Return of the Serbian monarchy?

Post by hihgdm
http://www.royalfamily.org/crown-prince-alexander-and-crown-princess-katherine-interview-for-kurir-newspaper-we-are-ready-for-the-return-of-the-monarchy/
"Some in Serbia advocate the return of the monarchy, do you agree with that?
Prince Alexander: That decision is on the people. I am ready..."
What are the odds? The "royal family" seems to get away with a lot,
considering that Serbia is a socialist republic. Ex-King Constantine
must be envious.

I have to question the ex-Yugoslav royal family's inclination not to
regard their claims as persisting in those sections of ex-Yugoslavia that
lack their own royal families,as a matter of personal union.
But perhaps Serbia has the best chance of restoration.
Are they actually still consitutionally professing socialism?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Windemere

2017-11-21 19:31:49 UTC

I have to question the ex-Yugoslav royal family's inclination not to
regard their claims as persisting in those sections of ex-Yugoslavia that
lack their own royal families,as a matter of personal union.
But perhaps Serbia has the best chance of restoration.
Are they actually still consitutionally professing socialism?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Well, the state of Montenegro has its own royal family. It's reasonable to presume that the Serbian royal family would be welcomed in Macedonia, and certainly it would be in the Serb half of Bosnia (Republica Serpska). But due to the hostile feelings and resentments created by the 1990s wars associated with the disintegration of Yugoslavia, it's doubtful that they'd be welcomed in Croatia, Slovenia, Kosovo, or the Croat-Bosniak half of Bosnia.

My own feeling is that the misery & suffering of these wars wasn't worth the cost, and it would have been better if Yugoslavia had remained as a unitary whole, with the various provinces having autonomy and control over their own provincial affairs. But we can't turn back history.

hihgdm

2017-11-23 14:01:19 UTC

Post by Windemere

I have to question the ex-Yugoslav royal family's inclination not to
regard their claims as persisting in those sections of ex-Yugoslavia that
lack their own royal families,as a matter of personal union.
But perhaps Serbia has the best chance of restoration.
Are they actually still consitutionally professing socialism?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Well, the state of Montenegro has its own royal family. It's reasonable to presume that the Serbian royal family would be welcomed in Macedonia, and certainly it would be in the Serb half of Bosnia (Republica Serpska). But due to the hostile feelings and resentments created by the 1990s wars associated with the disintegration of Yugoslavia, it's doubtful that they'd be welcomed in Croatia, Slovenia, Kosovo, or the Croat-Bosniak half of Bosnia.
My own feeling is that the misery & suffering of these wars wasn't worth the cost, and it would have been better if Yugoslavia had remained as a unitary whole, with the various provinces having autonomy and control over their own provincial affairs. But we can't turn back history.

I think that the wars you describe were inevitable, precisely because of the hatred surrounding the ethnic divides in the region. Because of that, a federation of the relevant countries will probably never work. When it comes to nation building, small is good.

Donald4564

2017-11-23 20:03:24 UTC

. Because of that, a federation of the relevant countries will probably never work. When it comes to nation building, small is good.

Oh? Austria-Hungary lasted a hell of a long time - come to think of it, the British Empire went on for a long time too. Perhaps, like everything else, it all goes in cycles? We have large Empires for a while, then they break up into little states, then these states join together again, and so on and on....

Regards
Donald Binks

hihgdm

2017-11-23 23:44:33 UTC

Post by hihgdm
. Because of that, a federation of the relevant countries will probably never work. When it comes to nation building, small is good.
Oh? Austria-Hungary lasted a hell of a long time - come to think of it, the British Empire went on for a long time too. Perhaps, like everything else, it all goes in cycles? We have large Empires for a while, then they break up into little states, then these states join together again, and so on and on....
Regards
Donald Binks

Actually both empires ultimately failed, one violently, the other due to lack of interest. In fact there are no large empires left. Given the level of nationalism that now exists, it is hard to imagine that the current world scenario will change. The US of Europe was once considered a possibility but that didn't get off the ground. One of the inherent credos of nationalism, perhaps the most significant, is an objection to giving up sovereignty. That is clearly one of the reasons that Brexit is happening.

