🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.10cffa6ac...@news.demon.co.uk>,
  ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:

> > 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

Nah, i'm just using him as a convenient target because i think he's a wanker
:)  What i meant was basically if the majority party decided on doing that,
then got the bill through.

> 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.
>
But think, just having that figurehead who could theoretically veto something
makes the government less likely to introduce something ridiculously
controversial.

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

Nah nah.  Bill Gates is an amazing businessman, and anyone who claimes to hate
him gets it from me right on the nose, but this is a whole nother flamewar ;)

> > 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.

Well not necessarily.  There are people out there who can take heroin
responsibly.  It's less addictive than nicotine.

> 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.

And if it were legalized and could be sold over the counter the crime rate
related to the black market would disappear.  There would be a greatly
reduced rate related to people stealing trying to get money for their next
fix, because it would be cheaper (the main reason why drugs are so expensive
is because it's a high-risk trade for the drug barons - if that risk was
gone, there would be no justification to charge so high).  There would be
less drugs on the street which were dud - less rat poison in coke, less
bicarbonate of soda in ecstasy, a precise measure of how many micrograms were
on your tab of acid, and so on.  If people know exactly what they're putting
inside of themselves, they can prepare for it alot better.  Right now it's
like buying a bottle of drink which you don't know whether it's 50% alcohol
or 10% alcohol or if it's even alcohol at all.

This is one of those issues which can drag on longer than warez is bad.  It
happenned over the space of about 3 months on alt.music.techno a year or two
ago...  To be honest completely do not understand anyone who is against the
legalization of drugs.  There are so many positive sides to it - the only
argument against it is based in the stigma our society has cultivated over the
last 75 years or so.

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

Okay.  Three main things.  The first two i have already said - having a
publicly elected person with power of veto.  Now obviously it's not perfect,
but it's better than having a traditional bloodline-based one, and it's alot
better than having one chosen by the government anyway.

The second thing is the constitution.  I think it's very important that every
person must have some basic, elementary list of rights which can't be changed
without alot of legal hoo-hah.	(Damn i must be getting old to say something
like "hoo-hah"!)  There's a difference between having that in the
constitution and just having it as a generally accepted thing.	If it's
"generally accepted" the little minority up there in Parliament House can
still change it because they don't give a shit about what the general public
need/want.

And the third thing is the interaction at the state/federal level.  I think
the US would have splintered a long time ago if it hadn't been for the
relationship between the states and the union.	States are allowed to have
their own laws in most things which don't go against the constitution. 
States all have an equal say in government.  Although the house is made up on
a by-population basis, the senate is made up of 2 senators from each state,
meaning a crappy little state in the Midwest has just as much clout as, say,
NY.  This is a way i could see the EU working.

> > 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.

But it's there!  That's important.

> 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.

Heh heh heh.  They shoulda just gone "fuck 'em ya bastards".

Still James Cameron should stay as out of trouble as possible, because i just
read that he's doing a TV series of Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy -
possibly THE best trilogy i've ever read.  I just hope he goes a bit more of a
Terminator route than a Titanic one.

> 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.
>
Well yeah, i'd agree with that.  Funnily enough, things like the constitution
and movies like Antz all really give the impression that Americans value their
freedom beyond all else.  Which maybe they do, but then they freely choose
something stupid instead of something worth choosing for.  Oh well.

> 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.

Oh i was comparing the Czech Rep. and the Slovak Rep. from Czechoslovakia to
Germany/England/France etc from the EU.  They're not making the effort to
unite - they seem too busy accentuating their differences.

> > Which is precisely why a constitution is needed.  Get that down and you have
> And that wouldn't require 50 years of arguing ;)

Okay, so what we need is a common enemy for all Europeans so they can unite.
The English did a good job in the US, maybe they could do it again ;)

Actually - and just suspend your rationality for a sec here - i've often
thought that if some aliens decided to attack the Earth it'd be the number
one way to get all the countries to unite and mark the start of a proper
planetary union instead of continuing on with the silly lines on the map. 
Then of course we'd need an intergalactic menace to unite the Milky Way... 
Then an interdimensional menace to unite the universe...  Then. . . . :)

> > 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.

2/3 majority maybe :)

Alex

--
   -= electronic love =-         -- kombat --
http://sturm.huizen.dds.nl/   http://surf.to/kkc

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own