Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by tjs282, Nov 1, 2019.
And one such statesman, according to various Eu officials, was of course David Cameron. ^_^
Yes, the French president has more formal power than most European monarchs, but he is directly elected by the people. So he has also much more of a mandate to wield that power.
The function as head of state is typically only a part of the job description of a president, other parts are political to various degrees. It does not make sense to compare the power of head of states without also taking into account how this power is legitimized.
For example, the German president has much less power than the French one, but voters also have much less control over who gets to be president.
Yes, I think that is the general principle: the more voters have control over the head of state, the more power you can give as mandate.
As a consequence of that principle the constitutional monarchs have that ceremonial role and hardly (hard) power.
With the not directly by The People elected Presidents, you can have more of a gliding scale of how much power they get, and how and by whome (Parliament, Senate, States, etc) such a President is appointed and can be impeached... how high those hurdles are.
Kyr, the Greek construction has its President almost completely in that ornamental role, but that President can veto new laws.
Question: if a Greek President goes rogue... can he be impeached ?
I see in the constitution, in English translated, that "incapable" is a ground to do that... but does that include someone going rogue (filibuster veto-ing) ?
I don't know, but it is hugely unlikely any greek president will veto something - because they are being elected by parliament, with relative majority... In theory, if one such president is already a known public figure (some decades ago it was an ex prime minister), they might do something like that, but I am pretty sure all parties are careful with who they select, so that they are docile enough
The whole point, in fact, is the lack of evidence:
If an MP or peer sought to secretly influence a draft bill to advantage themselves in this way, it would be called corruption. It could lead to a criminal charge.
The palace likes to pretend that the practice of Queen’s consent is all ceremonial, somehow rather quaint. “Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect,” they say. This is both accurate and entirely misleading. The Queen does not block legislation because she does not need to. The draft bill is sent to the palace and to her legal advisers. If they have objections, they will ring the Cabinet Office and relay these. Nothing is normally put in writing these days, to avoid a written record. The bill is then altered to meet the Queen’s wishes and the revised version is then sent back and gains her consent. You see? Nothing has been “blocked”.
But some of the bills in which ‘nothing’ was changed, i.e. nothing is recorded, are the Brexit bills which define the entire socioeconomic structure of the polities affected by it, namely the UK and a few other Crown possessions.
I didn't answer ‘what do we do?’ again because this is something that I've been saying since I've had a political conscience, both offline and online, so I thought it would be obvious.
In a nutshell:
a) constitutionalism → powers are strictly defined in their scope and reach, in writing
b) elections and checks and balances → everyone is accountable, no positions are hereditary or mystical, let's stop this de iure divine-inspired autocracy that is the UK
Mind you, you might just make it work if you had a monarchy like they do in the Low Countries or in Scandinavia, but the UK is one in which just a hundred years ago the King said that if the Lords didn't do as they were told he would just pack the chamber until they'd vote as he thought they should. So a huge cultural change is needed.
And this is not an idle thought limited to the Windsors or whichever in-laws might one day inherit the crown from them: the scandalous scope of action the British executive tends to have in things such as deporting people to wherever their dark-skinned ancestors came from or ordering covert military operations and ‘rendition’ to Guantanamo and so on is based, legally, on the PM wielding the sovereign's power in HM's name.
If we're still talking about Italy, there's hardly anyone who knows how global economics/the EU system works than Draghi. More than a few here hope that he still remembers the Keynesian teachings he learned from his 'varsity mentor, Federico Caffè (trivia: he disappeared into thin air).
We're getting massive EU funds to recover from an economical minus between 9 and 10% this year. SuperMario is simply the one who would best know how to articulate this the way Bruxelles wants to hear it - hopefully in a productive direction.
How many extensions did the EU give ?
Did it ever occur to the UK, as to why the EU had the upper hand in the negotiations and by virtual of having the stronger position were able to make set demands ?
