🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7424qg$goh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, st...@dds.nl says...
> In article <MPG.10cd5d07...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>   ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> > > Having said that, it looks like Australia will succeed by 2000 for the
> > > Olympics.  Or that's what they're saying - whether or not it will actually
> > Is it a requirement then? :P Get rid of thy Queen or no Olympics ;)
> 
> Well Labor say yes.  Conservatives say we should hang on a bit longer to get
> them out of the way then work on it.  Go figure.

Sounds familiar. Our "new" Labour Government swore to bring down the 
Royals and now ... nothing! The Conservatives never gave a f***.

> > > senate.  Of course you still have the Queen with final veto.  I still think
> > I think you credit her with too much power. Our country is stifled with
> > one hell of a history of charters, common law and the like which far
> > outweigh her outdated "veto" powers. Her approval is more rubber stamping
> > than anything else and I doubt she even dare test her power by asking for
> > minor amendments let alone vetoing a bill of Parliament.
> 
> Maybe yes maybe no.  You see, what say Mr Blair decided to break from the EC
> and stop trade relations with everyone east of Essex?  For no defensible
> reason whatsoever.  Maybe the Russians planted a double in the government -
> maybe he just went crazy ;)  Either way, i think the Queen would think twice
> about okaying the bill.  It's good to have that safety buffer just in case
> something really unbelievably stupid tries to get passed.

I now think you credit the PM with too much power :P

The position of PM is as much figurehead within the cabinet as anything 
else. It would require the agreement of all his and cabinet advisors 
before he farts let alone restrict trading to Essex :P

I sort of see your point, but the Queen and PM are pretty powerless. They 
are figure heads to take flak of one sort or another and their decisions 
are made by various groups outside of their control. 

This is so "I hate Bill Gates cos Windows is full of bugs". Like he wrote 
it or something! 

> 
> > > the US political system kills the crap we have here and in the UK.  At least
> > Oh like the "right to bear arms" which forbids the US GOvernment banning
> > possession of firearms because it is "in the constitution". Much better
> > system. Just let everybody shoot the $#!! out of each other! ;)
> 
> I don't condone the usage of firearms at all, but having said that, i don't
> think we should be denied the right to own them.  Same goes with drugs and

And then you can imagine the sort of people that would... 

> whatever else - i don't condone heroin usage, but if someone wants to do it
> they shouldn't get in any trouble for that.

Heroin usage? OK, let us legalise Class A drugs for suicide since that is 
what it amounts to. But ignoring this obvious conclusion to the poor soul 
taking the shit, the problem is financing the habit, hence the crime rate 
related to drug abuse. 

Laws generally have well founded roots. I think this is an obvious one. 

> 
> > Different tax rates in each state. State law in addition to Government
> > law etc.
> 
> Hey, we've got that in Australia too thankyou very much :)  That's why it's
> legal to smoke pot in South Australia, but you can go to jail simply for
> owning a bong in Queensland.

We do to a degree but not on such major issues. I am sure you remember 
by-laws which can extend to individual villages!

> 
> > I think the US is as fucked up as the rest of us. I think you
> > are victim to "the grass is always greener" syndrome.
> 
> Alot of people have said that to me with my apparent "hero worship" of the
> US. It's not that way.	Or at least, i don't think so.	I think the American
> implementation of government is a very good one.  That's where it ends. 

Feel free to expand. What exactly do you see as their good 
implementation?

> There are some utterly ridiculous laws there, the politicians are just as
> petty and backstabbing as (if not moreso than) here, they have serious social
> problems which aren't nearly as problematic in other countries. . .  But they
> have the opportunity to change.  Of course in order for them to change people

How?

> would need to get their shit together and a) vote, and 2) become at least
> marginally more intelligent.  But the option is there.	In a country like the
> UK or here the only way we'll get the same kind of *potential* freedom as
> could happen in the US is if there's a revolution, and that's a very messy
> way of changing things.

I assume should you explain my asking of how above you UK/Aus reference 
will become clear.

