News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

The shit in Spain falls mainly in the fan

Started by celedhring, September 06, 2017, 02:44:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Valmy

Quote from: The Larch on December 21, 2020, 05:47:43 AM
The King's Christmas message this year is going to be a fun one. Do you think he'll even mention his father?

The Spanish do this to? Is this some kind of thing for all Europe? Did Franz Joseph and Wilhelm II have Christmas messages?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Sheilbh

Quote from: Valmy on December 21, 2020, 03:59:39 PM
The Spanish do this to? Is this some kind of thing for all Europe? Did Franz Joseph and Wilhelm II have Christmas messages?
I think so - I think the monarchs and non head of government President's do it - the President of Ireland does an annual Christmas message.

But the head of government presidents do too I think - Putin does a speech and a two hour press conference for Christmas/New Year. I think the French President does a New Year message too.

The King of Sweden criticised Sweden's response to covid in this year's address.
Let's bomb Russia!

The Larch

Yeah, I think it's a fairly common Head of State tradition. Over here even regional presidents get in on the action.  :P

celedhring

Regional presidents do New Year's though.

Puigdemont keeps doing one from Belgium every year  :lol:

The Larch

Quote from: celedhring on December 21, 2020, 05:15:19 PM
Regional presidents do New Year's though.

Puigdemont keeps doing one from Belgium every year  :lol:

Of course, they wouldn't really counter-program the King on Christmas Eve. Except a couple of them who might be tempted.  :P

Josquius

#1430
Quote from: Tamas on November 03, 2020, 04:40:21 AM
I am oath-bound to declare the British monarchy as a great exception to this but:

the whole monarchy thing is just silly in this day and age. Legal immunity due to birth? That is incredibly incompatible with even the most generic standards of our societies. Same with the bruhaha about Prince Harry not wanting to be a bred-for PR person. Nobody would dare proposing we should raise children for one specific lifetime job, yet that's what royal families are doing.

Except the British royals of course. Long may they reign.
I dunno, I get it. There's the whole continuity and apolitical factor which is rather nice.

What I don't get is countries that spend even more money on elected presidents to do exactly the same job of having dinners with foreign president's and opening hospitals and other such stuff. Seems a bit useless without the celebrity from birth factor.

Maybe we could have a halfway system where you have to be an wizened celebrity without a history in politics and then you're elected for a 10 year term?
But doubt Judi Dench would take the job.
██████
██████
██████

Admiral Yi

Which country spends more on a president than Britain spends on the royals?

Josquius

#1432
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2020, 06:00:25 PM
Which country spends more on a president than Britain spends on the royals?
Germany is the typical example.
May well be France and some others too.
██████
██████
██████

Admiral Yi

You think the German president costs more than 67 million pounds?  :blink:

The French president is non-ceremonial.

Sheilbh

Quote from: Tyr on December 21, 2020, 05:55:14 PM
What I don't get is countries that spend even more money on elected presidents to do exactly the same job of having dinners with foreign president's and opening hospitals and other such stuff. Seems a bit useless without the celebrity from birth factor.
Disagree - they normally have more constitutional powers than a monarch because they have democratic legitimacy. It varies across Europe but all mostly ceremonial Presidents have more constitutional powers than a UK monarch (practically speaking) from the very strong (I think Italy) to the quite weak (Ireland) - so they can do things like, for example, referring bills to the courts before signing them or having quite a lot of influence in coalition formation.

Only some are actually directly elected a lot are elected by a special convention or the parliament. So they have some democratic legitimacy but don't have an equivalent mandate as the legislature/government.

Also I think they are able to be ceremonial in an important way - I think it is good to separate the "state" from the "government", for things like memorials, state dinners etc. Sometimes more political figures are good at the ceremonial stuff of the state (Cameron was surprisingly good - I remember his response to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry), sometimes they're not (see Trump - or for that mattter Johnson or Berlusconi). Plus they can often come from a slightly off-kilter political background which makes them slightly different, more substantial figures - Joachim Gauck in Germany, Mary Robinson and Michael D Higgins in Ireland - or just the fact they're not going to be competing to be PM lets them take on an honest broker/kingmaker role - like Napolitano in Italy.

And the "cheapness" of the Royal Family where fund the costs of their public role is still quite expensive and probably cross-subsidised by the income from their billions of pounds of private property (the Duchy of Lancaster for the Queen and Duchy of Cornwall for Charles), which they don't pay corporation tax on because they're the crown <_<
Let's bomb Russia!

The Larch

Besides, a monarchy costs way more than their stated budget.

Josquius

You think the queen costs 67 million pounds? :blink:
██████
██████
██████

Sheilbh

#1437
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 21, 2020, 06:10:15 PM
You think the German president costs more than 67 million pounds?  :blink:

The French president is non-ceremonial.
It's normally lower. It's been higher for the past few years because the state is part-funding a refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.

QuoteYou think the queen costs 67 million pounds? :blink:
Her budget for this year is about £45 million with an extra £35million for the renovation of Buckingham Palace - not a million miles off £67miillion.

Edit: And I should say I've no issue with spending money to renovate Buckingham Palace (though not her private residences) because it's a state building and we are ridiculous about this. Parliament's put off spending money on urgently needed renovation works on its building meaning its constantly got leaks and holes in the roof and unsafe wiring. Also because they've not spent the requested money in decades (for fear of "MPs spend £xmillion on themselves" headlines) the building (a world heritage site :bleeding:) is now at risk of a serious accident that could burn the whole place down and the renovation will cost multiple billions instead :bleeding: :ultra:
Let's bomb Russia!


grumbler

The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!