RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,418
Posts: 5,506,468
Members: 25,130
Currently online: 402
Newest member: 2278

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 2 2014, 06:04 AM   #91
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Starship of the Federation President

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
[Re: possession of a military as one of the defining traits of a state]
From 1775 through 1785 there existed the Continental Navy, this military force was collectively possessed by the (then) thirteen separate countries that formed the united States of America.
And I would grant that to you if it weren't for the possession of a single Federation military plus all the other traits of statehood possessed by the Federation.

Any one of these traits might not be determinative of statehood. But when all of them combine, the preponderance of evidence just doesn't support the idea of Federation-as-alliance.

[Re: when have we ever seen the Federation let its members take the lead?]
That one's easy.

The Undiscovered Country, where the Planet Vulcan instructed the Federation Council to opened a dialogue and negotiate with the Klingon High Council.
This is never stated in the film.

Another would be Journey to Babel where the Federation Members made the decision as to whether a new Member would be added to the Federation. The decision wasn't made by the Council.
This one I'll concede; it's pretty obvious that Sarek is taking instructions from the Vulcan government, not the Federation government. But the episode also seems to be saying that Coridan's admission is causing a constitutional crisis, what with the reference to delegates being at each other's throats and with the conflicting economic interests the Tellarites have in continuing to exploit the Coridanites vs. the Vulcans' desire to see Coridanite wealth administered for the general welfare under UFP law.

The Babel conference in "Journey to Babel" seems to have been an example of the Ministerial Conferences that Enterprise: Rise of the Federation establishes to have been one of the organs of Federation governance early in its history. These conferences seem to have disappeared as an instrument of UFP governance by the 24th century, however.

Re: the idea that it's good for your head of government to be vulnerable to assassination.

I really don't see how democracy can function if no one who runs for office can be confident that they and their loved ones won't be subject to murder if they make a decision someone doesn't like.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2 2014, 06:35 PM   #92
Shawnster
Fleet Captain
 
Shawnster's Avatar
 
Location: Clinton, OH
Re: Starship of the Federation President

T'Girl wrote: View Post

From 1775 through 1785 there existed the Continental Navy, this military force was collectively possessed by the (then) thirteen separate countries that formed the united States of America.

Multiple nations, joined in an alliance, with a single Navy.
To carry this ball further... During this time period and after, the US Constitution was crafted to limit the concept of a standing army. The government could not, constitutionally, form a standing army for longer than two years and was not able to appropriate money for army use. The idea of a standing army was a source of constitutional debate.

The original intent of the United States, as envisioned by the founders between 1775 and 1787 was for a collection of independent states that formed a united alliance. The central government was intended to be weaker than the individual state governments. When the constitution was created in 1787, the power shifted more toward a stronger central or federal government.

The tension between federal and state power grew until the 1850s and 1860s when a tipping point was reached. Between December 1860 and April 1861, 11 states seceded from the Union to form the Confederate States of America. Their goal was to form a governmental structure that more closely matched what they felt the founders intended - a weak federal government with stronger state governments. A state's law would supersede any law the federal government would pass. 2 states, Kentucky and Missouri, declared neutrality in the American Civil War. The fact that these states could declare neutrality in a civil war further illustrates that the United States at this time was viewed and operated under the concept of smaller, independent governments banned together in a common union.

By the end of the Civil War in 1865, any notions of independent states or that the states had more authority than the federal government were done away with. The United States changed from a collection of states into one body, one federal organized government. Before the Civil War the United States was referred to as a plural. "The United States are doing this or that..." After the Civil War, the United States became a singular. "The United States is doing this or that..." This is reflected in documents and newspaper reports from before and after the war.

When the United States was formed it was governed by the Articles of Confederation (proposed in 1776, agreed upon by Congress in 1777 and enacted 1781). Between 1718 and 1787, 8 men served as president of the United States, all appointed by Congress, not elected by the people.

Jefferson Davis was the first and only president of the Confederate States of America established in 1861. The CSA constitution, modeled after the US Constitution, allowed for a president to be elected by popular vote.

So, it's possible to have a federal government that views and treats it's individual member states as superior or more powerful than the whole. It's possible for such a federal government to have a president. That president can either be appointed by congress or elected in a popular election of the people.

