RB> Did anyone actually challenge the authority of those politicians in RB> court?
Of course not There is a constitution which deals with that.
RB> Compare that with the system in Switzerland. Like day and night.
True. There's no free transfer of goods, there's no unchecked crossing of the border, no single currency, serving in the military until you're q grandfather. I tried to aquire some property there, couldn't ... had to be swiss. For an outsider, Switzerland is a nice country as long as you have money.
And ask the Swiss, they'll have complaints too ... maybe some are linked here.
RB> And now you're in a position of having no effective government, since the RB> Flemish and Walloons can't agree on anything except to fight one another. RB> And _that_ is a government?
See? You live in a neighbouring country and even got that wrong.
Our Prime Minister is a Walloon and doing a pretty good job, so was the previous one. The so-called problem only arises in times of elections in the minds of certain politicians.
RB> So what? Any government that willfully ignores the opinion of it's RB> population is doomed.
That is all too easy. In that case the richest party buys the most airtime and influences the masses the most ... masses of people usually are clueless and only follow the chant of someone up front.
RB> A "single vote" is not such a simple thing to arrange as you may think. A RB> large group of parliament must first vote for it, and only then may RB> parliament as a whole vote on the measure. You're splitting hairs.
If in a parliament a vote of confidence is organised, meaning the sitting government asks for a confirmation and a majority issues a simple "no", that's it. The American system that's rusted in you doesn't know that thing.
RB> For your infoprmation, the German "Greens" were in the government and RB> still enjoy the status of an "established" party.
Same here, and they blew their chances coming to the reality that a political party is something different than a pressure group. When Greens are on TV here, people just chqnge the channel.
RB> We aren't. And when people are obliged to vote, that automatically raises RB> the hackles of many, and they will vote for any opposition that arises.
Even that is untrue. It's the same people, the same faces, the same rethoric.
RB>WD> The UK about 2 years ago finished paying-off its war debt for WW1 ... RB>WD> they paid for 96 years. The bill for WW2 is even more attrocious ... RB>WD> plus there's the human cost.
RB> Which has _what_ to do with the subject?
Everything. The EU has "avoiding another war" as the cornerstone of its creation. All the other grand ideas came later.
RB| Germany only paid off it's debts RB> from WWII in the late 1990s. So what?
And they never even thanked the American taxpayer for that. On their own it would've been impossible ... the purpose was to create a strong Germany as a roadblock for communism.
RB>WD> Look at what the USA got itself into, and Afghanistan and Iraq are RB>WD> only regional conflicts. That debt will never be paid in full.
RB> So what? Is there currently a civil war in the States that I haven't RB> heard about?
It's a single country ... apples and orranges.
RB> Which they are not, at least not under the present pseudo-democratic RB> systems.
Don't like the system? Change it, and all change comes from within.
Send me an email when you finished changing Germany.
RB) And here I also exepmt Switzerland, which is, for me, a great RB> and desirable exception. If more countries would take this example to RB> heart, there would be less dissatisfaction in the populations. But that, RB> of course, would mean that the powers-that-be would have to sacrifice RB> some of their power (to those who actually elected them!), and thus is RB> impossible in countries like Germany - and Belgium.
A politician who gets elected serves his/her constituency. They serve, hugging power is something else.
