 |
| |
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:33
|
|
Inspired by Sava´s thread where he said that the English parliament is quite entertaining - I would agree from what I saw in the news here and there.
The German Bundestag is quite boring, or at least most of the debates there are. There seems to be a natural law here that the opposition always makes silly accusations against the government (same vice versa), however, if they are true or not doesn´t play the big role. There´s IMO no real debate, no real exchange of arguments - both sides usually blabber out their speeches, then they vote, and most of the time you know the result before simply by looking at the majorities.
Naive as I am, I think the major concern in a parliament shouldn´t be that a plan for new law or something else comes from the government or the opposition, but perhaps if such a plan makes sense..... 
There were some honorable exceptions, and some really great debates, though, but there could be much more. Also when I see older debates of the 50ies - 80ies I sometimes have the impression that the speeches were generally better back then in rhetorical aspects. However, I could be wrong since I hardly saw complete debates from those times, rather excerpts.
So teach me about your nation´s parliament(s). 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
The French Parliament is really boring.
Party discipline is very strong, and MPs blindly follow the President or the Prime minister (when the PM is not of the same party than the pres).
However, there are a few times where it's fun: weekly questions to the government (broadcasted on a major channel) are the opportunity for opposition MPs to yell a bit. And the votes on "sensitive" issues always shine.
When the left wing gov made the Civil Union a few years back (one that allowed for official gay unions), it first wasn't voted, because many left wing rural MPs were strangley sick on Vote Day
After the government made some order among the MP troops, we had a right wing nutter weave its Bible in the Parliament, and hold a several-hours long speech full of religious nonsense explaining why gays ought not to be recognized 
Today, with the Islamic scarf farce, especially the idiotic evolutions of yesterday, many right wingers will vote against the law, and quite a few left wingers stuck in the French revolution will wholeheartedly vote for it.
I expect the debates to be quite fun. The idiocy of the upcoming law just asks for it 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:33
|
|
I interned at the European Parliament, and I actually think it's one of the worst out there. The European core values of consensus have polluted the EP (which should be confrontational, as it should be a majority rule) as much as the other institutions, and not often will you find a MEP that will really raise his voice.
The Brits, like always, ar the most flamboyant (and often the most idiotic  ). We have also a sizable chunk of anti-abortion MEPs whose position on abortion doomed their chances to get any serious political role.
The fact that MEPs are powerless, and that any strong politician won't want to waste his time in this function, allows for the only fun in the EP: young / unexperienced / clumsy or outward insane MEPs that make blunders.
I remember the young Ilka Schröder: a green that was rampaging so much the Greens expelled her from her fraction, and sent her to the hardline left. I remember when she successfully had my MEP sign up a petition for a pro-Israeli seemingly serious petition, that was in the end manipulated by the Mossad 
An intern friend of mine worked for this French MEP that never comes to the EP; has two paid assistants: one who works, and one who sh@gs with him; owes his place at the EP only to influencial friends; and is pro Israel to an insane point
(for reference, the guy is called Zimeray, and he's the one who gets interviewed whenever th NYTimes writes something about antisemitism in France or Europe, WTG)
And of course, one of our favorite sports is to steal bottled water in the meeting rooms of opposite parties, just before the meeting takes place Gotta love this ambience, I felt like in kindergarten 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:33
|
|
The house of Commons in the UK parliament is crowded for some things and nearly empty for others. I sometimes have to attend so as to provide briefing to a minister about some legal aspect of the business he or she is conducting (we have little hidden away boxes for officials in each house and notes are passed back and forth - all very Dickensian). I am always a bit worried if I turn up to find a crowd and then relieved when it turns out they are there for the matter immediately before mine and the house empties as soon as the controvsial item is done.
The hours worked are silly and it is not unknown to find yourself there at 2 am or 3 am. Ridiculous to think that anything amounting to an inteligent scrutiny can take place at such hours.
Debate is reasonably politely conducted and members ofour house of lords have a tradition of showing almost exaggerated respect for each other. In the commons, party political point scoring rules the roost.
Although there is a particular stage through which bills pass - called the committee stage - when a smaller group subject the bill to line by line examination. And just sometimes points emerge at that stage which manage to focus on merits rather than on party political points. And it is usual for the government to find a few points raised by the opposition on which to give way.