It's also possible that, in 100 years or so, such a loose confederation of independent states can transform into a unified body where the federal government is more powerful than the member states. Perhaps the Federation of Kirk's days worked much differently than the Federation of Picard's days.
Shawnster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2 2014, 07:24 PM   #93
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Starship of the Federation President

Which brings me back to an earlier point the EU might be a better example to use. It started out as a trade alliance before becomming more of a political alliance. The questions is will it become a Federation of States?
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2 2014, 08:53 PM   #94
Rķu rķu, chķu
Fleet Admiral
 
Rķu rķu, chķu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Rķu rķu, chķu's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship of the Federation President

Timo wrote: View Post
I mean, come on, as unpopular as some Presidents have been lately, nobody with any shred of human decency should ever want them to be assassinated. That's barbaric and inhuman.
How so? They are directly responsible for thousands of deaths - surely their own life has no real moral basis for being more sacrosanct than that of their victims.
That does not follow.

All life is sacred. All life must be protected. All human beings must be given due process at all times. The simple fact is, nobody deserves to be killed - not ever.
__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart
Rķu rķu, chķu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2 2014, 11:25 PM   #95
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Starship of the Federation President

But by such token, the job of President cannot even exist, as it so regularly involves taking lives.

No culture known to history has categorically condemned the taking of life against the victim's will. No culture believes or has believed in the sanctity of human life, not in the level of legislation, nor in the level of customs and mores. Individuals may follow such ideals, sometimes even when challenged, but nobody has managed to build a society on such.

And other individuals may see killing the President as a necessary step in preserving lives, overcoming their sanctity beliefs this once for the greater good. But if the President believes his/her/its own death should be wrong on some fundamental level relating to the sanctity of life, then he/she/it is not entitled to take lethal measures to protect his/her/its life, either... Which means the measures taken will be ineffective for the most part. If the President OTOH believes he/she/it should not die violently simply because Presidents shouldn't, then there's a reason to kill the bastard already...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2 2014, 11:28 PM   #96
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Starship of the Federation President

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Which brings me back to an earlier point the EU might be a better example to use. It started out as a trade alliance before becomming more of a political alliance. The questions is will it become a Federation of States?
Hmmm, and if the EU basically "falls apart" will it still be a good example of the Federation?

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 12:03 AM   #97
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Starship of the Federation President

But the EU isn't a Federation. Some might like it to be, but at the moment it isn't. At the moment it's a collection of Nation States who have an ecomic allinace, A monetary alliance (in parts), Laws passed by the EU Parliament supercede national laws. But as a comparrison against say the UFP which is an alliance of planets, surely the EU as an allaince of Nations is a reasonable analogy.

But this forum or more accurately this thread is not the place for a debate on the relative pro and cons of the EU.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 12:03 AM   #98
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Starship of the Federation President

Shawnster wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
From 1775 through 1785 there existed the Continental Navy, this military force was collectively possessed by the (then) thirteen separate countries that formed the united States of America.

Multiple nations, joined in an alliance, with a single Navy.
To carry this ball further... During this time period and after, the US Constitution was crafted to limit the concept of a standing army. The government could not, constitutionally, form a standing army for longer than two years and was not able to appropriate money for army use. The idea of a standing army was a source of constitutional debate.
And there are sovereign states today that do not maintain a standing army -- the Republic of Costa Rica, for instance. This doesn't mean that possession of a military is not a trait of statehood.

The original intent of the United States, as envisioned by the founders between 1775 and 1787 was for a collection of independent states that formed a united alliance.
Well, that was the intent behind the Articles of Confederation. But it's important to remember that the "Founding Fathers" were not a politically united group with a common agenda. Some wanted the newly-independent states to be a single sovereign state; some others even wanted to sunder the Articles and have them be completely independent, with no alliance whatsoever.

The central government was intended to be weaker than the individual state governments. When the constitution was created in 1787, the power shifted more toward a stronger central or federal government.
Yes -- because they discovered that trying to give state-like authorities to an alliance ultimately doesn't work. Either the alliance will evolve into a sovereign state -- which is what happened to the American Confederation with the adoption of the Constitution -- or it will collapse.

The tension between federal and state power grew until the 1850s and 1860s when a tipping point was reached. Between December 1860 and April 1861, 11 states seceded from the Union to form the Confederate States of America. Their goal was to form a governmental structure that more closely matched what they felt the founders intended - a weak federal government with stronger state governments.
Revisionist nonsense. Those same southern states, when they had control of the federal government, were perfectly willing to come down hard on the side of federal power instead of states rights when it was a case of free states trying to resist enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, or to grant freedom to slaves who stepped foot in free state soil. The armed raids Southern slavers led into free state territory puts lie to the notion that they actually believed in states' rights.

