time for some european politics

[Occhidiangela]

And he was elected when?  It was his kids who got to be politicians, no?  :rolleyes:
[right][snapback]79274[/snapback][/right]

Joe Kennedy was the ambassador to the Court of Saint James. I'd say that is a politician, wouldn't you? But otherwise, yes to the Kennedy clan.

Your inference that all American wealth is inherited is of course, bogus, though in defense of your point the old money crowd in the Northeast, and the sorta old oil money in Texas, try to adapt the trappings of aristocracy.

Then you have the Geekistocracy, Emperor Bill Gates . . . and clown prince Steve Jobs.

Rogue out

[Doc]

BAH !  So you are going to greet Mr. Bush as "hey, fella?"    :blink:  He was born to riches, and he does expect a lot of folks to kiss his ass.  Americans have their 'royalty' too.  And it is inherited wealth to boot. 
Go do some reading, Doc.  It may save us some more sour commentary.    Or, better yet, go for a walk.  Smell the roses.  Give the critters some exercise.
[right][snapback]79269[/snapback][/right]

I would call Mr Bush a maggot infested dead whore's twat. To his face. Fella is something you say to friendly casual aquaintances, and he is neither. He's a nobody. He can go kiss his own ass. I wouldn't piss on him to put him out if I saw him on fire in the street.

Nobility is defined by action and deed. Not by birthright or purchased position. I have seen nobility, truly great men, and they go unnoticed. Bush is not a great man. I would venture to say he is one of the worst presidents of the modern age... And I AM taking Nixon and Clinton into account.

The man that goes out and spends 16 hours of his day breaking his back so that his wife and children have a comfortable life is a far better man than the fat dumbass sitting in their seat of power and basking in all their assumed glory. It is the workers that make a nation great. Not the doofus sitting there in the public eye taking all the credit. I don't mean to sound like a socialist either, but credit where credit is due. A truly noble spirit is the one that puts in a few extra hours into his work week to buy his kid a new bicycle for their birthday. Or the man that does the thankless job picking up litter off of the side of the highway. Not because he has to, but because he wants to. The littlest of men deserve the most credit. They do the most work. It is on their backs that a nation is either made or broken.

Dirty pool Shadow... You should have known better than to play the Bush card with me... That's ok. I still love ya. :wub:

[Chaerophon]

Constitutional politics are a maelstrom at the best of times... we know all about it in Canada. I can't imagine that even a majority of the 25 members countries of the EU, with all of their ethnic ties and identity concerns, will be satisfied with any one version anytime in the near future. I suppose that only time will tell..

[Occhidiangela]

Constitutional politics are a maelstrom at the best of times... we know all about it in Canada.  I can't imagine that even a majority of the 25 members countries of the EU, with all of their ethnic ties and identity concerns, will be satisfied with any one version anytime in the near future.  I suppose that only time will tell..
[right][snapback]79279[/snapback][/right]

I want to know why a Constitution is necessary? A series of agreements has been reached that both preserve identity and join a lot of common threads, particularly the euro move.

Does Europe really need "one government." It will not, contrary to the hype from EU bureaucrats, simplify anything, but will instead empower bureaucrats, AKA Mandarins in China.

Is this the Mandarins of Europe making a grab for more power.

Yes. I've met a few, I know whereof I speak.

"Bureaucracy, thy name is Belgium."

Occhi

[Doc]

I could grant mercy to a king...

But death to the bereaucrats. NO MERCY!!! DIE DIE DIE!!!

In order for us to die you must submit form 4431a with a notarized section ZZF1A, filled out in triplicate, and distributed to at least five other departments for records.

Blah.

[Chaerophon]

I fully agree. I think that the ties that currently bind in Europe are more than could have ever been hoped for, even twenty years ago. This is not a continent characterized by a unified or even (in years gone by) co-operative political culture. I'm not sure of why there is a need for this move at this time. Canada possessed a far more unified (and peaceful) political culture at the time of its 1982 constitutional ratification and yet problems nonetheless continue to plague us, and some would argue, have grown and hardened, thanks to tensions that have arisen, in large part, due to our failure to reach full consensus on constitutional issues over the past 25 years (recall, Quebec never signed). Too many voices crying out for their due, not enough faith that 'they will be the next ones heard'. The natives and Westerners stonewall the Quebecois, who, tables turned, would do the same. Multiply such issues by ten, and you will understand why I fail to see how this can work in Europe, in the present day. Pressing the issue like this would seem to create more, not less xenophobia.