Louis Epstein

2017-11-24 00:46:07 UTC

Post by hihgdm
. Because of that, a federation of the relevant countries will probably never work. When it comes to nation building, small is good.
Oh? Austria-Hungary lasted a hell of a long time - come to think of
it, the British Empire went on for a long time too. Perhaps, like
everything else, it all goes in cycles? We have large Empires for a
while, then they break up into little states, then these states join
together again, and so on and on....
Regards
Donald Binks

The one proper way to unite Europe is gradually,through the combination of
heirships as a result of voluntary interdynastic marriages.Only if the
inalienable right of the monarchs to fuse their heritages is placed above
the parochial concerns of politicians can it work.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

n***@gmail.com

2017-11-25 06:56:50 UTC

Actually both empires ultimately failed, one violently, the other due to lack of interest. In fact there are
no large empires left. Given the level of nationalism that now exists, it is hard to imagine that the current
world scenario will change. The US of Europe was once considered a possibility but that didn't get off
the ground. One of the inherent credos of nationalism, perhaps the most significant, is an objection to
giving up sovereignty. That is clearly one of the reasons that Brexit is happening.

The thing about nationalism is that word "nation." India is not considered an Empire today, but if you take the strict European definition of nation (a group of people who all speak the same language) they are a multinational empire with English as the Lingua Franca. Russia has lost a lot of it's Imperial territory, but it's also 20% not Russian. Spain and China are incredibly diverse. Your own home nation of the UK is considered by some to be an English Empire with Scots/Welsh/Irish subject people and by others to be a mono-national British state with strong regional variations.

And then that's just Old World. New World Canada is bi-national (and arguably a lot more), everybody has various native tribes with various levels of alienation from the state, etc. Anyone who uses the word nation to describe most of these countries (especially my homeland of the US) is engaging in a white lie at best.

Then there's the EU, which is in the same gray area between Free Trade Zone and nation-state as the Habsburg lands.

So if you define Empires as nation-states that broke up, then the break-up of all states that broke become textbook examples of Empires failing. If you define them any other way you find there's always some falling and some rising. In Yugoslavia's case they actually had a lot going for them. Their languages are identical, so in the classic definition of the term 'nation' Serbia/Croatia/etc. are all one nation. This is actually not true of many countries. Take France. Most people did not speak the Langue d'Oi as a first language until the 50s. In Italy where they simply decreed a bunch of unintelligible languages were all actually dialects of Italian, that the standard was Tuscan; and somehow it's stuck.

Yugoslav differences are largely religious, and after the Communist take-over everyone was supposed to be secularist. The problem is the post-Tito Yugoslav leaders catered to the Orthodox (ie: Serbs) too much, which led to war, and there was too much blood spilled to ever put Humpty-Dumpty together again.

Nick

hihgdm

2017-11-26 23:59:40 UTC

Post by n***@gmail.com

Actually both empires ultimately failed, one violently, the other due to lack of interest. In fact there are
no large empires left. Given the level of nationalism that now exists, it is hard to imagine that the current
world scenario will change. The US of Europe was once considered a possibility but that didn't get off
the ground. One of the inherent credos of nationalism, perhaps the most significant, is an objection to
giving up sovereignty. That is clearly one of the reasons that Brexit is happening.

The thing about nationalism is that word "nation." India is not considered an Empire today, but if you take the strict European definition of nation (a group of people who all speak the same language) they are a multinational empire with English as the Lingua Franca. Russia has lost a lot of it's Imperial territory, but it's also 20% not Russian. Spain and China are incredibly diverse. Your own home nation of the UK is considered by some to be an English Empire with Scots/Welsh/Irish subject people and by others to be a mono-national British state with strong regional variations.
And then that's just Old World. New World Canada is bi-national (and arguably a lot more), everybody has various native tribes with various levels of alienation from the state, etc. Anyone who uses the word nation to describe most of these countries (especially my homeland of the US) is engaging in a white lie at best.
Then there's the EU, which is in the same gray area between Free Trade Zone and nation-state as the Habsburg lands.
So if you define Empires as nation-states that broke up, then the break-up of all states that broke become textbook examples of Empires failing. If you define them any other way you find there's always some falling and some rising. In Yugoslavia's case they actually had a lot going for them. Their languages are identical, so in the classic definition of the term 'nation' Serbia/Croatia/etc. are all one nation. This is actually not true of many countries. Take France. Most people did not speak the Langue d'Oi as a first language until the 50s. In Italy where they simply decreed a bunch of unintelligible languages were all actually dialects of Italian, that the standard was Tuscan; and somehow it's stuck.
Yugoslav differences are largely religious, and after the Communist take-over everyone was supposed to be secularist. The problem is the post-Tito Yugoslav leaders catered to the Orthodox (ie: Serbs) too much, which led to war, and there was too much blood spilled to ever put Humpty-Dumpty together again.
Nick