And those same state leaders, upon seceding from the Union, literally issued declarations of the causes of secession, explicitly saying that they seceded from the union because of their belief that the new Lincoln administration was a threat to the institution of slavery. Hell, the Confederate States Vice President gave a big speech about how white supremacy and black slavery were the cornerstones of Confederate society.

The South did not secede because of "states' rights." It seceded because its governments were controlled by slave lords who profited from the forced labor of a third of the South's population.

A state's law would supersede any law the federal government would pass. 2 states, Kentucky and Missouri, declared neutrality in the American Civil War. The fact that these states could declare neutrality in a civil war further illustrates that the United States at this time was viewed and operated under the concept of smaller, independent governments banned together in a common union.
No, it proves that there was a civil war going on and that some state governments tried to avoid taking a side.

When the United States was formed it was governed by the Articles of Confederation (proposed in 1776, agreed upon by Congress in 1777 and enacted 1781). Between 1718 and 1787, 8 men served as president of the United States, all appointed by Congress, not elected by the people.
1718? I hope you mean 1778.

And, no, nobody served as President of the United States between 1778 and 1787. Those men were serving as President of the United States in Congress Assembled. "The United States in Congress Assembled" being the full formal name of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

In other words -- these men were serving as Presidents of the Congress. They were the Congress's presiding officers, the equivalent of our modern Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore of the Senate. They were not the Presidents of the United States of America, and they were not the heads of state or government. No such office exist; they were just the presiding officers of the legislature.

Jefferson Davis was the first and only president of the Confederate States of America established in 1861. The CSA constitution, modeled after the US Constitution, allowed for a president to be elected by popular vote.
Don't be absurd. Jefferson Davis wasn't elected by popular vote, because one-third of the Confederacy's population (the one-third held in chains) was not allowed to vote.

(ETA #2: And that is to say nothing of the fact that fully half of both the Confederate States's and the United States's populations were not allowed to vote, being women. Neither government was an actual democracy in the 1860s; both were explicitly built on an anti-democratic patriarchy, and the Confederate States was explicitly built on an anti-democratic white supremacy. End edit #2.)

If you're looking for an example of a President who serves as both head of state and head of government but who is elected by the legislature rather than by popular vote, your best bet would be to look at the post-Apartheid Republic of South Africa. The President of the Republic of South Africa, starting with Nelson Mandela, definitely serves as both head of state and head of government, but is elected by the National Assembly, the lower house of the Parliament. However, in citing South Africa's example, it is important to understand that this is a historical anomaly arising from the modern presidency having evolved out of the office of prime minister during the Apartheid era.

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Which brings me back to an earlier point the EU might be a better example to use. It started out as a trade alliance before becomming more of a political alliance. The questions is will it become a Federation of States?
I think the European Union is a good example in cultural terms, but not in political terms. Partially this is because I think the E.U. is going through a protracted crisis as a result of it and its peoples not being willing to decide if it should be a sovereign state or a mere alliance. They have delegated to it some of the powers of a sovereign state and undermined their own nations' sovereignties in the process -- and this has led to a huge democratic deficit. To wit:

Greece being unable to meet its debts by devaluing its currency and just biting the bullet and printing more money before then building its economy back up, because they don't have control of their own monetary policy. This has resulted in the regional hegemon, Germany, being able to essentially dictate policy to the Greek government if they want to continue to have access to E.U. loans -- violating the democratic will of the Greek people and forcing the Greek government to essentially make policy with a German gun to its head.

So you have an institution with very little democratic input in its own constitutional arrangements, dictating policy in violation of the democratic will of one of its constituent polities, when that constituent polity has nominally not surrendered its sovereignty. It's a anti-democratic nightmare.

This whole problem could have been avoided if the E.U. were either clearly an alliance to whom sovereign powers had not been delegated -- allowing Greece to devalue its currency and start paying off its debts -- or if the E.U. were clearly its own sovereign state with its own democratic legislature and executive -- giving Greece and other E.U. polities in similar situations access to the full resources of the E.U. the same way Mississippi has access to the full resources of the United States.

So, no, I don't think the E.U. has it currently stands is a good model. Not only are the most powerful E.U. institutions themselves unelected, but the E.U. is essentially acting right now to subvert the democratic process in its member states. It's become a tool of German hegemony rather than an embodiment of European unity.