Somebody change my mind? I'm certainly not as up to date as I ought to be on the EU - just a gut response.

[Assur]

[quote=Doc,Jun 1 2005, 11:49 PM]
Off topic (sorta) question about European politics.

Somebody mind explaining why so many Europeans cling so tightly to outdated goverments like monarchy? Not flamebait, honest... I don't understand how folks could live willingly under somebody's thumb like that. I don't get it.

Two or three years ago the Australians had a referendum, wether to keep the Queen of England as head of state or become a republic . The majority was for a republic where the president would be elected by the people, but they were offered the choice between keeping the Queen or a system where the president would be elected by the politicians. Sensibly they choose to keep the Queen :whistling:

[whyBish]

A truly noble spirit is the one that puts in a few extra hours into his work week to buy his kid a new bicycle for their birthday. Or the man that does the thankless job picking up litter off of the side of the highway. Not because he has to, but because he wants to. [right][snapback]79277[/snapback][/right]

Noble maybe, but not neccessarily smart. A bit more investment in education/upskilling and situation A shouldn't need to work longer. Situation B, that person should be looking to become a manager or owner of a waste management company/govt. dept.
Just M.H.O.

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I'd be more frightened if they'd voted for the constitution without knowing what it said.

Agreed, and I guess there had been lots of people doing just that as well, only there were no polls showing it.
I don't think it's necessary to read every line of the constitution, reading a summary of what it's all about would be enough in my mind. But voting without having the slightest idea what it's about (or even worse, having wrong ideas about it) is...just wrong.

If you don't know what the change your being asked to make is it's better to keep the status quo, the change can always be reintroduced later.

Here I have to disagree. There is no status quo - the status quo has been destroyed last year, when 10 new nations joined the club.

If you don't like Chirac and his politics and he tells you to vote 'yes' to some sort of sweeping change, are you going to vote for it?

I don't say everyone has to vote "yes" to the constitution; I'm only frustrated about people having wrong reasons to do so. The constitution wasn't created by Chirac alone, and will affect not only France but Europe as a whole, so yes, if I don't like Chirac and his politics and he tells me to vote "yes" to some sweeping change, I might vote for it nonetheless.

-Kylearan

[Kylearan]

Hi,

I want to know why a Constitution is necessary? [...] Does Europe really need "one government."

Maybe I'm naive here, but I have the vision of Europe to become one large, unified country in the future. At the moment, the political culture of our nations are too different for this to happen anytime soon; what we lack is the feeling of being European citizens, instead of being Germans, French, Greece. That also explains the indifference of the people towards European politics, which is in stark contrast to the effect this European politics have on each of us. My hope is that a constitution will strengthen the feeling of all of us being part of one large country, that our nations will grow together and be more than just an economic club.

I also find the discrepancy between economic and non-economic politics very silly. For example, it comes to "economic wars" between the US and the EU where we (more or less) speak with one voice and act as a whole. But when it comes to other fields of politics, like how to deal with Iraq both politically and militarily, suddenly it all falls apart and we are just a bunch of seperate nations.

Yes, I think Europe needs "one government".

-Kylearan

[ShadowHM]

No.  He's gotta do all parts of the job, just like everyone else before him..
Occhi
[right][snapback]79267[/snapback][/right]

You didn't really answer the question, did you? :P

Why *should* he have to? The job is quite a lot more complex these days than what his predecessors had to deal with. Ignoring the practical side (as in 'how the heck would you ever get that Constitutional change passed'), would it not make a great deal of sense to separate the job into executive and ceremonial tasks?

It works well for us. We have a Governor General who does the ceremonial and glad-handing tasks, and we have a Prime Minister who does the executive tasks. (And I really don't want to get into any discussion about how well any of the current incumbents do the job. :rolleyes: I just want to talk about the structure.)