Massive funds? Have you run through the actual numbers? Italy is lucky if it breaks even on EU funds paid and received...
Sure, letting Italy crash out crashes the precious Euro and with it the European Project. But people in Brussles, Frankfurt, Berlin and even Paris by now believe the italians won't have the courage to leave in any case. How many governors have been appointed for Italy since 2008? It's still in the EU and it was cheap to keep it there. It was debt, all debt bought by the ECB. Still conditioned on austerity. Nothing changed.
Quite. Most obvious of all, given the Corona pandemic in the summer of 2020 the EU proposed the UK that the Brexit negotiations not be rushed through, and instead extended for another two years, while everyone dealt with this more pressing matter. The UK government refused that offer. Now it might be unhappy with the outcome, and since it has consistently blind-sided the British public, it will just continue like before and try to re-write history. (While trying to retroactively cherry-pick which bits of the situation it now wants to apply, demanding the EU comply with the UK on the bits it does not.)
The entire time-table for Brexit has been set by the UK government(s) – beginning with when the clock was started, and then when and where anything of substance was to be discussed. The EU was never in any great hurry and more concerned about what might actually work. The UK pushed through the current situation.
That is an understatement In fact, the Eu was more than happy to pretend/extend its own supposed serious deadlines for two years.
Yeah, he is the best there is now to use that heap of money as good as possible. I hope he gets enough political room for a couple of years to be able to focus on building up the economy before the infighting starts again and too much money goes to less beneficial projects favored by politicians as bargaining return for their support.
Yes, we're a net contributor to the EU - it shocks most Northern Europeans to hear that!
I'm talking about this, of which people who know how to run numbers (I'm no good at math, I confess) say about 209 billion will be at our disposal, 81,4 as subsidies, 127,4 as loans. Can't screw this.
And sorry, what 'governors for Italy' are you talking about?
The way everyone here is singing his praises to the high heavens, I suppose he's got a honeymoon period ahead. He's going to get into office with the approval of everyone but the hardline conservatives - who reserve to decide how to vote issue-by-issue. However, he's still a premier from the outside of politics, meaning he has no representatives of his own.
Another factor: the president of the republic's mandate is expiring in February 2022, and the rule is that he can't dismiss the Chambers during his last six months. The legislature ends in March 2023, so I'd be astounded if anyone should make a fuss over being in charge while it's ending.
Quite apart from the fact that Tory MPs seem to be totally immune to corruption allegations these days, how would you change the above and still retain the monarchy? Either the PM can do it legally or they can't. Just having a legal fiction that s/he's doing it in the Crown's name is neither here nor there really.
We could just say the PM no longer has that power. We could do it without getting rid of the monarchy, but he does have these powers because the king had them and now the PM has them. The whole proroguing parliament to stifle debate showed that we should think about these things.
Well, good luck getting any parliament to vote to lose power.
Which is a serious issue - the members of parliament are supposed to be there because people voted for them, not as kings and queens. Most seem to treat their position as that of royalty-until-the-next-election.
It isn't parliament that has the power, its the PM.
More a case of good luck getting any governing party to vote to lose power.
Not quite the same thing and slightly more chance of happening since even governing parties can get annoyed with their leaders.
Clearly the evil Eu FORCED the UK into taking those extensions
Because the UK is totally ready for the Brexit
The EU told the UK to finalize Brexit by June so that would have time to read the trade agreement and prepare for it.
Noticed no one mentioned Nissan again. Looks like everything's going well after brexit: it increased Nissan's investment in the UK!
Someone had claimed that the UK, had been a loser with the included the minimum local content thresholds on the trade agreement? These batteries would be imported instead of produced in the UK if those minimum thresholds didn't exist.
I guess congrats to the UK on "Brexit" ?
Some of the decline is likely the result of the recession as car manufacturers prepare for lean times ahead. It will probably play out in the next few years as tech changes sweep through the market
Separate names with a comma.