(ETA: I hasten to add that I am not "anti-Europe" per se. Rather, I am anti-current E.U. arrangement. I would tend to prefer to see the E.U. evolve into its own sovereign, democratic, federal state, with its own elected Parliament, its own elected President, its own elected Prime Minister, its own Supreme Court, its own Constitution, its own military, etc.)
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 12:04 AM   #99
Shawnster
Fleet Captain
 
Shawnster's Avatar
 
Location: Clinton, OH
Re: Starship of the Federation President

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
I mean, come on, as unpopular as some Presidents have been lately, nobody with any shred of human decency should ever want them to be assassinated. That's barbaric and inhuman.
How so? They are directly responsible for thousands of deaths - surely their own life has no real moral basis for being more sacrosanct than that of their victims.
That does not follow.

All life is sacred. All life must be protected. All human beings must be given due process at all times. The simple fact is, nobody deserves to be killed - not ever.
However, this sounds like the perfect description of Klingon politics. Or Mirror Earth.
Shawnster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 12:14 AM   #100
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Starship of the Federation President

I point out previously that city councils elect their own presidents.

A larger scale precedent of how the Federation Council would elect Jaresh-Inyo as their presiding officer would be the example of President of the Continental Congress, he was the presiding officer of the Continental Congress, a member of Congress elected by the other delegates to serve as the moderator during meetings of Congress.

(Imagine that, the President being elected by the members of the body he presided over)

The Continental Congress met from 1774 to 1789, first with the representatives of the thirteen colonies, later representatives of the thirteen separate nations.

Fourteen men served as the President of Congress.

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 12:19 AM   #101
Sci
Admiral
 
Sci's Avatar
 
Location: "Don't blame me--I voted for Jaresh-Inyo!"
Re: Starship of the Federation President

T'Girl wrote: View Post
I point out previously that city councils elect their own presidents.
Some do. Others have the position of municipal council president be popularly elected along with the other municipal councillors. Just depends on the municipality.

A larger scale precedent of how the Federation Council would elect Jaresh-Inyo as their presiding officer would be the example of President of the Continental Congress, he was the presiding officer of the Continental Congress, a member of Congress elected by the other delegates to serve as the moderator during meetings of Congress.

(Imagine that, the President being elected by the members of the body he presided over)

The Continental Congress met from 1774 to 1789, first with the representatives of the thirteen colonies, later representatives of the thirteen separate nations.

Fourteen men served as the President of Congress.
Yes, but being the presiding officer of a legislature is a very different thing from being the executive of an entire sovereign state.

It is not impossible that the Federation President is elected by the Council, but you don't usually hear the term "run for" used in the contexts of such offices. "Run for" carries connotations of making campaign stops to raise one's support among the general population.

It is, however, possible that the elections are like those of the Republic of South Africa, in which it is understood that the legislature will not elect as head of government a candidate who is not supported by a majority of the populace.

ETA: There is, however, no canonical reference whatsoever to the Federation President being elected by the Council, only to him being "democratically elected." I find it highly implausible to imagine they meant indirectly elected. There is also no canonical evidence that the Federation President routinely serves as the presiding officer of the Federation Council, though he seemed to be doing so in the exceptional circumstances that constituted Kirk's court-martial in TVH.

The novels have firmly established the Federation President to be popularly elected, and that the Federation President does routinely serve as the Council's presiding officer. End edit.

Of course, as the Republic of South Africa proves, having a legislatively-elected head of state and head of government does not mean that it's an alliance rather than a sovereign state.
__________________
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it." - George Orwell, 1946
Sci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 01:25 AM   #102
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Starship of the Federation President

Sci wrote: View Post
Shawnster wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
From 1775 through 1785 there existed the Continental Navy, this military force was collectively possessed by the (then) thirteen separate countries that formed the united States of America.

Multiple nations, joined in an alliance, with a single Navy.
To carry this ball further... During this time period and after, the US Constitution was crafted to limit the concept of a standing army. The government could not, constitutionally, form a standing army for longer than two years and was not able to appropriate money for army use. The idea of a standing army was a source of constitutional debate.
And there are sovereign states today that do not maintain a standing army -- the Republic of Costa Rica, for instance. This doesn't mean that possession of a military is not a trait of statehood.



Well, that was the intent behind the Articles of Confederation. But it's important to remember that the "Founding Fathers" were not a politically united group with a common agenda. Some wanted the newly-independent states to be a single sovereign state; some others even wanted to sunder the Articles and have them be completely independent, with no alliance whatsoever.



