Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2015, 06:29 PM
 
31,576 posts, read 26,419,637 times
Reputation: 24405

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frihed89 View Post
But prime ministers in parliamentary democracies have a great deal more power than a US President, as they (their parties and partners in power) represent both the executive and legislative branches.


Yes but parliamentary governments are inherently unstable. One reason the USA attracts investments, capital and so forth from around the world is our constitutional government system with its checks and balances.


Every four, six or two years there are elections of POTUS, senators and House members respectively. Here in the United States we vote for actual persons rather than what amounts to a party who will then choose a PM/form a government.


The types of coups, revolutions and other political upheavals found in countries with parliamentary governments are not possible in the USA. When an elected person's term is over, they are gone unless re-elected, period. The executive office is limited to two four year terms and the SCOTUS cannot be removed/side stepped.


In most European countries the government in power decides when to call elections (usually based upon some time table), again here we do not.


European countries have largely replaced the power of a monarch by giving it to a prime minister or president. It can take a revolution (or near to it) in order to force parliamentary governments out of power, again in the USA in happens on schedule regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-08-2015, 05:18 AM
 
5,806 posts, read 11,820,638 times
Reputation: 4661
I always was dumbfounded as how short (4 years) US public figures mandates are. In most countries national élections happen each 5 or 6 years, which leaves some time to the leading teams to develop long-term policies in my opinion. 4 years (and already after 2 years there are midterm élections) is an exceedingly short span of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2015, 05:18 AM
 
Location: Finland
24,205 posts, read 24,642,740 times
Reputation: 11103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Yes but parliamentary governments are inherently unstable. One reason the USA attracts investments, capital and so forth from around the world is our constitutional government system with its checks and balances.


Every four, six or two years there are elections of POTUS, senators and House members respectively. Here in the United States we vote for actual persons rather than what amounts to a party who will then choose a PM/form a government.


The types of coups, revolutions and other political upheavals found in countries with parliamentary governments are not possible in the USA. When an elected person's term is over, they are gone unless re-elected, period. The executive office is limited to two four year terms and the SCOTUS cannot be removed/side stepped.


In most European countries the government in power decides when to call elections (usually based upon some time table), again here we do not.


European countries have largely replaced the power of a monarch by giving it to a prime minister or president. It can take a revolution (or near to it) in order to force parliamentary governments out of power, again in the USA in happens on schedule regardless.
What?

The European democracies and constitutional have exactly the same same methology of time-tables as the US: every 2, 4, 5 or 6 years. The government in power doesn't choose wether they want to have elections or not.

Coups and revolutions have been unheard of in recent Western European democratic history. Most countries also have a constitutional court.

You are very uninformed how the European democracies work. We have exactly the same checks and balances you do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2015, 04:54 PM
 
31,576 posts, read 26,419,637 times
Reputation: 24405
Quote:
Originally Posted by pigeonhole View Post
I always was dumbfounded as how short (4 years) US public figures mandates are. In most countries national élections happen each 5 or 6 years, which leaves some time to the leading teams to develop long-term policies in my opinion. 4 years (and already after 2 years there are midterm élections) is an exceedingly short span of time.

Original idea was to prevent anyone person from becoming entrenched like royalty or nobility of Europe and as such gathering up too much power. In theory it works because there are elections every four or two years to vote persons out of office.


In practice except where term limited (POTUS) election to US Congress can and often does become a lifetime safe seat. This is more true of the House of Representatives where both parties have drawn districts very tightly. For the senate where those standing for election must appeal to an entire state's populace things can be different. A senator can tick off a part of his constituency and still win re-election if the majority wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2015, 05:09 PM
 
31,576 posts, read 26,419,637 times
Reputation: 24405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete View Post
What?

The European democracies and constitutional have exactly the same same methology of time-tables as the US: every 2, 4, 5 or 6 years. The government in power doesn't choose wether they want to have elections or not.

Coups and revolutions have been unheard of in recent Western European democratic history. Most countries also have a constitutional court.

You are very uninformed how the European democracies work. We have exactly the same checks and balances you do.

Know very well the differences and presidential governments are more stable than parliamentary.




democracy - Differences between parliamentary and presidential government - Politics Stack Exchange


Of course throughout Europe things vary by country. Presidents of France are more powerful than others of the same rank elsewhere in Europe. However the method of how they are elected and the whole semi-presidential nature of the office mean it theory it is not totally stable.


National Assembly in France has the powers to dismiss the PM's government which makes that office subservient to the NA. If and or when the French executive office does not have a clear majority and is forced into Cohabitation it is weakened.


OTOH as Obama has clearly proven during his tenure even a POTUS without the backing of Congress can wield vast power doing end runs around Congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 08:38 PM
 
919 posts, read 832,886 times
Reputation: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Know very well the differences and presidential governments are more stable than parliamentary.
I believe dictatorial governments are more stable than presidential governments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 09:18 PM
 
26,750 posts, read 22,234,659 times
Reputation: 9994
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldChina View Post
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?
Hi-five Old China)))
Don't know about "eyes from expired pig," but yeah, the soap-operas need better-looking actors for leading roles at least)))
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2016, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Stockholm
16 posts, read 25,360 times
Reputation: 26
Republicans are just a bunch of left wingers who as high opinion of themselves as intellectuals and they Think they are better then everybody else on a intellectual level.


They also think of themselfs as the saviors of the common people. Who they want to save us from is none of our consern. We just have to know that we need to be saved.


Sorry for my bad English.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2016, 11:57 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,052 posts, read 106,836,948 times
Reputation: 115779
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldChina View Post
Now oughtn't they, each, be retired for good
And shouldn't they take the state-broadcasters &c with them
Just when will we all be free?
Nol. Europe needs more monarchies. Romania and Bulgaria would be better off with monarchs, at this point, even if they were limited to symbolic roles. King Michael of Romania was deposed at gunpoint, which means he's still entitled to the throne. Romania could only benefit from his inspired and dedicated leadership, and that of his daughter, after him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-06-2016, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
79 posts, read 110,840 times
Reputation: 118
Visiting all of the royal palaces in Portugal, and seeing the elaborate carriages and crown jewels in the Ajuda Palace I always found it sad that there was no one to make use of all of this. The Presidency of Portugal costs far more than the Spanish monarchy and no one really cares much about the president.

From a touristic standpoint, it might be interesting to parade the royals around in the 18th century carriages, with pomp and circumstance. The opening of parliament for instance would be a lot more interesting with a king dressed up in robes carried by pages and reading a speech prepared for him by the government. He and the queen could ride through the streets in a gilded carriage with halberds following in 18th century costume.

Portugal did pull out the stops when Queen Elizabeth II visited in 1957 (see below).

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_blepQVvY52...XICA13T9YH.jpg

Portugal also still has an 18th century royal barge, and why not make use of this to drawn in crowds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Europe

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top