Sickboy007
Member
Flek said:joke for german readers
He's kinda right. :lol
But as an Italian, kudos to Germany for having politicians that pack their luggages and go when they fuck up.
German President resigns
- Thread starter Patrick Bateman
- Start date
- Status
He's kinda right. :lol
But as an Italian, kudos to Germany for having politicians that pack their luggages and go when they fuck up.
gutter_trash
Banned
what is up with Euro countries having a President + Prime-Minister (or vice versa) where one is the actual head of state while the other is a ceremonial waste of tax payer dollars?
countries that have monarchies, okay I understand that stuff. But countries who are republics.... like why?
countries that have monarchies, okay I understand that stuff. But countries who are republics.... like why?
Hindenburg died in 1934 and Hitler made himself to the president right after that. Though, that isn't that much of historical importance - of importance is what happened before that. Since 1929 Weimar's parties were unable to form majorities in the parliament (because they were unwilling to work together and didn't accept any compromises), which is why the chancellors passed laws without the parliament - this was possible due to the special role the president had in the constitution of Weimar. According to the emergency clause article 48 the president had all power to "take all necessary steps" if "public order and security are seriously disturbed or endangered" - since the parliament was unable to pass any laws, the president made use of this law in order to pass the laws the chancellors wanted. There were many different chancellors and many elections during the time of 1929 and 1933, though. Germany's politics were completely in ruins.Moundir&Tony>you said:
Quite honestly, Köhler didn't fuck up. His statement was misunderstood on purpose by the press - everyone knew that he wasn't talking about Afghanistan, but the press wanted a scandal. This is the sad outcome and quite embarrassing for Germany as a country.Sickboy007 said:
farnham said:
Of course they aren't
Nevertheless, both have the same position in their countries: They are head of state.
It's just gullible that our head of state resigns because his statements are criticised, which is great for a democracy, isn't it. The statement he made really was kind of awkward, especially as he made it in the context of the mission in Afghanistan.
Another lesson learnt from the Weimar Republic: Election thresholds. The Weimar Republic didn't have one, so lots of small parties could gather in the parliament, making cooperation a real nightmare.
Now it's at 5% in parliaments all over Germany (federal and "state" parliaments, with a few exceptions for minority groups).
Now it's at 5% in parliaments all over Germany (federal and "state" parliaments, with a few exceptions for minority groups).
Yeah one is the formally head of state but has nothing to say and the other one is the most powerful man in the world.. They are not in the same position in their countries at all unless you look at a political institution with a purely formal eye.Shiggy said:Of course they aren't
Nevertheless, both have the same position in their countries: They are head of state.
It's just gullible that our head of state resigns because his statements are criticised, which is great for a democracy, isn't it. The statement he made really was kind of awkward, especially as he made it in the context of the mission in Afghanistan.
Stoiber as the new president? I bet this would kill the last bits of national pride left in Germany.
I wouldn't wonder too much if they were going for Schäuble. If not put in absolutely wrong positions (which he has been), he's smart and he already knows lots of people. Plus, his work as minister of finance is beginning to annoy the members in favour of more public spending, which could be easily solved with a "promotion."
Also, Schäuble surely won't tell people Germany's involvement in wars will bring economic benefit--he'd be more likely to live by it.
I wouldn't wonder too much if they were going for Schäuble. If not put in absolutely wrong positions (which he has been), he's smart and he already knows lots of people. Plus, his work as minister of finance is beginning to annoy the members in favour of more public spending, which could be easily solved with a "promotion."
Also, Schäuble surely won't tell people Germany's involvement in wars will bring economic benefit--he'd be more likely to live by it.
Dreams-Visions
Member
can we take their BMWs, Porches and MBs?cartoon_soldier said:
never gonna happenhuha said:
even the CSU despises him at this point
Shiggy said:Let's stop worrying about that now. I said that you were right and everything is fine
The CSU suggests that Edmund Stoiber should be the next president. This would be great fun.
Not the CSU but one person within the CSU. I believe Seehofer knows that Stoiber wont have much of a chance.
Sickboy007
Member
gutter_trash said:
Actually the president is the head of the state and the PM is the head of the government.
The simplest way to put it is that the President is like a referee, he lets the others play and guards over the fairness of the game.