n***@gmail.com

2017-11-28 03:21:03 UTC

Post by n***@gmail.com

Actually both empires ultimately failed, one violently, the other due to lack of interest. In fact there are
no large empires left. Given the level of nationalism that now exists, it is hard to imagine that the current
world scenario will change. The US of Europe was once considered a possibility but that didn't get off
the ground. One of the inherent credos of nationalism, perhaps the most significant, is an objection to
giving up sovereignty. That is clearly one of the reasons that Brexit is happening.

The thing about nationalism is that word "nation." India is not considered an Empire today, but if you take the strict European definition of nation (a group of people who all speak the same language) they are a multinational empire with English as the Lingua Franca. Russia has lost a lot of it's Imperial territory, but it's also 20% not Russian. Spain and China are incredibly diverse. Your own home nation of the UK is considered by some to be an English Empire with Scots/Welsh/Irish subject people and by others to be a mono-national British state with strong regional variations.
And then that's just Old World. New World Canada is bi-national (and arguably a lot more), everybody has various native tribes with various levels of alienation from the state, etc. Anyone who uses the word nation to describe most of these countries (especially my homeland of the US) is engaging in a white lie at best.
Then there's the EU, which is in the same gray area between Free Trade Zone and nation-state as the Habsburg lands.
So if you define Empires as nation-states that broke up, then the break-up of all states that broke become textbook examples of Empires failing. If you define them any other way you find there's always some falling and some rising. In Yugoslavia's case they actually had a lot going for them. Their languages are identical, so in the classic definition of the term 'nation' Serbia/Croatia/etc. are all one nation. This is actually not true of many countries. Take France. Most people did not speak the Langue d'Oi as a first language until the 50s. In Italy where they simply decreed a bunch of unintelligible languages were all actually dialects of Italian, that the standard was Tuscan; and somehow it's stuck.
Yugoslav differences are largely religious, and after the Communist take-over everyone was supposed to be secularist. The problem is the post-Tito Yugoslav leaders catered to the Orthodox (ie: Serbs) too much, which led to war, and there was too much blood spilled to ever put Humpty-Dumpty together again.
Nick

You brought up the rise of nationalism and the fall of empires as a reason for the fall of Yugoslavia.

I'm pointing out that's a circular argument. You're basically saying that if State X devolved into various new states, it was an Empire and of course those collapse, whereas still-existing State Y cannot be an Empire. Therefore you conclude all Empires fall.

But that only works if you forget the numerous Empire-like states still existent -- which is damn near everyone outside of Europe -- and you ignore the multi-national institutions that act an awful lot like states -- which brings in Europe.

Nick

Donald4564

2017-11-25 19:30:34 UTC

Post by hihgdm
Actually both empires ultimately failed, one violently, the other due to lack of interest. In fact there are no large empires left. Given the level of nationalism that now exists, it is hard to imagine that the current world scenario will change. The US of Europe was once considered a possibility but that didn't get off the ground. One of the inherent credos of nationalism, perhaps the most significant, is an objection to giving up sovereignty. That is clearly one of the reasons that Brexit is happening.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire fell mainly due to opportunists who saw importance in themselves rather than the people as a whole. It has always seemed odd to me that one can suddenly shift a group of people from one country into another - as happened with most of Hungary and part of Tirol. It would have been a far better idea to have continued Kaiser Karl's vision of a Danubian Federation although in the log run, this ended up as the European Union.

Brexit is a short-sighted policy based on older people not thinking about the world their children will live in. Let's face it, with everyone wandering about the globe and people continuously shifting somewhere else, it's quite ridiculous to keep on insisting that a patch of Earth in one place is different to a patch of Earth somewhere else. I look forward to the day when I can travel without having to carry a passport and can utilise the same currency everywhere. Separatism in this day and age is an exercise in the nonsensical. The European Union was a step in the right direction. (My argument for world unity has been based on the prospect of little Green Men from Mars one day attacking us - we'd have to unite then, right?)

Regards
Donald Binks

Louis Epstein

2017-11-27 18:49:58 UTC

No,Brentrance was a short-sighted policy based on morose modernists
placing geography above culture.

