Why is the British Parliament always so rowdy and awesome?
This is the House of Commons.You see those red lines? Well "Front Bench" MPs are supposed to keep their feet on their party's side of them. Someone actually calculated the furthest a man could lunge from a sitting position, and put those benches just far enough apart that anyone lunging for an opposition MP will fall flat on their face.Since MPs physically attacking each other has become something of a rarity these days, the rule is no longer strictly enforced.Another reason why the British parliament seems “energetic” in comparison with what you will see and hear in many other countries is PM’s Question Time. Unlike the USA where the President walks into the Senate (I think it’s the Senate, I could be wrong and it’s Congress), gives a speech and then leaves, once a year, PM’s QT happens every week, and MPs of all parties are encouraged to ask questions. Those from the Government side tend to play up those things that the government is proud of, whilst those from the Opposition and minor parties tend to poke holes in those things that the government either hasn’t done, or has made a right mess of. MPs of all stripes can get rather excited at the idea of showing the other side up, especially now that many proceedings are televised, and as a result it does get rather noisy.
What difference does it make if Martin Schulz is elected as the next Chancellor of Germany?
It depends very much on the final results of the election. Schulz has stated that he wants his SPD to be the largest party in the Federal Parliament. Let’s assume that the SPD gains a lot of votes. Where do they come from? When Merkel’s Union (CDU/CSU) loses votes to the SPD and everything else stays basically the same, we will see another 4 year term of the “Grand Coalition” (two biggest groups go together and have a vast majority).The same may happen if many people who voted for the Greens or the Socialists (Linke) last time, decide to vote for Schulz instead. This may make the SPD share bigger but it does not make the “left side block” bigger.Last time the Federal Parliament was elected, two parties missed the 5% threshold just slighty, the Liberals (FDP) and the Ultraright populists (AfD). If you take that together with small and irrelevant parties, some 16 percent of all votes did not qualify for seats in the parliament. This could change this time. The AfD has become stronger and may get 10%, and with a little luck, the FDP could jump over 5% again. Then we could have six parties in the parliament - as much as never before. To me right now it sounds rather unlikely that Schulz will be able to gather enough votes to form a coalition against the Union. FDP for sure will not work together with the Linke, so either we have SPD plus liberals and greens or we have SPD plus Greens plus Socialists. Right now none of these outcomes is particularily likely.On the other hand the rise of the AfD also makes it unlikely that the Union can form a coalition with the FDP (like they did in 2009) or with the FDP and the Greens. But it is hard to tell if this will have a stable majority.So to me the most likely scenario is a new “Grand Coalition”, either lead by Schulz or lead by Merkel. If Schulz is the new Chancellor I think we will have some improvements for families, unemployed and people with small income, and I think that the state will become more nannysome. But I do not expect any dramatic changes in the course of the country. This will make many people angry who think that dramatic changes are absolutely necessary - although they cannot tell you a real reason for that. So the ultraright assholes will either get even more votes by 2021 or they will collapse and be replaced by something new and even more off the grid.
Which constitution works better, the U.S. Constitution or the UK Constitution?
They differ not only in what they say, but how they are interpreted, and how they can be modified. The US Constitution is mandatory. It states the way things must be, and also specifies a long and difficult mechanism for changing it.The UK constitution is descriptive (and note the change of case in the word). It describes the way things are. It says the ways should be done if there is no reason to do otherwise. But in practice anybody can amend the "constitution" any time they want - if they can get popular consent, and particularly the consent of Parliament. It describes the normal behaviour, the uncontroversial path, doing things as they have always been done. But you can always stand up and say that a particular institution is obsolete, and we should change. And there will be a discussion, with different levels of civility, and if necessary Parliament, which always has the final word, will rule.Both models have their virtues. The US one has the clarity that it is clearly written - though you need two and a half centuries of Supreme Court judgements to fully interpret it. But it is all there, and not to be argued with, even it it is to be interpreted. But it is relatively inflexible. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Second Amendment, the arms of the 21st century are very different from the arms of the writers of that Amendment. Today's world offers choices that the Founding Fathers never imagined.On the other hand, the British constitution is written in many places and many styles, much of it precedent rather than legislation. Much of it is "understood" rather than explicit. Which makes it simultaneously to malleable, because any part of it can be changed any time, and too rigid, because it is difficult decide what it is to resist. An example is Prince Charles' letters. How much should the monarch, or the obvious heir, be able to influence those who govern apparently in their name? At the moment, I see the US constitution as creaking, and the British one as not so. On the other hand, maybe Britain's divisions would be better sorted if we had a clear set of rules to stand up for - or against.
Why did Americans have slaves when the Revolutionary War was fought to end their slavery from Britain?
1. They weren't fighting against slaveholders, they were fighting against being enslaved. 2. Slavery never was accepted throughout the colonies. Only those states where it made economic sense was it embraced. 3. The Slave trade was a vital leg of the economic trade. The English bought slaves in Africa from the victorious tribes, who readily sold their conquered opponents to white men. The Whites then sold the slaves to Americans in the South, filled their holds with Cotton that the slaves produced, and sold it back in England, where the mills turned out the world's textiles. They took the profit from that and went back to Africa, bought some more slaves, and the cycle repeats. The Portuguese and Spanish exploited the indigenous South Americans as slaves with a level of cruelty unheard of in the States. It was never a business arrangement with them, where the Europeans played one tribe against the other. They simply conquered all of them. 4. Again Economics. Slaves are expensive. If they can't produce enough to cover their cost, they are not worth having. Only in the South, where the large scale Cotton plantations were, was is profitable to have them. All 13 states were considered sovereign. They all made their own laws, and all respected the laws of the other 12. By law Negroes were not considered people. No one in the 13 colonies advocated enslaving other Colonists. Under those assumptions, there was no contradiction.