[Occhidiangela]

You didn't really answer the question, did you?  :P

Why *should* he have to?  The job is quite a lot more complex these days than what his predecessors had to deal with.  Ignoring the practical side (as in 'how the heck would you ever get that Constitutional change passed'), would it not make a great deal of sense to separate the job into executive and ceremonial tasks?   

It works well for us.  We have a Governor General who does the ceremonial and glad-handing tasks, and we have a Prime Minister who does the executive tasks.  (And I really don't want to get into any discussion about how well any of the current incumbents do the job.  :rolleyes:  I just want to talk about the structure.)
[right][snapback]79329[/snapback][/right]

Given the normal tasking of VP's and First Ladies for a variety of ceremonial matters, I think I did answer the question. And I was considering his more recent predecessors, as in the last 30 or 40 years where the job is of similar complexity, not James Polk or Calvin Coolidge.

Still a politician, no matter how you slice it.

Occhi

[Doc]

I still don't get it. And nobody has really bothered to explain it. Meh. I still don't understand this self destructive facination with monarchies.

Free trade and an open system of economics. Adam Smith style. Let everybody have a shot at making something of their lives. It is good to see Europe becoming a giant capitalist market. It's good to see the Eastern Bloc getting wiped away.

I am wondering though if we will see a USE someday. United States of Europe. Now, if we can only sweep away some of the last bad elements of the past and find a comfortable blend of democracy and socialism, I think there might be a fair to middling shot at a whole lot of people living somewhat better than average lives. From what I understand, there is still a huge problem of poverty and destitution, especially those who live in former bloc countries that have collapsed and all their promised socialist pensions and care have evaporated.

And in all fairness, Canada has become quite the model of how a country should be. I am starting to look North with some degree of envy.

[Jarulf]

Well put. Bob. 

Structurally, the fundamental tension is outlined right up front.
This is similar to "the supreme law of the land" framework of the US Constitution. 

However, and I may have missed the salient paragraph, (Para I-59 seemed to be what I was looking for) this Constitution is far more federalist.........


{a whole bunch of text sniped out}

[right][snapback]79229[/snapback][/right]

For someone who likes to tell all non USA people to not coment or have opinion on US issues and stay out of such threads, like their elections and how it works, it seems strange that the very same person likes to completely ignore his own views and start telling and disucssing such "out of US" things. Ah well, I guess someone doesn't like to play by their own rules.....




PS! We still need to find something Swedish.....

[Occhidiangela]

I still don't get it. And nobody has really bothered to explain it. Meh. I still don't understand this self destructive facination with monarchies.

Free trade and an open system of economics. Adam Smith style. Let everybody have a shot at making something of their lives. It is good to see Europe becoming a giant capitalist market. It's good to see the Eastern Bloc getting wiped away.

I am wondering though if we will see a USE someday. United States of Europe. Now, if we can only sweep away some of the last bad elements of the past and find a comfortable blend of democracy and socialism, I think there might be a fair to middling shot at a whole lot of people living somewhat better than average lives. From what I understand, there is still a huge problem of poverty and destitution, especially those who live in former bloc countries that have collapsed and all their promised socialist pensions and care have evaporated.

And in all fairness, Canada has become quite the model of how a country should be. I am starting to look North with some degree of envy.
[right][snapback]79332[/snapback][/right]

The Monarchy issue is the least of the worries. The USE is the vision of some thinkers, leaders, bureaucrats, and Pan Europeanists. That is what this Constitution is aimed at creating.

Doc, the short answer is "bigger isn't better, better is better." Not everyone is convinced that the Constitution, as framed, will build anything other than bigger without better.

Our own case of bigger has, even after two hundred years, significant political fault lines. Europe has the disadvantage of a few thousand years of cultural fault lines to overcome in that regard on its way to a united, modern, expanded version of "The Holy Roman Empire" without the Holy.

Kylaren's point on the addition of ten new players to the field is a key. The core EU nations have been harmonizing political issues for two generations. Quite a few new comers have not. There is a sense in some quarters that, from the get go, that members do not accrue equivalent benefit from sacrificing some of their sovereignty.

Look at it as the imbalance between have and have not, and the perceived flow of capital and employment opportunity, hence quality of life.

Occhi

[Doc]

I saw that Constitution and read it briefly.

