Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Arigarisha.-
The spanish monarchical constitution was agreed by all political parties miraculously included by
by falangists and comunists in year 1978 that approved a referendum voted for by 87,78% of voters.
If someday there is a party antimonarchist politic the with majority and proposes eliminate the monarchy and win a referendum would seem to me very well but for now this trend is very minority in the elections.
Today by far the vast majority who we are neither monarchical nor republicans they believe that
the monarchy can still be useful neutral referee for prevent civil wars so abundant in our history.
You must be of young do not worry of historical experience tendency to of typically of spanish people civil clashes.
Unfortunately there is a tendency that each generation the repeats the same typical errors of your country.
I gather that Victus who is a intelligent stranger and living in spain has seen this trend to the spanish confrontation and disunity when I read posts messages
Oh they sure were a neutral referee to keep ETA from bringing terror to our streets. /not
Whatever makes you think they can do anything to prevent bigger confrontation from happening? The threat of militar force? I'd say, if anything, the memory of our own tragic past is the biggest deterrent against civil war. Nobody wants to go through that again. And no, we don't need a monarchy to keep that memory fresh.
I gather that you have not read half of our conversation and are just kissing some ass.
If royalty is to be forced on a country, the least that could be done for its common people is that those who come to rule them be, at least, less than ugly, but, preferably, good-looking. Now in the U K, the queen's okay (though rather short for a figure in authority); and prince Charles, dignified to the point of being stately (despite being somewhat silly) and handsomer than given credit for. However, Kate Middleton is disappointing, particularly in close-up, as I think the odd-looking William would, as her husband, have discovered. Her eyes are as though taken from an expired pig, brows, rampant and scary, the smile, forced or practised, teeth, improbably large, regular and bright and the bosom, pathetically flat. Therefore, the put-upon or taxpayers of Europe are more than entitled to discuss which of their royals has an acceptably pleasant appearance, no?
If royalty's to be forced on a country, the least that could be done for its common people is that those who come to rule them be, at least, less than ugly, but, preferably, good-looking. Now in the U K, the queen's okay (though rather short for a figure in authority); and prince Charles, dignified to the point of being stately (despite being somewhat silly) and handsomer than given credit for. However, Kate Middleton is disappointing, particularly in close-up, as I think the odd-looking William would, as her husband, have discovered. Her eyes are as though taken from a cadaver, eyebrows, rampant and scary, the teeth, improbably regular and unnaturally bright and the bosom, pathetically flat. Therefore, the put-upon or taxpayers of Europe would do well to discuss which of their royals has an acceptably pleasant appearance, no?
Are you suggesting we should 'chose' our next queen based on her height? :-D
If royalty's to be forced on a country, the least that could be done for its common people is that those who come to rule them be, at least, less than ugly, but, preferably, good-looking. Now in the U K, the queen's okay (though rather short for a figure in authority); and prince Charles, dignified to the point of being stately (despite being somewhat silly) and handsomer than given credit for. However, Kate Middleton is disappointing, particularly in close-up, as I think the odd-looking William would, as her husband, have discovered. Her eyes are as though taken from a cadaver, eyebrows, rampant and scary, the teeth, improbably regular and unnaturally bright and the bosom, pathetically flat. Therefore, the put-upon or taxpayers of Europe would do well to discuss which of their royals has an acceptably pleasant appearance, no?
It's okay for those of you who don't have to carry such a dead and heavy burden, isn't it?
And, if you're going to quote me, at least give me some time in which to try and emend my efforts
Why, aren't you a little pretentious, telling a Spaniard how the Spanish feel? I'm guessing you feel so welcomed here that you feel like you are in a place to let me know aaaaaall about it. After all, I've only been here since birth, so what do I know?
I was not telling you how the Spanish feel, was not my intention at all. First of all because is a country of 47 million inhabitants and there is no one feeling, Urdiales is also Spanish and as a monarchist he does not think that monarchy is causing any conflict, me I think that even it can be a point of conflict in the future, is not currently fracturing Spain. And none of the three opinions is more valid than the other. You gave your point of view and I gave mine, which differs somewhat from yours, this is how forums work.
I'm living here since 1984, 31 years, I think it's enough time to know something Spain and the Spanish, wherever I was born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arigarisha
You concede it will happen. Where was I wrong, again? Did I not use your prefered verbal time? Should I be as literal as possible?
I did not say you were completely wrong, for me you were partly right, but I just don't think monarchy is fracturing the country at the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arigarisha
The situation might be calm, in part due to government trying to make us feel like we have no conection whatsoever to Catalonia. Why do you think the PP pushes the dialect/language conflict, regardless of every linguist ever agreeing it's not a separate language from Catalan? And I think the king is politically more relevant as it affects every Spaniard equally, while language affects mostly the speakers who feel attacked by anyone speaking against it. Attacking a language will make those who speak it feel more alienated from Spain, though. Either way, even if there's not that much noise now, conflict can arise, and seeing how inept politicians are at handling these things it could blow up at the slightest mistep.
Part by part.
- Whatever the reason is, the truth is that the situation is calm now. Yes, conflict can arise, but PP already tried without success in May, so who knows what could happen.
