🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MPG.10cd5d07...@news.demon.co.uk>,
  ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:

> Yeah? But *how* long ago? Plus I doubt the Queen ever actually got up one
> morning and sacked the Government. Other than her (forced) rubber stamp,
> I doubt she had much say in the matter.

Oh probably not.  It was about 30 years ago from what i hear.  There'd been
lots of political backstabbing going on which had all come into the public
and the only person who had the authority to do anything about it was the GG
who is the Queen Representative in Australia.  So he did.

> > 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.

> > (Please excuse my French, i'm
> > English.)
> I remember you saying you have lived all over, where did you originate?

England :)

> > 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 outweigh her outdated "veto" powers.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.

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

> 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.

> 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. 
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
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.

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

> 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
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.

> > If you read that far you're Good.
> Maybe you do not remember me!

I was just needling :)

> 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.

Which is precisely why a constitution is needed.  Get that down and you have
something everyone has agreed upon and which noone can argue with.  Even if
it's just something similar to the UN's recommended "10 fundamental rights of
man" or whatever it's called.

> 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 :)

> > the ponds suffer without.  No fundamental right to freedom of speech and
> > expression.  You notice it most here in Queensland, Australia where cops can
> > stop and search you on suspicion of drugs.  Ie if you have long hair, wear
> > fluoro clothes, have a copy of Trainspotting in your VCR, or whatever.
> And you think the UK, US does not have that?

UK does, they have the ridiculous Criminal Justice Bill.  The US only does
because of a conservative police force, not because there is a law which
justifies it.

> A little study of history should give Australia the best chance since it
> is not held back by the years of tradition of other countries. The US is
> quite young, but I think Australia beats it slightly.

You haven't lived here :)  Australia is hugely conservative.  It's precisely
like the US - the "alternative" to the conservatives is still conservative as
all fuck.  Then again, that's the same as the UK aswell so maybe all the
colonies/former colonies suffer from conservatism.

> The US also has much cheaper prices on many items from Petrol to home
> electronics which shows a good economic sstructure for the consumer.

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

> Infrastructure is important for the future, and the economy too. But
> politically, the US seems immature. I cannot see why you envy the US
> system. As I see it there are severe problems, just different ones.

The difference is that the problems in the US can be changed given the current
system (theoretically).  Here the problems we have are integral to the system.

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