Ja, maar dan zou ik toch beginnen bij het beperken van het koningshuis, met volledige afschaffing (of ceremonieel maken) als einddoel.
Dan ben je niet eerlijk over waar je naar toe wilt. Water bij de wijn doen daar zijn de coalitie-onderhandelingen voor.
Ik zie er het voordeel niet van in om een ceremonieel figuur te verkiezen.
Je hebt gelijk, een ceremonieel president moet je niet direct verkiezen; die heeft immers geen mandaat dus kan nooit verkiezingsbeloften doen. Beter kiest de 2de kamer (of de 1ste en 2de kamer samen?) het staatshoofd.
Als zelfs de linkse stemmers maar 52% voor zijn, gaat dit toch nooit de tweederde meerderheid nodig voor het wijzigen van de grondwet halen?
Je moet ergens beginnen. Als stemmers niet weten waar een partij voor staat dan weten ze natuurlijk ook niet waar ze aan toe zijn als ze er op stemmen.
Persoonlijk heb ik eerlijk gezegd liever gewoon een stabiel staatshoofd dat niet zoveel doet behalve staatsbezoekjes dan een kermis waar de FvD/BBB/VVD vechten om presidentschap.
PvdA/GL staat dan ook geen presidentiële republiek voor.
I liked the concepts in Sword and Mercy though. The various species and their oddities and taboos, the technology, the characters. It’s just that somehow you can feel that Leckie didn’t have as much of a clear goal in mind where the story was going.
The problem for chipmakers is not the sourcing of materials itself, but the purity of the sourced material. So don’t worry about public beaches disappearing into Intel’s hopper-feeder.
Talk to an avarage Portuguese or Dutch about colonialism… see how much they “regret” or “accept the blame” for the shit they did.
Dutch here. Yeah, nah, we don't. Maybe some lip service is being made towards the descendants of enslaved peoples in Surinam, but otherwise not really.
When I was young the period when the Dutch VOC flowered was taught as having been a really good thing, something that we could be proud of; the fact that this was accompanied by morethanone episode of mass murder was entirely glossed over. I'm pretty sure it's still mostly like that.
what does it mean that europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic?
An NGO has its own policies and its own governance, which may or may not align with the wishes of the wider populace (for instance, a religious NGO in a secular society, or an NGO treating particular groups preferentially). A majority disagreeing with the policies of that NGO would achieve nothing, whereas with a governmental body they could exert democratic control.
if your ancestry is from belgium/north france then you would be belgian/french with dutch nationality.
Why? Good grief, do you have any idea how complicated that would be? Secondly, I don't identify with that ethnicity you're foisting upon me at all!
I suppose when we refer to France we mean French before the 19th century immigration.
Why? As I said: France was always a mixture of ethnicities, the 19th century didn't change anything other than the skin colour of some of the French citizens (or is that what you're hinting at?).
For me personally, someone being Dutch is based more on their attitude towards the Netherlands and other Dutch people: anyone who is loath to run into other Dutch people when abroad and who loves to complain about specific stupid policies of the Dutch government counts as Dutch to me.
Speaking frankly, if you look chinese, you would be considered HKer right off the bat, if you look any other skin colour (white, other asian, etc) you will be considered a foreigner living in HK even if your family has been there for generations.
Excluding people based on how they look, irregardless of what else (intelligence, special talents) they bring to the table, is widely considered to be racism and not acceptable in European society. I'm sure there are Europeans who think like you do, however, it's not something that wider society considers acceptable (not to mention can be illegal).
The "big" premium they were taking about was 600€ which is obviously outrageous. To make a cancer patient spend this much money on a life saving procedure.
European here: I agree with this being outrageous. It's not about the money, it's about being a civilised society.
People seem to rely on the govt to provide things rather than have some agencies fill niches that aren't filled by the govt (for example I saw signs like don't help homeless people, the govt is helping them).
I'm from an Asian country, we don't have much tax, we don't rely on the govt for anything (we can't), and we have many NGOs.
Most (but not all!) Europeans consider NGOs to be undemocratic, whereas the government is (theoretically at least) under democratic control.
Europeans identify more with nationality than ethnicity. For example, someone from Czech Republic moving to France is considered French. In North America I think they would be considered Czech-French. In Asia they would be considered to be a Czech expat living in France. Our ethnicity matters a lot.
But at what point would you stop doing so? I'm Dutch yet can trace back my ancestry to the 16th century in Belgium and northern France, what ethnicity do I have? And some have an even longer and more dispersed pedigree.
Also, you gave the example of French but what is now called France was made up from a large variety of ethnicities. Being French then is not defined as being a particular ethnicity but as belonging to the French Republic. It's a cultural thing that matters a lot to them.
Tsja, wie moet je geloven. De ene heeft brede steun onder de bevolking en brengt een goed onderbouwd verhaal onder de aandacht, en de ander is het kabinet.
I've found a local supplier that can mix Sikkens ON.00.78 for me, which looks to be close to that colour. I've been lightbrighting the plastic for a few days to see how that works out and consider my options.
Volgens mij valt dit onder iets wat de staat mag reguleren vanuit haar zorgplicht onder artikel 22 lid 2 van de Grondwet?