Thread: President of Europe is a Belgian

Originally Posted by Navaja

Didn't know who this Herman guy was, but luckily found this article

Herman Van Rompuy is the 'shrewd master of the shabby compromise' | Mail Online

now I know

Wow. Is it typical for you to judge someone solely on the contents of 1 article from a questionable news source?
You admit to knowing nothing about him, and rather than having a quick look at wikipedia or another source that is more or less neutral, you pick a news rag that contains nothing but sensationalit and judgemental right wing drivel.

I stopped reading at "the French of Wallonia in the South"... I was laughing so hard that I couldn't breathe anymore.

Originally Posted by Bruno

A European president should be looking after European interests, and not be a lapdog for the US like Blair was.

I certainly he is man enough to do it! I think it's pathetic how so many other nations copy what the US does. Just cause it's done here, doesn't make it right...just look what's happened since January

Originally Posted by Bruno

Wow. Is it typical for you to judge someone solely on the contents of 1 article from a questionable news source?
You admit to knowing nothing about him, and rather than having a quick look at wikipedia or another source that is more or less neutral, you pick a news rag that contains nothing but sensationalit and judgemental right wing drivel.

Well, there's only two choices, right-wing or left-wing drivel, now you pretend that people read what you prefer.
There's people in this world capable of making their own analysis and come up with their own opinion.

Originally Posted by Navaja

Well, there's only two choices, right-wing or left-wing drivel, now you pretend that people read what you prefer.
There's people in this world capable of making their own analysis and come up with their own opinion.

True. I should hope everybody does this.
I should also hope that IF they know squat about something (like the person whom I responded to acknowledged), they don't accept the first thing they see but get their facts from different sources.

If I didn't know Obama and I stumbled upon his coverage by FOX, would that impression be correct, or would it be a good idea to get facts and opinions from different sources? Switch Obama for McCain and FOX for it's democratic twin if needed.

THAT is my point.

Originally Posted by Navaja

Well, there's only two choices, right-wing or left-wing drivel, now you pretend that people read what you prefer.
There's people in this world capable of making their own analysis and come up with their own opinion.

Seriously, the Mail is a hate mongering rag of dubious veracity. It happens to be right-wing drivel, but drivel is drivel. You're better off with Wikipedia.

Question: Seeing as Australia is not a republic, and we still have a governer general (who can and has sacked the prime minister in the not to distant past)who is appointed by the Queen of England and England is in the EU. Does that technically make Australia part of the EU?

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

It's slightly more complicated than that, I think. European law is so immensely complicated that it literally takes a degree in European law to understand the EU (or its predecessors). Europe as we know it was shaped by men with visions (and the understandable desire of its peoples to keep my people from occupying then every 20 years), whose ideas were turned into laws. I'm a political scientist, but I do not understand the EU, at least not to a degree which enables me to take informed decisions. And that's probably the biggest problem: you simply have to believe that politicians and lawyers will get it right. For a nation like England with its high degree of independence, that is likely a lot harder to digest than for, say, Germans, who are traditionally more obedient.

I have only just looked back on this thread.


"you simply have to believe that politicians and lawyers will get it right"

What an extraordinary thing to say or believe!

I seem to recall that Hitler was a "politician" originally elected by the people.

I understand the vision of Europe as a means of avoiding future wars. But that was not why the British people joined the EU. We joined because we believed it to be in our economic interest.

Fear of war and terrorism should never be allowed to determine the way we live. It is the appeasement of evil.

As to believing politicians will get it right - what an idea! We may as well live on another planet. Politicians are motivated by many things. Sadly, the most compelling is a love of power.

I was a local authority Chief Executive. I can tell you this: on all the truly important decisions, the biggest single factor that determined the way a politician voted was the effect on his party, not the people.

Do you seriously believe that politicians in general put the people before their party?

I would love to live in a world where I could trust politicians. But I don't. Yet. They must be subjected at all times to rigorous scrutiny. Thank goodness for a free press. The media are not perfect but they are our protection against the excesses of politicians.

Originally Posted by BeBerlin

you simply have to believe that politicians and lawyers will get it right.

Wow!!...Just wow!! Did you really say that Robin?

Originally Posted by Fido

I was a local authority Chief Executive. I can tell you this: on all the truly important decisions, the biggest single factor that determined the way a politician voted was the effect on his party, not the people.

Do you seriously believe that politicians in general put the people before their party?

That matches my first-hand experience in several political institutions as well... you vote the party line on important things, if you vote against it you'll need a new party before the next election cycle. "The people" are only important when you are in the minority or when the vote has no impact on the bottom line.