Post by Donald4564
Let's face it, with everyone wandering about the globe and people
continuously shifting somewhere else, it's quite ridiculous to keep on
insisting that a patch of Earth in one place is different to a patch
of Earth somewhere else.

But having all the patches in Europe treated differently than those
around the world is the whole point of the EU.

Post by Donald4564
I look forward to the day when I can travel without having to carry a
passport and can utilise the same currency everywhere. Separatism in
this day and age is an exercise in the nonsensical. The European Union
was a step in the right direction. (My argument for world unity has been
based on the prospect of little Green Men from Mars one day attacking us
- we'd have to unite then, right?)

World unity needs to come about through monarchies being established
everywhere under rules of inheritance and culture that accept the merger
of their heirships.

Post by Donald4564
Regards
Donald Binks

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

hihgdm

2017-11-23 13:12:05 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that. Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist, but perhaps that isn't the case anymore.

I wonder what the CP's view is of the Mladic verdict in the the International Court?

Louis Epstein

2017-11-23 19:47:25 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

Post by hihgdm
but perhaps that isn't the case anymore.
I wonder what the CP's view is of the Mladic verdict in the the International Court?

Atrocities were not done in the king's name...
were the federated kingdom honored over its ethnic
rivalries they would never have happened.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

hihgdm

2017-11-23 23:22:28 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

-----------------
You think the crown prince is a moron? You go too far.
-----------------

Post by hihgdm
but perhaps that isn't the case anymore.
I wonder what the CP's view is of the Mladic verdict in the the International Court?

Atrocities were not done in the king's name...
were the federated kingdom honored over its ethnic
rivalries they would never have happened.

-------------
You really think that narcissistic creeps like (no, not Fake President Drumpf this time) Mladic would have cared what form of government was in place? Didn't the kingdom fail precisely because the differences made apparent by the intense ethnic rivalries were too great for it to withstand?

Louis Epstein

2017-11-24 00:48:55 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

-----------------
You think the crown prince is a moron? You go too far.

Are you too much of one to understand that I was alluding
to the completely non-sensible nature of socialism?

Post by hihgdm
-----------------

Post by hihgdm
but perhaps that isn't the case anymore.
I wonder what the CP's view is of the Mladic verdict in the the International Court?

Atrocities were not done in the king's name...
were the federated kingdom honored over its ethnic
rivalries they would never have happened.

-------------
You really think that narcissistic creeps like (no, not Fake President
Drumpf this time) Mladic would have cared what form of government was in
place?

The point is the dissolving republics enabled him,a united
monarchy would not have.

Post by hihgdm
Didn't the kingdom fail precisely because the differences made
apparent by the intense ethnic rivalries were too great for it to
withstand?

The kingdom failed because the Nazi invasion enabled
a republican takeover.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

hihgdm

2017-11-24 16:54:03 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

-----------------
You think the crown prince is a moron? You go too far.

Are you too much of one to understand that I was alluding
to the completely non-sensible nature of socialism?

-----------------
No Comrade. I don't live in Cloud Cuckoo Land so I don't qualify.
-----------------

Post by hihgdm
but perhaps that isn't the case anymore.
I wonder what the CP's view is of the Mladic verdict in the the
International Court?

Atrocities were not done in the king's name...
were the federated kingdom honored over its ethnic
rivalries they would never have happened.

-------------
You really think that narcissistic creeps like (no, not Fake President
Drumpf this time) Mladic would have cared what form of government was in
place?

The point is the dissolving republics enabled him,a united
monarchy would not have.

Post by hihgdm
Didn't the kingdom fail precisely because the differences made
apparent by the intense ethnic rivalries were too great for it to
withstand?

The kingdom failed because the Nazi invasion enabled
a republican takeover.

Louis Epstein

2017-11-25 05:27:36 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

-----------------
You think the crown prince is a moron? You go too far.

Are you too much of one to understand that I was alluding
to the completely non-sensible nature of socialism?

-----------------
No Comrade. I don't live in Cloud Cuckoo Land so I don't qualify.

You had better move there,since nowhere else are claims of
socialism being sensible treated seriously.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

hihgdm

2017-11-26 23:59:18 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

-----------------
You think the crown prince is a moron? You go too far.

Are you too much of one to understand that I was alluding
to the completely non-sensible nature of socialism?

-----------------
No Comrade. I don't live in Cloud Cuckoo Land so I don't qualify.

