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
I'm not going to have someone simply inherit a position where they get to sign laws that have power over me. If I lived in a country that had a royal family, I would seek to change that and try to make my country a republic. If people who aren't elected into their political position (or even chosen by Parliament) get to sign laws over me, I'm not going to tolerate that. If we are to have royalty, then they must be elected and subject to a term limit and frequent elections.
By the way, it's not very unlikely that some day I'll live in the UK for some time (or even move there permanently;) but since I'm a Leftist anyway, I don't think I'll have a hard time finding an anti-monarchy movement to join. Not that there's a whole lot of chance that the British will get over their nostalgia for the monarchy, but I would try, anyway.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.![]()
Which is why I said "for all intents and purposes". If Queen Elizabeth II dismisses Parliament, for instance, she'll have the power to do so stripped from her immediately afterwards.
Oi, hands off our institutions
edited 3rd Jan '12 3:54:39 PM by pagad
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.May I note, that as the Queen is in reality a powerless figurehead, that she poses no threat to democracy, and as the technical head of the country, is actually in a position to provide an alternative should a fascist government ever come to power in Britain and successfully undermine democracy?
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.I'm trying to imagine this "Council of Heads of State" that's being proposed, and I can't suppress the image that manifests in my mind of a bunch of Presidents desperately trying to hold a poker face upon the sight of a crown-head signing a law in the 21st century.
Now, since they're Presidents and have thus arrived at their position through elections, they're probably rather talented politicians and of course have an excellent poker face.
edited 3rd Jan '12 4:08:36 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Yere the Queen has a lot of respect in the UK due to being good at what she does. She accts not only as a figurehead and a backup in case of stuff going really wrong but she also acts as an advisor to the PM of the day. The advantages of her over a president are that fact that she is good at what she does (giving advise to the PM mainly) she lacks any connection to politics and is thus unbiased and she's dam well trained (being raised from birth for the job of monarch does that). Though I don't think she actually signs laws. Another things that gives the royals cred is the fact that all the males serve in the military (hell the Queen was a member of the Women's Auxillary Territorial Service in WW 2).
Though a kind of council of monarchs could be amusing, if totally useless. Half of them are related anyway aren’t they? Though they could act as a dam good advisory panel...
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI could also criticise that, of course, by pointing out that being "raised to the job" hasn't prevented all sorts of mutants coming to power, that the advice the Queen gives may not be the kind that is good for the country, and that every royal serves in the military may lead to a considerably pro-military slant in many royals thinking.
Just to be objective.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.^^ Not all the males. Prince Edward dropped out of the officer course of the Royal Marines after six weeks.
You might not think that's the strongest connection to the thread but it bases itself in reality than just saying "Yeah, we'll just knock out all the constitutive national governments."
edited 3rd Jan '12 4:30:07 PM by SomeSortOfTroper
A lot of that is true. To be honest I doubt a monarch who wasn't the current one would be able to remain on the throne. The situation is fraught with dangers. But right now you would be hard pressed to find people who didn't think the Queen wasn't looking out for the country as a whole. She had a dam good example in her father and as such she is seen as someone who not only knows what they are doing but is looking out for the country and not for narrow political interests.
All of that could change when she goes. But at that point I could see the demand for change becoming a strong movement. Though even now you will find lots of people (myself included) asking why the royals cost so much. But it's a long step from moaning about the cost and wanting to abolish the monarchy.
Now since we appear to be drifting off topic should we take this to the British politics thread if we want to keep discussing the monarchy?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYeah, we're off-topic here. Best continue this in the Brit thread.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.I think that people who talk about a country being a Republic as an absolute value miss the point that there are countries that are not meant to be a Republic, i would absolutely oppose to my country being turned a Republic, for historical and socio-political reasons as most britons would agree, and i don't think a foreigner had any right to say a word about that
Haw Haw HawWell yeah, if you want to replace a monarchy, any monarchy, then you need to be sure what you are going to replace it with is going to be a better system. I deeply distrust the US two-house-and-an-exec model. Leads to paralysis.
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.How many times must I say this: the US legislative/executive system is not the goddamn problem and never has been.
>_<
In any case, I imagined the head of state board as an advisory position anyhow. Monarchs—constitutional or otherwise—really shouldn't have signing power. They're useful as advisers, however.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."Maybe not from your position but I rather like the fact that in the UK we actually know who's responsible for what. In the US you have to work out if something was done via congress, the senate or the president.
Here government stuff is done by the party in power. Not by the part in power, apart from when it’s the other house, who might be under the control of a different party, or possibly when it's done by the president who could be from either party.
Now people with an interest can work out which group (and which party) was responsible for something but for a lot of people it's easier to simply have "the government" and know which party that is.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe Senate is half of Congress.
And, it's not that hard to work out when you live here. Most Americans are just stupidly politically ignorant.
In any case, the system itself is basically fine. The voting and financing model, on the other hand, is abject shit.
"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."Sorry ment the house of representatives. I don't think it's just ignorance though. I'm sure whenever the president and congress are different parties they blame all their unpopular depictions on the other lot. That can't be done here. Well it kinda can but only by blaming local councils for stuff the government did or visa versa and that is pretty difficult. Plus you guys seem to have the problem of paralysis quite a bit due to your set up. Something we don't have to worry about.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranJust found something that I thought none European troopers might find us full for explaining the many different Europe spanning multinational organisations.
Or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
About halfway down the article is a very useful Euler Diagram that people might find us full.
edited 11th Jan '12 4:42:37 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranEU proposes 'right to be forgotten' by internet firms
The end of the BBC article should be noted:
"The new rules will need to be approved by the EU's member states and ratified by the European Parliament. As a result it could take two or more years for the new directive to come into effect."
I’m a lumberjack and I’m ok. I sleep all night and work all day.The Dutch government's fall will mean political deadlock for months to come
So, it appears that the Netherlands has collapsed, with the prime minister projected to be handing in his resignation to the Dutch queen.
What ill does this bode for the European Union as a whole? If a rather intergrationist state cannot hold itself together over EU deficit reduction plans?

I can't imagine that this is a concern when European monarchies are for all intents and purposes powerless figureheads anyway.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.