PMs in Europe are "elected" by the Parliaments (they get a confidence vote) and are also normally the heads of the biggest parties, therefore the relationship between government and Houses is much more organic. The President is a counterbalance to the executive and has veto powers for uncostitutional laws and appointment powers or leading duties for sensitive insitutions such as the Supreme Court. He's also normally the head of the armed forces. His exceptional powers are rarely used and his other roles are mostly cerimonial.
He must be super partes or bipartisan as americans would say and is said to be the embodiment of the state and the constitution. This last part obviously varies according to the charisma and personal integrity of the person, and it seems that this Köhler guy wasn't a very popular or influent president.
farnham said:
Of course he doesn't have a chance. He was just one of a few people they had in their meeting. Another one was Theo Waigel according to Spiegel Online.
Sickboy007 said:
I don't think this is the case in Germany. Farnham, correct me if I'm wrong.
He was pretty popular with the people, but did not have that much support from politicians most recently. In the last few months he did not appear to much, but if he did, then he made some questionable statements.
Oh he was popular. A lot more popular then most of the presidentsSickboy007 said:
also he actually used his meager power a few times in a significant way.
For example he refused to sign a law that allowed the state to hit a plane that is controlled by terrorists because he believed it is unconstitutional.
Sickboy007
Member
farnham said:
Then i correct myself, he wasn't popular on GAF from what i've read this far! and reading the spiegel titles it seems he was a total nobody when he was elected...
Which party was he from before he became president?
Sickboy007 said:
That's exactly the point. The German president is mainly representative, he doesn't need to be well-known or popular or whatever. Before he was elected president, he was with the IMF, and not active in politics, although he had a CDU affiliation (which is no surprise, really; you can't get any high international positions without being in any party).
Again, the German president is not Obama or any other US president. Power in Germany is spread over more instances to keep single persons from becoming too powerful to do something incredibly stupid.
farnham said:
He was very popular:
http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/stern-umfrage-das-volk-mag-koehler-1553156.html
Sickboy007
Member
farnham said:
Yeah i suspected it but normally that's the case in europe.
Art Teitlebaum
Member
No, not at all. He delivered some really shitty analysis of the reasons for our troops fighting abroad on his way back from Afghanistan and said, it would be part of our economical interests to secure safe transportation routes and avoid regional instabilities. Here's the full quote:wrowa said:
(Source:Süddeutsche)
This may be the hidden truth, but our constitution doesn't accept such reasons for sending the troops to foreign countries.
He was more than mildly criticized for that by nearly everyone and was butthurt, that his own political party, CDU/CSU did not defend such silly statements.
So the press had absolutely nothing to do with it, it was a mixture of naive answers and thin skin for moderate criticisms.
well then thats the problem of the parliament that made that decision and not of the president that only told the truthArt Teitlebaum said:
Thin skin.. accepted. I believe that this was an incredibly stupid move that shatters his good image in million pieces. But the point stands. He did say what every politician thinks but doesnt dare to say and for that he got criticized. That wasnt a stupid statement but a brutally honest one.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
maniac-kun said:
Yeah, but don't a bunch of Euro Monarchs have to do that too?
Art Teitlebaum
Member
LazyLoki said:
He didn't say precisely what part of German policy he was referring to and was talking very globally. Not very helpful.
farnham said:
The parliament has to give the OK to every use of our armed forces abroad, that is certainly correct. The majority of the parliament saw good reasons for the war in Afghanistan in the need of helping the Afghan people in their struggle to rebuild the land in security.
If Köhler now admits the truth, that there are also imperialistic reasonings, it brings the compromise of nearly all parties except the Linkspartei to an end, because nobody in the streets would bring the lives of German soldiers in danger just for economical interests.
These statements as naive as they were, discredited all the justifications for the German foreign policies. How could he expect, that nobody would criticize him for that?
Art Teitlebaum said:
Well if the whole Afghanistan Operation had no room to criticize then it wouldnt be discredited by some words of a madman. It looks like his words did have a lot of truth in it.
yeah thats the part i agree with. he said something controversial so he should take the criticism .Art Teitlebaum said:
Art Teitlebaum
Member
farnham said:
OK, now I see your point. But this truth is ugly and disgusting and makes me angry. Maybe that's why I don't wanna hear sth like that. ;-)
- Status