You had better move there

---------------
You want me to join you in Cloud Cuckoo Land? I'd never make it past the border - I'd be thrown out by Mickey and Goofy (and Donald?), who comprise the border patrol, for actually passing the local version of an intelligence test. Besides that, I don't want a passport that doubles as a colouring book. But thank you for the suggestion.
---------------
since nowhere else are claims of

Post by Louis Epstein
socialism being sensible treated seriously.

---------------
Yes...well except for all the places where it is, and by the millions of people who do support it, in one form or another.

Louis Epstein

2017-11-27 18:51:52 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

-----------------
You think the crown prince is a moron? You go too far.

Are you too much of one to understand that I was alluding
to the completely non-sensible nature of socialism?

-----------------
No Comrade. I don't live in Cloud Cuckoo Land so I don't qualify.

You had better move there

---------------
You want me to join you in Cloud Cuckoo Land?

I don't live there...it's culturally your kind of place.

Post by hihgdm
I'd never make it past the border - I'd be thrown out by Mickey and
Goofy (and Donald?), who comprise the border patrol, for actually
passing the local version of an intelligence test.

Oh,nonsense.Even there they couldn't come up with a test you'd pass.

Post by hihgdm
Besides that, I don't want a passport that doubles as a colouring book.
But thank you for the suggestion.
---------------
since nowhere else are claims of

Post by Louis Epstein
socialism being sensible treated seriously.

---------------
Yes...well except for all the places where it is, and by the millions
of people who do support it, in one form or another.

They're all wrong.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

hihgdm

2017-11-28 00:55:47 UTC

I have no doubt that the CP would salivate at the thought of a
re-constituted Yugoslav monarchy, in some form or another, but given the
history and associated volatility, someone would probably end up being
assassinated. He should be satisfied with Serbia and leave it at that.
Because of the history of the region I tend to think of all the former
Yugoslav states as being (sensibly) socialist,

An oxymoron if there ever was one!

-----------------
You think the crown prince is a moron? You go too far.

Are you too much of one to understand that I was alluding
to the completely non-sensible nature of socialism?

-----------------
No Comrade. I don't live in Cloud Cuckoo Land so I don't qualify.

You had better move there

---------------
You want me to join you in Cloud Cuckoo Land?

I don't live there...

------------
Yes you do Comrade - it exists in your mind. Fake President Drumpf also lives in his own version of CCL. Hopefully, his version and your version don't bump into one another in the ethernet, or atmospheric continuum.
------------
it's culturally your kind of place.
------------
It has culture? I thought it only had cartoons
------------

Oh,nonsense.Even there they couldn't come up with a test you'd pass.

----------
You may be right. What language is spoken there?
----------

Post by hihgdm
Besides that, I don't want a passport that doubles as a colouring book.
But thank you for the suggestion.
---------------
since nowhere else are claims of

Post by Louis Epstein
socialism being sensible treated seriously.

---------------
Yes...well except for all the places where it is, and by the millions
of people who do support it, in one form or another.

They're all wrong.

--------------
But happy
-------------

Donald4564

2017-11-22 20:13:51 UTC

Prince Alexander has been living in Serbia for quite some time and has indicated his readiness for years now. I doubt whether a restoration will happen. People talk of such things, but nothing is ever done.

Also, I would have thought that Croatia and Slovenia were and would in future be part of a restored Austro-Hungarian monarchy?

Regards
Donald Binks

hihgdm

2017-11-23 13:48:26 UTC

Post by Donald4564
Prince Alexander has been living in Serbia for quite some time and has indicated his readiness for years now. I doubt whether a restoration will happen. People talk of such things, but nothing is ever done.
Also, I would have thought that Croatia and Slovenia were and would in future be part of a restored Austro-Hungarian monarchy?
Regards
Donald Binks

All European countries these days tend to be fiercely nationalistic to some extent or another (Hungary is a good example) so it's hard to imagine a re-constitution of any of the alliances that existed up to a hundred years ago. Apart from that, some of those "alliances" were the result of some of those countries/states being annexed, and no European country in the 21st century would put up with that. The existence of the two largest alliances in the region, the EU and NATO, would tend to discourage such actions. As much as I am a republican, I must admit that those countries that are monarchies tend to be less volatile, but perhaps they have survived as monarchies because they don't have the ethnic divides that exist in regions like the Balkans. Apart from Belgium, which is always on the brink of dissolution.

