Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sheb]

Basically, the parliament has nothing to say about it.

Actually, the exact resolution called for the Parliament to have the right to decide where to meet. (With everyone understanding they're gonna stay in Brussels, because waffles and convenience. I really like the Frenchmen quotes:

"I am surprised that when Europe faces economic and social effects of the crisis, the European Parliament spends time ... on a legally doomed battle" ("Don't even try, we're not going to let you do anything productive anyway") -France's Europe Minister-

"Come on, it's only 10 cents per people per year!" -Philippe Bouland, French MEP-

Given that France only got 74 MEP, I wonder who are the others that voted against the resolution.

[shadenight123]

Hey, I have a better idea.
Europe is basically the Roman Empire without the lower side.
So, clearly, the capital of the European Parliament must be in Italy, and you all should obviously bow to the superior Italian Politics.
Eventually, you will.
Then we can start the crusades again, recapture the middle east, and reform the Glorious Empire.

On the plus side, if we can get enough Imperial Authority we can 'unite' all under the HRE.

Or maybe have the Byzantine reconquer us all.

Enough with the EUIV stuff.

Why isn't the idea of a 'single parliament' for the entirety of Europe valid? I mean, why give France, England, Italy, all countries in europe...a parliament and stuff when we're basically tying ourselves to one another economically and without borders? Enough with it!
A new capital, Europea! A new form of government! And all bound to the same codes of law!
State Religion: Strict Atheism - We don't want to favor anyone.

[Lagslayer]

State Religion: Strict Atheism - We don't want to favor anyone.

Wouldn't that just be favoring the atheists?

[Graknorke]

State Religion: Strict Atheism - We don't want to favor anyone.

Wouldn't that just be favoring the atheists?

Not really? If the state doesn't have any official religious practices then it isn't favouring anyone.

[Sheb]

Actually, regional and national governments and parliaments makes sense: some topics are best managed at sub-European level. (Maybe not at an Italian level, or at any level involving italians politicians, but that's another story  ). That's why countries like Belgium, Germany or the UK also have subnational parliaments to manage some things.

[shadenight123]

The Roman Empire managed with a single senate and 'Governors'.
We can have a Parliament composed of 200*Number of old countries.
And there is no 'sub'.
The Parliament is always in session.
The parliament members aren't 'superior' to the people. They are slaves to the people.
They remain in charge as long as they follow through with their motivations, and are immediately replaced if they do not.
The 'Vote' isn't cast repeatedly. As long as the number of people who votes the 'Sfiducia' remain inferior to the number of people who actually voted the parliament member, he or she remains in charge. (Sfiducia being the Italian way of saying 'Accuse of Lack of Trust' The government can be 'Sfiduciato' if enough parts refute the current way it has been built, to have the people recast their votes)
The moment the parliament member is 'sfiduciato', he can no longer apply. He is permanently cast off, and no one in his immediate familiar proximity can, at any one moment, claim a parliamentary seat.


The problem with democracy isn't getting there. It's making sure the fuckers you get on those damn chairs don't grow too comfortable.

And you know what's really funny? Italians politicians are the best.
Sure, they're horrible at their job...but we keep electing them!
Meaning they really might pose a serious threat to any European-only parliament. (I recall a situation with the UN stomping their foot down like a petulant child over the fact that there were far more italians in positions of power in Europe than...I think it was French or something like that)

[Sheb]

I found this on Facebook recently. Basically back-of-the-envellope calculation of all the energy that could be produced by renewables in the UK, with the goal of seeing whether a 100% renewable energy future is possible without deep cut in energy consumption. I'm only halway through, but it's pretty cool and easy to grasp, and with Owlbread always talking about becoming the Saudi Arabia or renewables, I though he at least would enjoy it.

[10ebbor10]

The Roman Empire managed with a single senate and 'Governors'.

Now you're oversimplifying it. The Roman governemental system had several major institutions. You had Senate, Tribunes, the comitia, the concilium, assemblies of all kind and shapes, and a whole army of magistrates and other functions. Additionally, many government systems were privatized, including taxes and other essential systems.

Additionally, Governors weren't very good managers.