Yes -- because they discovered that trying to give state-like authorities to an alliance ultimately doesn't work. Either the alliance will evolve into a sovereign state -- which is what happened to the American Confederation with the adoption of the Constitution -- or it will collapse.



Revisionist nonsense. Those same southern states, when they had control of the federal government, were perfectly willing to come down hard on the side of federal power instead of states rights when it was a case of free states trying to resist enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act, or to grant freedom to slaves who stepped foot in free state soil. The armed raids Southern slavers led into free state territory puts lie to the notion that they actually believed in states' rights.

And those same state leaders, upon seceding from the Union, literally issued declarations of the causes of secession, explicitly saying that they seceded from the union because of their belief that the new Lincoln administration was a threat to the institution of slavery. Hell, the Confederate States Vice President gave a big speech about how white supremacy and black slavery were the cornerstones of Confederate society.

The South did not secede because of "states' rights." It seceded because its governments were controlled by slave lords who profited from the forced labor of a third of the South's population.



No, it proves that there was a civil war going on and that some state governments tried to avoid taking a side.



1718? I hope you mean 1778.

And, no, nobody served as President of the United States between 1778 and 1787. Those men were serving as President of the United States in Congress Assembled. "The United States in Congress Assembled" being the full formal name of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation.

In other words -- these men were serving as Presidents of the Congress. They were the Congress's presiding officers, the equivalent of our modern Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore of the Senate. They were not the Presidents of the United States of America, and they were not the heads of state or government. No such office exist; they were just the presiding officers of the legislature.

Jefferson Davis was the first and only president of the Confederate States of America established in 1861. The CSA constitution, modeled after the US Constitution, allowed for a president to be elected by popular vote.
Don't be absurd. Jefferson Davis wasn't elected by popular vote, because one-third of the Confederacy's population (the one-third held in chains) was not allowed to vote.

(ETA #2: And that is to say nothing of the fact that fully half of both the Confederate States's and the United States's populations were not allowed to vote, being women. Neither government was an actual democracy in the 1860s; both were explicitly built on an anti-democratic patriarchy, and the Confederate States was explicitly built on an anti-democratic white supremacy. End edit #2.)

If you're looking for an example of a President who serves as both head of state and head of government but who is elected by the legislature rather than by popular vote, your best bet would be to look at the post-Apartheid Republic of South Africa. The President of the Republic of South Africa, starting with Nelson Mandela, definitely serves as both head of state and head of government, but is elected by the National Assembly, the lower house of the Parliament. However, in citing South Africa's example, it is important to understand that this is a historical anomaly arising from the modern presidency having evolved out of the office of prime minister during the Apartheid era.

MacLeod wrote: View Post
Which brings me back to an earlier point the EU might be a better example to use. It started out as a trade alliance before becomming more of a political alliance. The questions is will it become a Federation of States?
I think the European Union is a good example in cultural terms, but not in political terms. Partially this is because I think the E.U. is going through a protracted crisis as a result of it and its peoples not being willing to decide if it should be a sovereign state or a mere alliance. They have delegated to it some of the powers of a sovereign state and undermined their own nations' sovereignties in the process -- and this has led to a huge democratic deficit. To wit:

Greece being unable to meet its debts by devaluing its currency and just biting the bullet and printing more money before then building its economy back up, because they don't have control of their own monetary policy. This has resulted in the regional hegemon, Germany, being able to essentially dictate policy to the Greek government if they want to continue to have access to E.U. loans -- violating the democratic will of the Greek people and forcing the Greek government to essentially make policy with a German gun to its head.

So you have an institution with very little democratic input in its own constitutional arrangements, dictating policy in violation of the democratic will of one of its constituent polities, when that constituent polity has nominally not surrendered its sovereignty. It's a anti-democratic nightmare.

This whole problem could have been avoided if the E.U. were either clearly an alliance to whom sovereign powers had not been delegated -- allowing Greece to devalue its currency and start paying off its debts -- or if the E.U. were clearly its own sovereign state with its own democratic legislature and executive -- giving Greece and other E.U. polities in similar situations access to the full resources of the E.U. the same way Mississippi has access to the full resources of the United States.

So, no, I don't think the E.U. has it currently stands is a good model. Not only are the most powerful E.U. institutions themselves unelected, but the E.U. is essentially acting right now to subvert the democratic process in its member states. It's become a tool of German hegemony rather than an embodiment of European unity.

