the House of Commons voting on alot of thing. This means that not only were aristocrats and bourgeoisie voting, but also the common people!

That means that Britain had universal suffrage even BEFORE France arrived on the scene.

Bro, I know you're trying so hard to shitpost me but Britain made everything. Just admit it!

>Modern day republics model themselves after America
Of the 23 longest-lasting democracies in the world:
>only 8 are federal like the US, 15 are unitary states like France
>only 7 are strongly bicameral like the US, 16 are not like France
>only 5 have a upper house with unequal representation like the US, 18 do not like France
>only 4 have strong judicial review like the US, 19 do not like France
>only 3 have a two-party system like the US, 20 have a mulit-party system like France
>only 2 have a presidential system like the US, 21 have a parliamentary or semi-presidential system like France has or has had

Source: Robert A. Dahl, How Democratic is the American Constitution?

France has been far more influential on other country's political systems than the US (as has the UK). Barely any one except some Latin American and African shitholes model themselves after the US.

It's civil vs common law, you nonce.

Commoners are anyone who isn't nobility, including wealthy bourgeois, who were the only ones who could vote for the House of Commons. Around 1800, fewer than 5% of British men could vote. Meanwhile France established universal suffrage in 1792.

Britain didn't have universal male suffrage until 1918 you ignorant nigger. The House of Commons was originally elected by like 2% of the population, it was only gradually increased to have everyone being able to vote. France has had universal suffrage since 1848.

No proof whatsoever.

Disregarded!

>the entire planet goes up in smoke
noice
>I'm a brit now
hon hon, another one to le list

merci pour tout, Pierre, hon hon

Gonna need sources on that, frogniggers.

Well what are you if not British with a name like that?

Proof here: juriglobe.ca/eng/sys-juri/index-alpha.php

Ignorant frogposter doesn't even know the difference between common and civil law

Half a second on Google:

nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/politics/g1/background.htm

>In 1800, nobody under 21 could vote. Fewer than 5% of the population had this political right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

Are you seriously so historically unaware you've never even heard of the Reform Acts?

This isn't proof.

Obviously common law is used by so many nations, otherwise it wouldn't be called common.

Why are Francophiles trying to put the truth down?

You could at least try to make your b8 less obvious. Here is the (You) you so desperately crave

>in in 1800, nobody under 21 could vote

And so literally everyone who reached 21 could vote, this honestly sounds like universal suffrage to me.

I don't get where I'm erroneous and you're not? You really need to doublecheck your facts, nigger.

Are you seriously unaware that Britain had democracy before other nations? Come on bro, get with the program.

You think less than 5% of the population was over 21? Kek

That was a typo, they meant to say 95% of the population who could vote were over 21. Dude, Britain wuz democratic.

Trust me.

well fuck, I see you got some moves, Pierre. guess there is still a chance for "la liberte".

but I am 100% turkic, but somehow this board has a hard time believing it

>Trust me
No. Provide a source.

You think 95% of the population was over 21? Kek

Yes user... everyone over the age of 21 died of disease or war. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 forcibly put to death anyone over that age.

But lad, I -am- the source.

Don't you know about primary sources? Lol, stupid nigger.

I was around at the time, in the Victorian Age of Britain and let me tell you sonny, almost everyone could vote.

The only 5% who couldn't vote were old bums who couldn't get off their beds.

You've obviously been duped by the media.

Stop replying to this bait thread you idiots. He'll just keep posting pepes no matter your argument.

British butthurt is hilarious btw

Yeah man, I was there. I knew what happened.

Butthurt?

How can we be butthurt when we're literally the best.

Kek, stay mad.

American Revolution would have failed without France
Half the Enlightenment figures were French
Napoleon's rule marked the beginning of nationalism as a major political force
It's end marked the beginning of conservatism in Europe
Was the epicenter of the European involvement of both world wars
And invented canned food

Are we witnessing the birth of a new tripfag? Typical of a Britcuck to copy a Turk. Though at least the roach is actually funny on occasions.

What tripfag? The only fag who's tripping is you.

Better stay off those pills, sonny boy!

American Revolution would have failed without France

Debatable but they helped, the British war strategy that focused on taking coastal towns failed horribly.

Half the Enlightenment figures were French

I'd say that's to broad of a generalization to say even one half. There were many English, Scottish, Swedish, and German enlightenment thinkers as well.

Napoleon's rule marked the beginning of nationalism as a major political force

>Implying nationalism hasn't always existed

It's end marked the beginning of conservatism in Europe

it existed for many years after that m8.

Was the epicenter of the European involvement of both world wars

Because they unjustly caused the first and got pummeled in the second?

And invented canned food

How is this impressive?

...

Thats why you make bait threads where you completely ignore every argument that goes against your narrative?

10/10 made everyone reply

Nice greentexting, newfag

Francelovers btfo

How will they ever recover?

>unjustly caused the first

Hans plz

Typical Franc, completely missing the point of a message I made in less than 25 seconds. I put that on there just to get to you, user. Go use the francisca to k ys.

Why are the French so anal about everything? It's like they're whining about Algerian cock up their posteriors.

You seem angry and confused. Let me help. Put a ">" in front the part you want to quote.

>life this

Happy posting, newfriend!

France is literally the core of the western civilization, you fucking imbred imbecile.

>life this
>*like this

Fixed, French retard

>imbred
>inbred
Lol, why are Francophiles so stupid?

>haha you are newfag

smddh, get a real argument Pierre.

samefag, turning trip on and off

>everyone I don't agree with is samefag

trop super

>I can't distinguish between one poster from another

Wow, confirmed for retard.

This thread is cringing and pathetic for a set of reasons I'd rather not explore unless I was willing to lobotomize myself.
>frogcancer

Anglos hating us for no reason

Shut up.

yes, everyone is an innocent victim in the game of /int/ shitposting

>Modern "democracy"
>People only have power once every 4-5 years during the elections
>Democracy

even the retarded anglo does not really know if his queen has power. monarchies are too castrated today to be relevant, even diplomatically.