> > > the person with the final veto is chosen by the public.  Shame that the
> > Isn't it argued by the President and the Senate and it require both
> > Senate and his agreement?
> 
> Yes.  But ultimately he still has veto.  Again, it's just a rubber stamp thing

Or senate in his decisions! Plus, add his advisors etc. 

> similar to the Queen in the UK, but at least there is that backup.

A backup that is so unlikely to be taken as to be irrelevant. 

> > I was out in the US during August, around the time of Clinton's testimony
> > before the "Grand Jury?" WTF is that? Anyway, every channel had a
> > programme about it. Each channel interviewed people around the world and
> > you had US citizens talking in great depth about the issue. Then they
> > went to Australasia, Europe and Japan and asked for comment and not one
> > person outside the US gave a f***. In their own way they all said that
> > "there are more important things to worry about".
> 
> Well this is the scary thing.  Americans seem to revel in their stupidity,
> and overseas people rub it in even harder.  But the Americans i've spoken to
> regularly couldn't really give a shit either.  They're like "just give the
> man a break, the Democrats won't run him for president next term anyway" just
> the same as people overseas.  It's such a media driven thing.  The media in
> the US get viewers by advertising scandal - same rubbish as the Mirror and
> all that - and the media overseas get viewers by making cheapshots at
> Americans (and Asians too if they can get away with it).  I don't think

The British are the Americans' latest politically correct "pin cushion". 
I don't know if you heard about the Titanic fiasco (no pun intended). 
High profile apologies to the family of the real life hero portrayed as 
villain in the film.

Besides, I know enough Americans to make my own opinions without tabloid 
influence.

> Americans are as stupid as they seem, or as they like to portray themselves. 
> I don't think they realize how stupidly they really do portray themselves
> either - if they did they'd probably try do something about it.

They seem much more media swayed than other counties. More one to follow 
the crowd than individuals and I think this is what breeds the image of 
stupidity. 

> 
> > > If you read that far you're Good.
> > Maybe you do not remember me!
> 
> I was just needling :)

Thought you might be ;)

> > Australia is one country with one language and one government. I will not
> > pretend to know Australian issues, but the issue *is* far simpler than
> > that in Europe and that is no assertion!
> 
> Of course it is.  I've always been the one to spout extreme profanities at
> the dickheads in the European government for being so obsessed with their own
> little strip of land's rulebook.  I feel like hitting every petty Yugoslavian
> and Czechoslovakian for breaking Europe up into even smaller bits than it
> already is.  They need to chill and realize that a united Europe is a zillion
> times more useful and productive in the long run than squillions of pathetic
> little dots on a map all with chips on their shoulder about the next dot
> along.

I wasn't even referring to the latest members or non members. More the 
long standing EC membership of "whole" countries without internal 
dispute. Even these countries have many differences which must be 
overcome before full harmonisation is achieved. At present Germany is 
determined to take over the finances for the whole of Europe and I do not 
see this as an advantage to anyone outside of Germany. 

> 
> Which is precisely why a constitution is needed.  Get that down and you have

And that wouldn't require 50 years of arguing ;)

> something everyone has agreed upon and which noone can argue with.  Even if
            ^^^^^^^^

I doubt unanimity would be involved in any constitution. Majority vote at 
best.

> it's just something similar to the UN's recommended "10 fundamental rights of
> man" or whatever it's called.

So now we should take a low quality constitiution :P

> 
> > The UK has been a major contributor to many European standards since they
> > were usually higher than other European countries, and many other EC
> > directives dictate lower standards than prevailing UK law. IMHO, at
> > present, there are too many discrepancies for a constitution to work.
> 
> Don't get me started on the UK - they're probably the most arrogant little dot
> with more chips on their shoulder than any other dot in Europe :)

Too right, but, just behind Germany and France :P

> *sigh* don't remind me.  If i lived in the US i might have actually bought MK4
> ;)

<g>

-- 
Mark