- PP pushes language conflict because is a nationalistic political party, that's what nationalists of any sign do. Anyway, PP did not invent anything, took advantage of an idea that already existed.
- I also think that the king is politically more relevant than Valencian-Catalan conflict, but as I said, depends on the person. The rest of Spain is not even aware that this conflict exists, for them Catalan and Valencia are the same language and that's what is taught in schools, so for someone from Madrid, Cuenca or Gijon, monarchy is a more important issue, but in Valencia there are people that think otherwise.
- Spain is not driving Valencian-Catalan conflict. The official position of central government, ruling both PP and PSOE, has always been that Valencian and Catalan are the same language, and has remained neutral in the debate. In the last 25 years who has attacked more the Valencian language has been the Valencian government, not Spanish, so if people feel alienated from Spain there should be other causes, besides feeling alienated from the Valencian Community too.
- Whatever the reason is, the truth is that the situation is calm now. Yes, conflict can arise, but PP already tried without success in May, so who knows what could happen.
- PP pushes language conflict because is a nationalistic political party, that's what nationalists of any sign do. Anyway, PP did not invent anything, took advantage of an idea that already existed.
- I also think that the king is politically more relevant than Valencian-Catalan conflict, but as I said, depends on the person. The rest of Spain is not even aware that this conflict exists, for them Catalan and Valencia are the same language and that's what is taught in schools, so for someone from Madrid, Cuenca or Gijon, monarchy is a more important issue, but in Valencia there are people that think otherwise.
- Spain is not driving Valencian-Catalan conflict. The official position of central government, ruling both PP and PSOE, has always been that Valencian and Catalan are the same language, and has remained neutral in the debate. In the last 25 years who has attacked more the Valencian language has been the Valencian government, not Spanish, so if people feel alienated from Spain there should be other causes, besides feeling alienated from the Valencian Community too.
1. We can only hope for the best.
2. PP also wages war with Catalonia everytime they do this ****. They got pissy because the AVL described Valencian as a language that's also called Catalan on other areas, they wanted it changed. Catalans feel this is an attack and speak up. Some valencian speakers react to Catalans with annoyance themselves and may turn against them. ****storm ensues.
3. I was thinking about attacks coming from common people. You can have some pretty unpleasant conversations with "monolingual" Spanish speakers regarding the other languages from Spain. They're not a majority, but nastiness is always louder and will make those that feel diferent much more alienated.
We tend to think of attacks coming from within as uneducated idiots. "No está hecha la miel para la boca del asno" (politicians are arses, this much we already know.)
Or we understand part of their dislike comes from another place. I've meet some people from here who hate Valencian only because they hate Catalans.
But if it comes from the outside we will think it's due to them being different and that they just dislike our identity, which will leave us feeling out of place.
If HM's people have a problem with this or that bill then they deal with Parliament, not look to Elizabeth II as a "Hail Mary moment" so to speak.
Unlike the say the United States where gay marriage was forced by judicial action, the very nature of parliamentary governments makes them unstable. If enough of the British public didn't want gay marriage to possibly affect constituencies (especially marginal ones) that would have been that. Ditto goes for any other hot button issue.
Beauty of the British system is while there may be some grumbling about the monarchy it is limited to things like their cost and so forth. Problems with government policies however are directed at elected officials. While yes in theory there are "reserve" or whatever powers British monarchs since Queen Victoria have been reluctant to use them and or have only threatened or done so in limited instances.
George V for instance agreed to go along with his PM's plan to pack the House of Lords with enough new peers to get liberal legislation passed. Key thing here is that the PM made the request of the monarch who (reluctantly) agreed.
How does this change what I wrote? I acknowledged that my hypo(s) is/are very unlikely to come to pass due to convention against it, but that's beside the point. My problem with monarchies like the system in the UK is that the monarch may still lawfully exercise significant power on his/her own. That this hasn't happened in the UK in a while is besides the point; the fact that it can happen--that an un-elected/unaccountable individual can exercise such power--is what is problematic. Write a law specifically stripping the monarch of his/her reserve powers, and the problem is solved as far as I'm concerned. And, note, as I mentioned in my earlier post, my hypos are not so far-fetched as some may think; think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_A...utional_crisis, for instance.
How does this change what I wrote? I acknowledged that my hypo(s) is/are very unlikely to come to pass due to convention against it, but that's beside the point. My problem with monarchies like the system in the UK is that the monarch may still lawfully exercise significant power on his/her own. That this hasn't happened in the UK in a while is besides the point; the fact that it can happen--that an un-elected/unaccountable individual can exercise such power--is what is problematic. Write a law specifically stripping the monarch of his/her reserve powers, and the problem is solved as far as I'm concerned. And, note, as I mentioned in my earlier post, my hypos are not so far-fetched as some may think; think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_A...utional_crisis, for instance.
Instant combustion of human beings *can* happen as well, but the odds are nearly nil.
What "can" happen via a British monarch versus what they actually would do are two very different things.
One overwhelming trend has been true since Edward VII, the kings and queens of GB have removed themselves from politics to the extent of remaining in their constitutionally defined limits. You seem to be forgetting that Parliament controls the succession and who sits on the throne for that matter. They got shot of Edward VIII and likely could and would "Play the King" again if the situation warranted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
