A thread to talk about news and politics affecting Europe as a whole, rather than just politics within specific European countries.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
As with other OTC threads, off-topic posts may be thumped or edited by the moderators.
Edited by Mrph1 on Jan 9th 2024 at 3:24:05 PM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I prefer Unity, Justice and Freedom.
That one is also acceptable but I prefer solidarity to unity. Unity implies getting along. Solidarity implies willingness to fight others' battles.
I prefer Unity because it implies working together on a common goal instead of just living side by side and occasionally sticking up for each other.
United Earth
I'm talking about inherent human rights, not national slogans/mission statements. Solidarity is not a right. Life, a name, free circulation, free speech, shelter, food, water, and a broadband internet connection, those are arguably rights.
edited 15th Aug '17 8:09:41 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
"Human dignity is inviolable." - Article one of the EU charter and also the most important part of the German constitution - and of the laws in a couple of other states.
Free speech and free circulation are rights, but they're not inherent. They're rights that became established and codified from a Western philosophical, political and economic background, but are not culturally unanimous or even accepted/tolerated (at least, to the degree that most Western countries accept and internalize such rights) across the cultures of the world.
edited 15th Aug '17 8:35:39 AM by Quag15
Regarding monarchies, there was one incident in the 20th century where a monarch actually did step in to stop a military coup; Juan Carlos I of Spain.
That said, while monarchs don't generally have the power to screw anything up, they also rarely have the effective power to stop things from going off a cliff. For example, while HM Elizabeth has made it very clear which side she's on regarding Brexit, she ultimately wasn't able to say "We will consider it" (this means "no") when presented with the Parliamentary resolution that started the process. Even her outfit at the Queen's Speech was an uncharacteristically blatant fuck-you; she understands that it is her job to have no public opinions whatsoever.
A semi-serious proposal on constitutional monarchs (though this would require a separate change to the constitution in the UK): Any time they exercise their reserve powers, they offer their abdication to the next Parliament.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Controversial circumstances of Brexit aside, the UK doesn't really operate through direct democratic participation (at least, when compared to most democracies in continental Europe, where voting and republic assemblies are conducted in a different way). The Parliament is a very fundamental institution of the British political system, and the major focus of stability has the Parliament as one of its pillars.
edited 15th Aug '17 10:00:26 AM by Quag15
A procrastination in of itself
X3 Note that the Queen might have ended up using her powers if the PM had tried to force though Brexit without parliamentary aproval, which did almost happen. Though one would have hoped that we'd have simply seen a vote of no confidence in the Pm rather than the queen stepping in.
In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good.
That's true of all rights. Well, not the Western part you catch my drift. Rights don't exist unless someone upholds them.
edited 15th Aug '17 2:21:28 PM by Antiteilchen
@Marq: Well, hence my statement of next Parliament.
That said, I'd argue that the Monarch's reserve powers do not derive from the will of the people. They are essentially what remains of the Divine Right of Kings, limited by prior revolutions and constitutional settlements. So who they agree to be answerable to for using them is a matter to be decided after whatever constitutional crisis they cause by exercising said authority.
In the Commonwealth, some Governor-General or other tends to drop the hammer on the Prime Minister about once a generation (most lately Tuvalu, 2013, when the GG called Parliament against the advice of the PM); a Canadian theorist says that this is roughly Canada's equivalent of the US Supreme Court as a check against tyranny. However, in the UK, the last time the King fired the PM independently was in 1834, and William lost that fight. And of course, "checks and balances" aren't a UK thing in general (much as we might wish otherwise).
You know, if you rearrange that, it becomes: Freedom, Unity, Justice. FUJ. Pronounce it 'fudge'.
Love Fudge!
Downside. Critics may have equal fun with the concept of 'fudge' as 'inadequate, conceal, mess with, mislead', etc.
And that makes referenda problematic to hold... it was a known issue anyway but I think the recent referendum has highlighted certain problems with the system on a rather dramatic scale.
Out of curiosity. I've noticed before that you have a lot of faith in the Queen stepping in if something too far down the dictatorial road happened. Why is that?
I really don't think the Queen would. I don't think she'd be able to. It would be a no confidence vote or nothing. And, with our current lot, I suspect we wouldn't get a no confidence vote. I'm more towards Ramidel's thinking.
edited 15th Aug '17 3:46:03 PM by Wyldchyld
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
A procrastination in of itself
I'm really not sure, I'm a monarchist at heart I can't deny that, my faith in her has no real logic or thought process behind it, it's pure feeling. One that will hopefully never be tested.
Logically you're probably right and my faith is misplaced, I guess I had a certain attraction to the idea of a lifetime civil servant trained from birth for the job, which in my mind is what the queen is.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
I don't think its misplaced, Silas.
I think the Queen's strength lies with the advice she gives in private. From what I can gather from what past prime ministers of all stripes have said, she's very sharp and has a lot of knowledge and experience. Her advice is very weighty, along with some implication that she does influence decisions sometimes, on very important matters.
In other words, she has phenomenal soft power.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
And a large amount of that soft power on both sides comes from the fact that, like a good general, she remains firmly apolitical. She can give advice to any PM who asks on whatever policy program they want to pursue, without getting down in the actual sausage making.
Other than that? Being the Queen is who she is, to the bone. Even Brexit isn't enough for her to take an unconstitutional stand, particularly when a very slight majority of Britons are ultimately for it. (Also, even elsewhere in the Commonwealth, Governors-General don't usually pull the trigger on a Prime Minister unless they know that he's going to lose the upcoming election, which as we can see did not quite happen, even with May's own goal.)
So in What An Idiot news, there has been just a weak earthquake in Ischia IT [1]. Despite it only being a magnitude 4.3 earthquake, there have been two fatalities.
Now there is a big controversy going on because apparently much of the housing on that island is illegal housing that is built with no regard to earthquake codes. That's a common theme in Italy and not just with earthquakes; landslide and flood hazards are often similarly ignored.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
I remember reading articles after the last earthquake happened in South Italy that many new buildings "crumbled like cookies" whereas many old buildings survived. Supposedly even schools were often literally build on and with sand, thanks to the Mafia.
I wish that this were just an Italian problem.
As someone here said, medieval and Ancient Roman buildings withstand earthquakes better than some present day architecture.
edited 22nd Aug '17 11:26:31 PM by SeptimusHeap
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Gotta fit the demand by building cheap, shoddy housing. Thanks, capitalism.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
It helps that the Romans had incredibly concrete.
Just read in the local paper that one of the fatalities was the result of debris falling from Church that was damaged in a quake in the 80s. The 1880s.
Italy really needs to clamp down on their organized crime/corruption issue, and get their stuff up to code.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
United Earth
You gotta build housing that society can afford. Ask socialist and communist countries about shoddy housing.