The exception might be Ukraine, much of which apparently wants to be European, much to Putin's disgust, but his attempts to annex parts of it are being resisted, so they don't count. Putin and his oligarchy won't be around forever, so the wrongs that Putin has perpetrated will be undone. I look at the Crimea as being a temporary illegal occupation rather than an annexation.

On an entirely different topic, and as you are "on the ground", which I am not - given the volatility surrounding the result of the SSM postal vote, how likely is it that Turnbull will face a spill and a new leadership contest, probably next month? For my sake, and the Queen's sake, please tell me that Abbott/Credlin won't be back. But who is the logical successor? Even if that doesn't happen, could Turnbull suffer a vote of no-confidence in the HOR, because of the citizenship debate?

Donald4564

2017-11-23 19:55:30 UTC

All European countries these days tend to be fiercely nationalistic to some extent or another (Hungary is a good example) so it's hard to imagine a re-constitution of any of the alliances that existed up to a hundred years ago. Apart from that, some of those "alliances" were the result of some of those countries/states being annexed, and no European country in the 21st century would put up with that. The existence of the two largest alliances in the region, the EU and NATO, would tend to discourage such actions. As much as I am a republican, I must admit that those countries that are monarchies tend to be less volatile, but perhaps they have survived as monarchies because they don't have the ethnic divides that exist in regions like the Balkans. Apart from Belgium, which is always on the brink of dissolution.
The exception might be Ukraine, much of which apparently wants to be European, much to Putin's disgust, but his attempts to annex parts of it are being resisted, so they don't count. Putin and his oligarchy won't be around forever, so the wrongs that Putin has perpetrated will be undone. I look at the Crimea as being a temporary illegal occupation rather than an annexation.
On an entirely different topic, and as you are "on the ground", which I am not - given the volatility surrounding the result of the SSM postal vote, how likely is it that Turnbull will face a spill and a new leadership contest, probably next month? For my sake, and the Queen's sake, please tell me that Abbott/Credlin won't be back. But who is the logical successor? Even if that doesn't happen, could Turnbull suffer a vote of no-confidence in the HOR, because of the citizenship debate?

Firstly, Crimea used to be part of Russia, it had only been in Ukraine for a relatively short time. But, like everywhere else in Europe, someone just arbitrarily draws a line on a map and thousands of people have to shift themselves. Because of this, there are next to no Germans now in East Prussia or Bohemia and Moravia (I prefer the proper names). As to annexations - why that has been going on for centuries - and is still going on. Again, thousands of people find themselves on the move. What a lot of people don;t realise is that Germany has now succeeded politically in dominating Europe - a situation it didn't achieve in two wars.

So, you are a socialist? To be so in Oz, you need to be on upwards of $150,000 a year, live in a mini-mansion in the "right" suburb, drive a luxury European car, send your children to private schools and drink expensive wine at elegant wine bars.

I don't think many people in Oz could care less who is going to be the next Liberal Prime Minister after "do nothing" Turnbull gets his marching orders. There might be a revolution though if the mad monk came back - but I don't think that they are that stupid to do that. Probably Foreign Minister Bishop is the one that is likely to get the guernsey. The Government is on the cards to be swept out of office at the next election - and we should see Labor in and perhaps many more minor parties and independents. It is the Queensland state election this weekend and unfortunately it looks likely that the dreadful Pauline Hanson's One Nation party will do well. (No wonder I don't like politics!)

Regards
Donald Binks

hihgdm

2017-11-23 23:46:38 UTC

All European countries these days tend to be fiercely nationalistic to some extent or another (Hungary is a good example) so it's hard to imagine a re-constitution of any of the alliances that existed up to a hundred years ago. Apart from that, some of those "alliances" were the result of some of those countries/states being annexed, and no European country in the 21st century would put up with that. The existence of the two largest alliances in the region, the EU and NATO, would tend to discourage such actions. As much as I am a republican, I must admit that those countries that are monarchies tend to be less volatile, but perhaps they have survived as monarchies because they don't have the ethnic divides that exist in regions like the Balkans. Apart from Belgium, which is always on the brink of dissolution.
The exception might be Ukraine, much of which apparently wants to be European, much to Putin's disgust, but his attempts to annex parts of it are being resisted, so they don't count. Putin and his oligarchy won't be around forever, so the wrongs that Putin has perpetrated will be undone. I look at the Crimea as being a temporary illegal occupation rather than an annexation.
On an entirely different topic, and as you are "on the ground", which I am not - given the volatility surrounding the result of the SSM postal vote, how likely is it that Turnbull will face a spill and a new leadership contest, probably next month? For my sake, and the Queen's sake, please tell me that Abbott/Credlin won't be back. But who is the logical successor? Even if that doesn't happen, could Turnbull suffer a vote of no-confidence in the HOR, because of the citizenship debate?