(ETA: I hasten to add that I am not "anti-Europe" per se. Rather, I am anti-current E.U. arrangement. I would tend to prefer to see the E.U. evolve into its own sovereign, democratic, federal state, with its own elected Parliament, its own elected President, its own elected Prime Minister, its own Supreme Court, its own Constitution, its own military, etc.)

But with Greece being a member of the eurozone countries it has no currecny of it's own to devalue. And possibly one of the reasons for the economic crisis in the Eurozone is that monetary union really needs full political union, harmonisation of pay rates etc...

The EU has many issues one of which is perhaps a disconnect between the politicans and the electorate, simply put the EU hasn't done a very good job of selling itself. The EU also has it's own elected Parliament with elections for it this year.

I think saying that the EU has become a tool of German Hegemony is going to far, sure Germany has a large influence within in the EU and is the largest economy within the EU, but France has influence as well. The UK does have some influence as well but perhaps not as much as it could have perhaps in part to the perception which is not unfounded that the UK is one of the more Eurosceptic countires. But that isn't always a bad thing in a democracy were opponents of a policy or polices have their say. I don't think many countries within the EU want the UK to withdraw from it, so if the question is if the UK's more eurosceptical viewpoint is such a thorn in their side why do that want the UK to remain within it, would it not be better for them for them if the UK left? Or does the UK bring something to the table? Also eurosceptisim is not found just within the EU other nations have segments of their population that are eurosceptical. And in recent years several times when EU treaties have been put before a national populance i.e France they have been rejected. What does that say?

I'm not anti-EU but I would rather see what we orignally signed up for which was a free-trade zone. If the nation states of the EU want to move towards a United Federation of Europe or whatever they want to call it. There is one simply way to end the debate. Simply hold national referrudums in each of the EU country with a question like

Should the EU become a Federation? or similar.

Let the electorate decide the direction they want to go. I might not agree with everything a party stands for when I cast my vote for them, just that on balance I agree with them on more things than others. If an election/vote goes against my own viewpoint well that's demoracy at work. I also don't support withdrawl from the EU but I think it needs reform.


In the case of the UK anyone born after around 1963 ( thats two gernerations) has never had a diirect vote on any EU treaty. That's not good for democracy

But as I said I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on the EU.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 11:35 AM   #103
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Starship of the Federation President

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
All life is sacred.
Debatable.

All life must be protected.
All innocent life yes, all life again debatable.

All human beings must be given due process at all times.
Not alway a option in real life.

The simple fact is, nobody deserves to be killed - not ever.
If someone is attacking you? Your family, your nation, your allies?

When circumstance don't allow them to be "subdued," then what?

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 12:24 PM   #104
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Starship of the Federation President

Sci wrote: View Post
In other words -- these men were serving as Presidents of the Congress. They were the Congress's presiding officers, the equivalent of our modern Speaker of the House or President Pro Tempore of the Senate.
Yes.

They were not the Presidents of the United States of America
I certainly never said they were, however if the 18th century Congress choose (for whatever reason) to grant them that particular "job title" I sure them could have.

If they wanted to official call him the grand poobah they could have.

and they were not the heads of state or government. No such office exist; they were just the presiding officer of the legislature.
Yes.

Jaresh-Inyo would be the Federation Council's presiding officer, and he might (or might not) be considered the Federation's governing body's head of government.

He wouldn't be the head of state since of course the Federation isn't a "state."

As the Council's presiding officer he apparently does carries the title of "president of the united federation of planets" (how charming). He might also be considered "the chief of the (whatever) party," presiding officers automatically being the head of their ideological party within the Council.

It would be easy to see him being referred to as "the chief executive of the Federation Council" given his senior managerial responsibilities.



Last edited by Merry Christmas; April 3 2014 at 06:26 PM.
Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2014, 03:43 PM   #105
Rķu rķu, chķu
Fleet Admiral
 
Rķu rķu, chķu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Rķu rķu, chķu's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship of the Federation President

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
The simple fact is, nobody deserves to be killed - not ever.
If someone is attacking you? Your family, your nation, your allies?

When circumstance don't allow them to be "subdued," then what?

Sometimes it may be necessary to kill, yes. Self-defense is a right. But I'd prefer not to kill if I don't have to. And it doesn't mean the other person deserves to die - it means I deserve to live. There is a difference.
__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart

Last edited by Rķu rķu, chķu; April 3 2014 at 09:29 PM.
Rķu rķu, chķu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.