Has Europe Abandoned the Struggle?

Originally posted by Bad wolf
[b]A simple majority gets legislation passed in the Commons, then it goes to the Lords (which is mystery to everyone).

- Hopefully the elective reforms legislation of the House of Lords will change things, for the better, if it passes the House of Lords. 😕


Then Lizzie signs it (wtf voted for her?) and it is law.
- She doesn't sign it t ...[text shortened]... the power of the PM has no real limits, but the US president does have constitutional limits...[/b]

My point about Lizzie is that the monarch must approve the legilslation. Whether she physically autographs it wasn't my point.

In terms of the power of the PM having no limits, surely, if nothing else, the Commons is a limit on the PM?

Originally posted by Redmike
My point about Lizzie is that the monarch must approve the legilslation. Whether she physically autographs it wasn't my point.

In terms of the power of the PM having no limits, surely, if nothing else, the Commons is a limit on the PM?

I seriously doubt that the Queen would not approve things the government wanted, unless they were really extreme...which wouldn't happen; any such action would start her, already thin ice, to crack pretty quickly.


Sometimes, if the Primeminister's party has a strong majority in the house of Commons, that supports him, he can get whatever legislation he wants through Parliament; and he can ignore all the opposition parties and there thoughts all he wants.

Originally posted by Redmike
We don't get to vote for our president because we don't have one.

We don't necessarily have a one-party government. It is possible no single party would have a majority and some sort of coalition would be required. Just hasn't happened yet, as we're still pretty much a 2-party system at UK level.

The MPs are paid by the tax-payer in the same was as opp ...[text shortened]... ople from the opposition party part of the government? Maybe the issue is just terminology.

The congressional intelligence committee and armed services committees have members from the majority and minority parties, with the majority having a larger proportion of members.

i think that all members of these committees get intelligence reports that congress as a whole does not.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Quote from a Dutch article:

"In large segments of western Europe, American diplomacy has achieved the status of a leper. Each and every U.S. diplomatic initiative is automatically suspect, regardless of its content. The face America has shown since 9/11, with its emphasis on fighting on terror, is abhorrent to many.

West Europeans, after all, have ...[text shortened]... ree or disagree? Can Europe's foreign policy be summed up these says as 'don't bother us'?

you must be jesting ... it doesn't seem that long ago that France was bombing the Ivorian air force ...

Originally posted by Bad wolf
I seriously doubt that the Queen would not approve things the government wanted, unless they were really extreme...which wouldn't happen; any such action would start her, already thin ice, to crack pretty quickly.


Sometimes, if the Primeminister's party has a strong majority in the house of Commons, that supports him, he can get whatever legislation he ...[text shortened]... ough Parliament; and he can ignore all the opposition parties and there thoughts all he wants.

I understand that the Royal Assent has always been given - I'm just stating it as part of the process.

I know what you mean about a PM with a large majority, but it is the large majority which makes them powerful, not the office of PM itself.

Originally posted by Redmike
I know what you mean about a PM with a large majority, but it is the large majority which makes them powerful, not the office of PM itself.

My thoughts are that the powers of the office of the PM are so underdefined, you can't say whether it is very powerful or not in itself, without looking at the other factors; the PM for example may or may not like to be controling over his/her cabinet.

Saying that though, usually the majority party usually does have a good majority, just look at Thatcher in the past and now Blair, both have had strong majorities; and are/were very powerful PMs.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
My thoughts are that the powers of the office of the PM are so underdefined, you can't say whether it is very powerful or not in itself, without looking at the other factors; the PM for example may or may not like to be controling over his/her cabinet.

Saying that though, usually the majority party usually does have a good majority, just look at Thatcher in the past and now Blair, both have had strong majorities; and are/were very powerful PMs.

But look at other parliaments, where the majority was smaller (or non-existent). Wilson, Heath etc.

It is no surprise that these are considered weaker PMs.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
The congressional intelligence committee and armed services committees have members from the majority and minority parties, with the majority having a larger proportion of members.

i think that all members of these committees get intelligence reports that congress as a whole does not.

As I understand it we have a similar situation in the UK.

Whilst Parliament is the highest authority, most of the work is done behind the scenes by commitees, which are comprised of members of the various parties in a ratio roughly equivalent to their ratio in the commons.

We badly need electoral reform in the UK. I understand the arguments for first past the post (less hung parliaments so far, and area representation), but my and many others vote has never been represented, as I haven't ever voted for the main parties.

Changing the current system for the comons to the lords (1st past), and then having PR for the commons, I think is the best way forward, but can't see it happening in the near future, as politicians blame everything else other than the sytem for voter apathy, and don't want to damage their powerbase.

Originally posted by london nick
As I understand it we have a similar situation in the UK.

Whilst Parliament is the highest authority, most of the work is done behind the scenes by commitees, which are comprised of members of the various parties in a ratio roughly equivalent to their ratio in the commons.

We badly need electoral reform in the UK. I understand the arguments for fir ...[text shortened]... rything else other than the sytem for voter apathy, and don't want to damage their powerbase.

I think that PR is more likely for the Commons now that it is already used for local elections and the Scottish and Welsh elections. Even though it is a multitude of different systems of PR.

Originally posted by Redmike
I think that PR is more likely for the Commons now that it is already used for local elections and the Scottish and Welsh elections. Even though it is a multitude of different systems of PR.

True, and that is a psoitive sign, however the current system favours lab and cons too much to give them an incentive to change. I hope I'm wrong, but until we have a hung parliament, with someone like the libs demanding reform in return for support, I can't see it happening any time soon.

As for the botched reform of the lords...

Originally posted by Redmike
I think that PR is more likely for the Commons now that it is already used for local elections and the Scottish and Welsh elections. Even though it is a multitude of different systems of PR.

What are your thoughts on the original question?

Originally posted by Palynka
What are your thoughts on the original question?

I think the position isn't that Europe doesn't care about the US's policies - it isn't about 'don't bother us'.

Rather, I think it is that trust has been lost. Whereas before many countries would have, instinctively been willing to support the US abroad, they're maybe less so now.