We can have a Parliament composed of 200*Number of old countries.
And there is no 'sub'.
The Parliament is always in session.
The parliament members aren't 'superior' to the people. They are slaves to the people.
They remain in charge as long as they follow through with their motivations, and are immediately replaced if they do not.
The 'Vote' isn't cast repeatedly. As long as the number of people who votes the 'Sfiducia' remain inferior to the number of people who actually voted the parliament member, he or she remains in charge. (Sfiducia being the Italian way of saying 'Accuse of Lack of Trust' The government can be 'Sfiduciato' if enough parts refute the current way it has been built, to have the people recast their votes)
The moment the parliament member is 'sfiduciato', he can no longer apply. He is permanently cast off, and no one in his immediate familiar proximity can, at any one moment, claim a parliamentary seat.

Bad idea. This will lead to short term populist thinking, which is always nefast for a country. Besides scandals and the press will become the effective rulers of the country. Additionally, the association by family is completely pointless, and will not lead to a decently working system.

You want to hold your politicians responsible for what they do, not motivate them to do whatever they want to get away with as fast as possible and then bail-out.

Thirdly, your system appears to be based independent of population. Which means that, for example, the Benelux will have just as many representatives as Germany, France and the UK together.

The problem with democracy isn't getting there. It's making sure the fuckers you get on those damn chairs don't grow too comfortable.

And you know what's really funny? Italians politicians are the best.
Sure, they're horrible at their job...but we keep electing them!
Meaning they really might pose a serious threat to any European-only parliament. (I recall a situation with the UN stomping their foot down like a petulant child over the fact that there were far more italians in positions of power in Europe than...I think it was French or something like that)

I don't think the Italians are that much of a problem. The British, French and Dutch eurosceptics are more of a problem, as their main goal is to ruin every system they get acces too.

I found this on Facebook recently. Basically back-of-the-envellope calculation of all the energy that could be produced by renewables in the UK, with the goal of seeing whether a 100% renewable energy future is possible without deep cut in energy consumption. I'm only halway through, but it's pretty cool and easy to grasp, and with Owlbread always talking about becoming the Saudi Arabia or renewables, I though he at least would enjoy it.

Just skimming through, and I like this book.

Going to keep this page

[Helgoland]

State Religion: Strict Atheism - We don't want to favor anyone.

Wouldn't that just be favoring the atheists?

Not really? If the state doesn't have any official religious practices then it isn't favouring anyone.

Well, that would be the state operate on agnostic principles. Which is pretty much what we have now.

[hector13]

State Religion: Strict Atheism - We don't want to favor anyone.

Wouldn't that just be favoring the atheists?

Not really? If the state doesn't have any official religious practices then it isn't favouring anyone.

Well, that would be the state operate on agnostic principles. Which is pretty much what we have now.

Nearly. I think the UK PM is still not allowed to be Catholic, hence Blair waiting until he was ousted before converting.

Not sure what would happen if the leader of a party was Catholic and said party won the election, though. Minor constitutional crisis perhaps?

There is also the issue that, given the Christian history of Western Europe, there is likely to be a slight bias toward that in decision making. Whether or not that's cultural or religious, however, is up for debate.

[lordcooper]

Minor constitutional crisis perhaps?

Hard to have one of those without a constitution.

[Graknorke]

State Religion: Strict Atheism - We don't want to favor anyone.

Wouldn't that just be favoring the atheists?

Not really? If the state doesn't have any official religious practices then it isn't favouring anyone.

Well, that would be the state operate on agnostic principles. Which is pretty much what we have now.

Do I need to pull out the graph? I'll pull out the graph.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Atheism and agnosticism go together pretty well.

[lordcooper]

Graknorke must be right.  How else would s/he have a picture?

[Graknorke]

Graknorke must be right.  How else would s/he have a picture?

But it's a dictionary argument. I should clearly use links to the OED, not a picture. I apologise.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic?q=agnostic
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist?q=atheist

[10ebbor10]

Truly it all depends on what they mean with strict atheism. For example, is the state allowed to sponsor religious* schools, or other religious inspired organization. I mean, it's the difference between a government that doesn't do anything that has anything to do with religion, or a government that frankly, doesn't care about it and doesn't factor it in anywhere.


*Think religious as in the context of most European schools. So completely similar to a normal school, with the exception that you don't get to choose which religion you get for religion classes, and that you have to suffer through the grand total of 3 masses. (Start, Christmas and ending.)