---------
I am a republican first and foremost and a fanciful socialist - meaning that I recognise that socialism is a nice idea but that prosperous democracies follow the rules of capitalism.
---------

Post by Donald4564
I don't think many people in Oz could care less who is going to be the next Liberal Prime Minister after "do nothing" Turnbull gets his marching orders. There might be a revolution though if the mad monk came back - but I don't think that they are that stupid to do that. Probably Foreign Minister Bishop is the one that is likely to get the guernsey. The Government is on the cards to be swept out of office at the next election - and we should see Labor in and perhaps many more minor parties and independents. It is the Queensland state election this weekend and unfortunately it looks likely that the dreadful Pauline Hanson's One Nation party will do well. (No wonder I don't like politics!)
Regards
Donald Binks

-----------
Julie Bishop as PM? Another nice idea, and particularly poignant given what is happening at the moment but Fake President Drumpf will not handle (ie deal with, not grope) yet another female head-of-government of one of the US's allies - not that anyone cares what he thinks. I wonder what the Queen thinks of female PM's as a general principle?

Donald4564

2017-11-25 19:17:08 UTC

Post by hihgdm
I am a republican first and foremost and a fanciful socialist - meaning that I recognise that socialism is a nice idea but that prosperous democracies follow the rules of capitalism.

In my opinion, being a republican sets one on a flight of fancy as much as does being a socialist. (In Oz, Republicans bear a close approximation to Socialists, in that they earn a lot of money, drive European cars, send their children to private schools and live in mini-mansions. The only thing that may set them apart is that they clamber over each other in order to be the first in line to shake the Queen's hand.)

Post by hihgdm
---------
-----------
Julie Bishop as PM? Another nice idea, and particularly poignant given what is happening at the moment but Fake President Drumpf will not handle (ie deal with, not grope) yet another female head-of-government of one of the US's allies - not that anyone cares what he thinks. I wonder what the Queen thinks of female PM's as a general principle?

I pity the poor person who attempts to grope Ms. Bishop - they obviously have not been subjected to one of her icy stares which can kill from ten paces.

I would say that the Queen would get on with her female PM's as much as any two women put together. They would discuss babies, knitting and recipes and be talking so much an equerry would have to interrupt them in order to stop them from gas-bagging for the rest of the day.

Regards
Donald Binks

hihgdm

2017-11-27 00:13:13 UTC

Post by hihgdm
I am a republican first and foremost and a fanciful socialist - meaning that I recognise that socialism is a nice idea but that prosperous democracies follow the rules of capitalism.

In my opinion, being a republican sets one on a flight of fancy

--------------
Try telling that to the many countries that have made a very successful transition from monarchy to republic.
--------------
as much as does being a socialist. (In Oz, Republicans bear a close approximation to Socialists, in that they earn a lot of money, drive European cars, send their children to private schools and live in mini-mansions. The only thing that may set them apart is that they clamber over each other in order to be the first in line to shake the Queen's hand.)
---------------
Based on my experience of growing up in Oz, I would agree with you. Such people tend to be erudite, well educated, capable of free thought, and able to form their opinions based on sensible reasoning and logic. In all honesty, I can't say the same of most of the monarchists I knew, who, with some exceptions, tended to have closed minds and were inclined towards tantrums when alternatives to their point-of-view were politely offered to them rather than engaging in sensible adult discussions.

I pity the poor person who attempts to grope Ms. Bishop - they obviously have not been subjected to one of her icy stares which can kill from ten paces.

----------------
Fake President Drumpf would treat that as a come-on - much like he has treated the many thousands of rejections he has received from women.
----------------

Post by Donald4564
I would say that the Queen would get on with her female PM's as much as any two women put together. They would discuss babies, knitting and recipes and be talking so much an equerry would have to interrupt them in order to stop them from gas-bagging for the rest of the day.

-------------
Are you lecturing us on how women should behave? It's all very sexist, if you ask my humble opinion.
-------------

Post by Donald4564
Regards
Donald Binks

Donald4564

2017-11-27 01:01:45 UTC

Post by hihgdm
--------------
Try telling that to the many countries that have made a very successful transition from monarchy to republic.
--------------

You are welcome to think that. I just think, that on the whole, republics are rather drab and lifeless.

