-TSS-

You can also ask when does a country need to federal rather than unitary. Canada, USA and Australia are extremely vast countries. The idea of them being other than federal is just unthinkable. Some countries are very artificial entities consisting of various ethnic and religious groups. Or even lingual ones such as Belgium. Japan is a country which is relatively compact and has a very large size of population. It is unitary and works perfectly that way. Austria is a much smaller country than Japan and Austria is still relatively homogenous despite all the recent immigration. Yet Austria has a federal system of government.

Bicameralism is the form of parliamentarism for countries which have a federal structure such as the USA, Canada or Australia. The so-called upper chamber represents the regions of the federation while the so-called lower chamber represents the population as whole. What I don't understand is why do many European countries which are unitary also need a second chamber. The UK is not a good example with their House of Lords as they are slow at ridding themselves of vestiges of the past but unitary countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Italy all have bicameral parliaments.

I would be much more worried about China than Russia. China is a rising power, Russia is waning fast. If it were not for its nuclear arsenal, Russia would be taken about as seriously as Indonesia or Bangladesh, a military giant but an economic dwarf.

Too bad for Trump, and I'm sure he regrets this, is that he couldn't keep his tongue in check when asked before the election whether he was going to honour the outcome of the vote. He didn't unequivocally say that he would honour the result, which gave an impression that if he lost he would claim the election was rigged. Just imagine if he had put his words in a better order then what kind of a delicious opportunity he would have to ridicule the sore losers protesting against him right now. The very same people who demanded him to accept the election-result because it was certain that he was going to lose.

This is getting truly ridiculous! The generation snowflake doesn't seem to know that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Welcome to the real world! Judging by the reactions to Trump one wouldn't be blamed for thinking if the election in November was the final Presidential-election ever and now Trump is going to be Preisident until the end of the world.

It's a kind of law of certainty in the USA that in the mid-term Congres-elections the President's party goes backwards. Therefore Trump really has two effective years to push through his reforms. The problem for him regarding that is that many, if not most, Republican members of Congress totally disagree with him on a number of issues. Very unstable and tumultuous times may be ahead.

Why do former Presidents always completely retire from politics? I understand if they are old like Reagan or Bush Sr when they left office but Obama is only 55 years of age. he could just as well run for Senate in the next election and no term-limits there. Or is it just that once Presidency is the pinnacle of the political career, returning to a lower position just wouldn't have the same appeal to it. Regarding term-limits, can someone answer would Carter have been eligible to run for President in 1984 or Bush Sr in 1996? Why not?

I think the American Presidential election is far more entertaining an event than any Parliamentary-election in Europe and these power-changing ceremonies how the former President flies away and the new one takes over are quite impressive. Having said that I won't budge from my view that I still prefer the British style of Parliamentary democracy. In the American system everything is too much centered around the person of the President. When the President is in trouble like Clinton during the Whitewater-scandal the whole system paralyses. The British system is far more agile and able to react to surprising changes of circumstances. Too bad that one thing which I admire about the American system is completely unsuitable for the Parliamentary-system. That is the term-limits of the head of government. You just can't have a law in Britain that nobody may serve longer than 10 years, two terms, as PM of Britain. It is the job of wise politicians to realize when enough is enough. Like Aznar in Spain who retired after two terms. Unlike Merkel in Germany who is running for her fourth term as Chancellor in next election. But, as I said, you can't stipulate that by law. p

Any attempt at health care-reform in the USA seems to be a poison chalice any wise politician knows as to be avoided. No matter how unsatisfactory the current situation may be but any proposed change would be against the interests of too many people.

Gosh how fast 8 years went by! Obama's last minutes as president underway right this moment.

Soon there will be five former living Presidents. I guess there has never been more than that; When Clinton started there were Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr When GW Bush started there were Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr and Clinton Soon there will be Carter, Bush Sr, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama That may soon change as the news tells us that Bush Sr is at a critical condition. Having said all this, there are speculations that Trump will become a former President sooner than any of us could imagine today.i :

Obama is only 55 years old. What stops him from running for Senate in two years time and from there oppose Trump? I mean other than the usual "can't be bothered". Why is it considered so that leaving office as President you are supposed to retire from politics?