It's not worth the paper it's printed on. I am a dumb ignorant American and even I can see that. It's not fit to wipe your ass with.

It is of my own personal opinion that if followed, said document would only aid in the rise of new aristocracy. State sponsored aristocracy. With how responsibilities are to be handled, and the delagation of said tasks, it would be all to easy for a few states, er, nations, er, I dunno what to call them. Former nationalised entities? I will use states as an example. A few states could gang up quite easily and strong arm the low man on the totem pole into handling all the grunt work. The state, or states, put into this constant back breaking labour, would never reap their own rewards, but the bully robber barrons acting under the law and abusing the system, would have the most to gain. A collective of states could force the poorest and least capable states into sending the most troops into a war... Further wrecking said weak states economy, and giving stronger states a greater advantage and clout. Smaller weaker states would have no choice but to cave in and give the bullies what they want. National identity would be threatened. Soon, said state would only exist as a puppet empire, a hollow shell, a mere finger in the fist of the larger bully state.

I don't like this, and I doubt most Europeans would either, except those with the most to gain.

[eppie]

[quote=Doc,Jun 1 2005, 11:49 PM]
Off topic (sorta) question about European politics.

Somebody mind explaining why so many Europeans cling so tightly to outdated goverments like monarchy? Not flamebait, honest... I don't understand how folks could live willingly under somebody's thumb like that. I don't get it.
[right][snapback]79289[/snapback][/right]

FIrst in most monarchies the king or queen doesn't have a lot to say. And than there are a lot of people who really feel it as something of their own, some kind of identity of a country.

The same you see in other states by the way. Take the americans that vote for a president just because he shook their hand. Or the fact that most of the time the sitting president also wins his second term in office. That is just because it gives them a nice american feeling.

And honestly our queen has a lot less to say then the US president.

[jahcs]

Take the americans that vote for a president just because he shook their hand.
[right][snapback]79342[/snapback][/right]

Americans voting for a Presidient "because he looks like a nice guy" - I wanted to gnash my teeth by the time the election was settled. I live a few blocks from a college campus and I heard that as a reason to vote for Kerry at least as much as I heard "anyone but Bush." Where does your candidate stand on the issues? What is your candidate's record and ability to follow through? That's what counts.

The ability to interact with the rest of the world is important too and our current President could use a few pointers. :P

Or the fact that most of the time the sitting president also wins his second term in office. That is just because it gives them a nice american feeling.

Usually an incumbent wins because they have an established record as President for us to judge them by. A new candidate only has promises and charisma to stand on.

[Doc]

Well, in a true democracy, there would be no president. Only a standing body to determine the various laws and ordinances. Which would be disbanded and go about their lives when they were not needed. Said standing body would only be called to ordered in times of crisis, times of change, or the occasional "lets talk shop because we can."

The US is not a democracy. We are currently more of a Facist Republic that is rapidly entering a total police state. Something the Europeans know all to well and many of whom are shouting at the top of their lungs trying to warn the American folk about.

The only thing that keeps America going down the hole completely are the large stockpiles of guns owned by private citizens. They are a powerful voice of reason, and will make any man, common or noble born, have a voice and some small say in the matter. Europeans take note. Your government isn't terribly interested in protecting your rights... Only protecting it's own interests. Protecting your own better interests falls on your shoulders. Your ability to voice an issue will on occasion, depend on your ability to back your words up with extreme action.

There is a long and noble history of revolution in Europe, one I appreciate.

Let them eat cake.

[ShadowHM]

Given the normal tasking of VP's and First Ladies for a variety of ceremonial matters, I think I did answer the question.  And I was considering his more recent predecessors, as in the last 30 or 40 years where the job is of similar complexity, not James Polk or Calvin Coolidge.

Still a politician, no matter how you slice it.

Occhi
[right][snapback]79330[/snapback][/right]

*grins*

So, if I have this straight, you actually do have a separation of the executive and ceremonial jobs. You just don't have them written in the Constitution (or any other law, for that matter?). And, the selection of them is a package deal when you elect the President. You are also electing his wife for the ceremonial tasks. Two workers for the price of one, eh? ;)

I know that is a vast simplification. It just tickles me nonetheless. :P