An assault on democracy ?

Generali

zagubov wrote: »

I'd always understood that their lack of an aristocracy to sponsor artists was the reason for their absence from Europe's artistic canon, but that this freed up money for investment in business and industry.

Don't know much about their history either, but i've heard you could study European history for years without them being mentioned once.

I read Swiss history on Wikipedia. Don't bother, nothing of note has ever happened in Switzerland.

Generali

An open letter to AEP from a Portugeezer:

https://portugueseinsurgent.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/open-letter-to-mr-pritchard-of-the-telegraph/

Dird

Democracy is overrated. Of course plebs are going to vote for free money rather than being worse off. The decision is probably for the best or they'll need a much quicker, larger bailout than they'll still probably need

Thrugelmir

zagubov wrote: »

But at far greater cost, spending a lot more money on him/her than the Swiss.

Great tourist attraction..........

zagubov

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Great tourist attraction..........

I think what gen said earlier on was true; monarchies made the most interesting countries with the highest of high culture. Also the most insane political thought. If you visited Vienna in the early 20th century you'd have Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler and Tito almost bumping into each other they lived so close together.

Got to hand it to the Swiss. They may have not produced tons of art but they developed an affordable political system with impressive local democracy.

If it now turns out they're not immune to corruption, well, economy makes a great servant but a terrible god.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I think what gen said earlier on was true; monarchies made the most interesting countries with the highest of high culture. Also the most insane political thought. If you visited Vienna in the early 20th century you'd have Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler and Tito almost bumping into each other they lived so close together.

Got to hand it to the Swiss. They may have not produced tons of art but they developed an affordable political system with impressive local democracy.

If it now turns out they're not immune to corruption, well, economy makes a great servant but a terrible god.

it would seem to me that there are many countries without constitutional monarchies that are basket cases: well not as rich as Switzerland.

Generali

Some further clarification on the 'goings on' in Portugal:

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/dan-hannan-and-owen-jones-are-both-wrong-on-portugal-6c3e38b9a5e8#.xs69ndj54

In the elections of the 4th, no single party secured a majority. The incumbent right-wing Social Democrats (PSD) and their allies the CDS won the most votes and the most seats, but failed to win an overall majority. Their main challengers, the Socialists (PS) improved their vote and seat share, but the big winners were the Left Bloc (BE).
Prior to the elections, the PS had not discussed a pre-electoral alliance with the Left Bloc or the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP). However, once it became clear that these parties had won a majority of the vote (50.75%) and a majority of seats (122 of 230), negotiations began.
The Portuguese constitution gives the President of the Republic the task of “appoint the Prime Minister after consulting the parties with seats in Assembly of the Republic and in the light of the electoral results” (Art. 187).
The current President is Anibal Cavaco Silva, the most successful leader the right-wing PSD has ever had.
On the 22nd, the President gave the leader of the PSD, Pedro Passos Coelho, the task of forming the next government, as some had expected he might.
In the speech explaining this decision, the President explained that in all previous elections, the task of forming the government went to the party with the most seats, even where that party did not have a legislative majority. He gave the example of the 2009 election, where the PS formed a government.
The President went on to say:
“However, the appointment of the Prime Minister by the President of the Republic does no finalize the process of forming a Government. The final decision belongs to Parliament or, more precisely, to the Members of Parliament. The rejection of the Government Programme, by an absolute majority of Members of Parliament, implies its resignation”.

martinsurrey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The same can happen in the UK yes. But you are relying on technicalities to ignore the real events going on here.

Doubt it would though - it's crossing a line that would be too controversial to cross. However, in the name of protecting the EU it seems it's no longer a problem.

last night was the closest we'll get to this in the UK I feel

Un-elected peers from parties not aligned with the elected government going against 100's of years of convention.

and then having the audacity to say

"Fellow Labour MP Owen Smith, the party's shadow work and pensions spokesman, said the Lords had "spoken for the country"."

No, the elected commons speak for the country, the people who elected them, and they have voted 3 times in favour of the measure.

Generali

Is the OP going to change the title to, " Portuguese President Follows Constitution in the Normal Way"? That is what actually happened rather than what the excitable AEP wishes happened.

elantan

Generali wrote: »

Is the OP going to change the title to, " Portuguese President Follows Constitution in the Normal Way"? That is what actually happened rather than what the excitable AEP wishes happened.

No ... but if u want I will try and put a question mark in ?