Indeed we finesse this a little by actually writing in to some bills as they are introduced some minor points which we stand ready to change if and when challenged.
A factor which you only come to understand if you play an active part concerns the briefing carried out by pressure groups with an interest in the particular area. Say a bill with an environmental impact is progressing through our parliament. Well Greenpeace will have prepared a briefing on the ins and outs of it and circulated that briefing to all the MPs and Peers that they hope or expect to be sympathetic. But if a particular MP raises points from the briefing they do so as though the point were their own.
So an astute administrator will make it his or her business to get hold of all such briefing and to know the views of all pressure groups with an interest in their policy area. And a part of the briefing prepared for ministers will deal with all the points the pressure groups have, or are expeceted, to include.
When you first start on this type of work you can feel intimidated by the eminence of some of those who will enter debate with your minister. In my own case all our most senior judges sit in the House of Lords (they are called the Law Lords) and it is easy to imagine that they will raise points of law of great sophistication. But experience teaches you that, in fact, because you have been living with the ideas in play for some months whereas these, much brighter, people have only looked at the material during the last few hours or days, the points which they are likely to come up with will be rather superficial.
This can be satisfying in a sort of way.
Although you do, in the end, become a little disenchanted with the idea that the scrutiny to which new legislation is exposed is worth very much.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Croatia - very dull.
I am envious of the Japanese / Korean / what have you parliaments where they know martial arts and fight all the time. I could watch that!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:33
|
|
Every member of is able to use our parliament as a platform from which the so-called §20-questions on any issue can be presented to a relevant minister. I guess it's generally okay, but unfortunately, it allows for absurd situations to arise. On August 19 last year, one of the countless bright heads that constitute the Danish People's Party called upon the Minister of Justice to personally answer the question of whether or not there was any news regarding the recent abduction of Skipper the dog. The Minister of Justice.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
the us congress is usually boring. we don't have big fights like we did in the good ol' 19th century days, when rep. brooks beat the **** out of sen. sumner over some slavery thing. with a cane.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...rles_Sumner.htm
quote:
May 22, 1856
The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner
Cartoon Depiction of the Caning of Charles Sumner (New York Public Library)
On May 22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone. In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's entire history, a member of the House of Representatives entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat a senator into unconsciousness.
The inspiration for this clash came three days earlier when Senator Charles Sumner, a Massachusetts antislavery Republican, addressed the Senate on the explosive issue of whether Kansas should be admitted to the Union as a slave state or a free state. In his "Crime Against Kansas" speech, Sumner identified two Democratic senators as the principal culprits in this crime -- Stephen Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He characterized Douglas to his face as a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator." Andrew Butler, who was not present, received more elaborate treatment. Mocking the South Carolina senator's stance as a man of chivalry, the Massachusetts senator charged him with taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight -- I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."
Representative Preston Brooks was Butler's South Carolina kinsman. If he had believed Sumner to be a gentleman, he might have challenged him to a duel. Instead, he chose a light cane of the type used to discipline unruly dogs. Shortly after the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks entered the old chamber, where he found Sumner busily attaching his postal frank to copies of his "Crime Against Kansas" speech.
Moving quickly, Brooks slammed his metal-topped cane onto the unsuspecting Sumner's head. As Brooks struck again and again, Sumner rose and lurched blindly about the chamber, futilely attempting to protect himself. After a very long minute, it ended.
Bleeding profusely, Sumner was carried away. Brooks walked calmly out of the chamber without being detained by the stunned onlookers. Overnight, both men became heroes in their respective regions.
Surviving a House censure resolution, Brooks resigned, was immediately reelected, and soon thereafter died at age thirty-seven. Sumner recovered slowly and returned to the Senate, where he remained for another eighteen years. The nation, suffering from the breakdown of reasoned discourse that this event symbolized, tumbled onward toward the catastrophe of civil war. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:33
|
|
Well, all in all, I rather doubt that any European Parliament comes anywhere near as close to entertaining as a number of their counterparts in Asia.
Which nation was it that had the great punch-up a year or two ago?
Japan, Thailand? I don't quite remember...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-01-2004 21:05
Attachment: 
@ AC
|
_small.jpg){kind=link}