People are fed up with the same President after eight years. I don't think that even Reagan could have won a third term. However, Reagan was popular enough to have his endorsement getting elected under his wing. His endorsement failed to get re-elected on his own merit. But that's the way the American system works; the illusion of change every eight years when as in the long term nothing changes.

I'm so disappointed with the mankind as in this time and age people are still obsessed with medieval superstitious claptrap and some want to impose the same rubbish on other people. Religion should be nothing else than a private matter and there should be no connection between the any church and the state. Well, at least you people over there on the other side of the pond have that one right. I wish we did too.

The inauguration-ceremony is the worst nightmare for the security services. Any other time the President is well protected and every possibility of a threat is eliminated but the inauguration-ceremony is in the middle of a busy city in open air and includes a long walk along its main street.

It is easy to understand that Hillary must be bitter as hell. In 2008 she received more votes in the primaries than Obama but as the Democrats have the so-called super-delegates who don't have to declare their support for any candidate she lost the nomination. 8 years later she finally gets the nomination but loses the election after getting the largest number of votes again. As if it was just not meant to be for her.

Her father died in his 50's, that's why she has been on the throne for so long. Can you remember when Diana died and the ridiculous mass-hysteria which followed? That is nothing compared to what will happen when the Queen eventually dies.

There is a lot of speculation about the Queen's deteriorating health. There could be big news coming up shortly. On the other hand, she's only 90 when as her mother made it to 102 years of age. Last year she became the longest reigning monarch overtaking Victoria.

A few weeks ago I tried to make a conversation about this topic on this site. Somebody, I can't remember who, posted that the whole issue is irrelevant in Canada and at the bottom of the list of urgency. I think it is no co-incidence that New Zealand is a very pro-monarchy country while their much bigger neighbour Australia even had a referendum whether to ditch the monarchy. Similarly, I guess for Canada the monarchy and remaining part of the British Commonwealth is a question of identity which sets them apart from their much stronger neighbour.

Well, your system in Canada is very much like any European parliamentary democracy and therefore unlike any other system on the American continent all of them being strong Presidential republics.

The very concept of modern monarchy is shizophrenic to say the least. If we take the United Kingdom, on one hand the Queen is just a meaningless mascot with no power other than what authority she can herself exert but otherwise nothing whatsoever. On the other hand she owns the whole country and everyone who lives in the UK is a subject to her rather than a citizen. But yes, it is a silly anachronistic institution which has only been kept in place because of absence of commonly agreed alternative. It is rather interesting in history that the present status of the British monarch dates from the 18th century. I mean that whoever is the king or queen must heed Parliament which makes laws. Less than 100 years ago monarchies which are abolished today, Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary had a system where the monarch was the supreme authority and his word was final and not to be disputed.

This topic brings to mind what happened in Australia in 1975 when the government failed to pass the budget on a number of occasions and as a result the Governor-General dismissed the government and appointed the leader of the opposition to form a new government. That sparked a row can the GC actually do that. Actually he could and did but only when the circumstances allowed him to do so as the government was in a gridlock. If Canada and Australia ever become republics it will be nothing else than turn the office of the GC into one of President with the so-called residual power.j p

Let's put it this way: If the monarchy didn't exist, who would today propose such a system to be invented?

Unrest in Turkey has seen tourism falling, which further plays into the hands of those who want to create chaos as Turkey is rather dependant on income from tourism. Beats the hell out of me who the heck wants to travel there but obviously millions of people disagree with me.

I guess it is no longer possible to pull any stunt to stop him from becoming President like there was a couple of weeks ago when the electors convened. However, I'm still convinced that he won't get far being President before he is deposed by some way. I don't beleive they are trying to kill him, that would be too obvious, but some overwhelming scandal may force him out. Given that he is a former businessman there is bound to be a lot of things in his past which can be used against him. Hillary's camapign-team just didnt dig hard enough during the campaign.