Post by hihgdm
---------------
Based on my experience of growing up in Oz, I would agree with you. Such people tend to be erudite, well educated, capable of free thought, and able to form their opinions based on sensible reasoning and logic. In all honesty, I can't say the same of most of the monarchists I knew, who, with some exceptions, tended to have closed minds and were inclined towards tantrums when alternatives to their point-of-view were politely offered to them rather than engaging in sensible adult discussions.

Post by hihgdm
---------

You obviously talked to the wrong people who support the monarchy. There are some, like me, who are quite capable of behaving oneself when discussing the issue. Then you see, I have also found some republicans to be rude, aggressive and not very knowledgeable. It works on both sides comrade.

Post by hihgdm
-----------

I pity the poor person who attempts to grope Ms. Bishop - they obviously have not been subjected to one of her icy stares which can kill from ten paces.

----------------
Fake President Drumpf would treat that as a come-on - much like he has treated the many thousands of rejections he has received from women.
----------------

I wish him well trying it on with Ice-Lady Bishop.

-------------
Are you lecturing us on how women should behave? It's all very sexist, if you ask my humble opinion.
-------------

Lecturing? No, I was giving my opinion - which in a democracy I am entitled to do. Sexist? Oh? I base what I have said on nearly seventy years' experience! This world is getting more and more stupid in that a man can't say something without someone creating a huge fuss about nothing. I really feel like installing a microphone in your house in order that the politically correct police can pounce on you the moment you might utter something that falls within their ambit (which is getting wider day by day). All of us are quite capable of uttering something innocent which is liable to give offence to someone.

Regards
Donald Binks

hihgdm

2017-11-28 00:48:50 UTC

Post by hihgdm
--------------
Try telling that to the many countries that have made a very successful transition from monarchy to republic.
--------------

You are welcome to think that. I just think, that on the whole, republics are rather drab and lifeless.

Post by hihgdm
---------

-----------------
There is only one Comrade in this forum and we both know who that is. I'm not a closet Marxist (or any other -ist) so the appellation doesn't fit. You could always address one as Young Man.
-----------------

Post by hihgdm
-----------

I pity the poor person who attempts to grope Ms. Bishop - they obviously have not been subjected to one of her icy stares which can kill from ten paces.

----------------
Fake President Drumpf would treat that as a come-on - much like he has treated the many thousands of rejections he has received from women.
----------------

I wish him well trying it on with Ice-Lady Bishop.

-------------
Are you lecturing us on how women should behave? It's all very sexist, if you ask my humble opinion.
-------------

-----------
My response was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I can understand your frustration with what sometimes seems like political correctness gone awry. There again, if everyone behaved appropriately (except for anyone living in Cloud Cuckoo Land), then political correctness wouldn't be invoked.
-----------

Post by Donald4564
Regards
Donald Binks

Louis Epstein

2017-11-27 18:54:52 UTC

Post by hihgdm
I am a republican first and foremost and a fanciful socialist - meaning that I recognise that socialism is a nice idea but that prosperous democracies follow the rules of capitalism.

In my opinion, being a republican sets one on a flight of fancy

--------------
Try telling that to the many countries that have made a very successful
transition from monarchy to republic.

By any sane definition,any such transition is a catastrophe.

Post by hihgdm
--------------
as much as does being a socialist. (In Oz, Republicans bear a close
approximation to Socialists, in that they earn a lot of money, drive
European cars, send their children to private schools and live in
mini-mansions. The only thing that may set them apart is that they
clamber over each other in order to be the first in line to shake the
Queen's hand.)
---------------
Based on my experience of growing up in Oz, I would agree with you.
Such people tend to be erudite, well educated, capable of free thought,
and able to form their opinions based on sensible reasoning and logic.

Impossible...no opinion so-formed could be other than enthusiastically
monarchist!

Post by hihgdm
In all honesty, I can't say the same of most of the monarchists I knew,
who, with some exceptions, tended to have closed minds and were inclined
towards tantrums when alternatives to their point-of-view were politely
offered to them rather than engaging in sensible adult discussions.

Alternatives to the monarchist point of view are so far from sensible
as to provoke outrage.

Post by hihgdm
-------------

Post by Donald4564
Regards
Donald Binks

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein

2017-11-24 00:54:32 UTC