No, comparing Qatar's monarchy to that of the UK is bullshit. No Emir has ever removed a Prime Minister? There have been five. The position has only existed since 1970. The first Prime Minister was also the Emir and he was deposed after 25 years. His own son took over both positions after a coup. He spent a little over a year in the role, then gave it to his brother for 11 years. He resigned and handed it to another member of the family. Two years ago it switched hands to yet another family member. Attempting to make a comparison between that and an elected democracy is insulting. You don't even believe the comparison yourself, so I've no idea why you're making it.
13th May 2015. No, what's insulting is that you are sticking to an argument that has been thoroughly debunked. Saying that Qatar has only had a Prime Minister since 1970 goes back to what I said many, many posts ago about how Qatar is somewhat progressive compared to most Middle Eastern nations, where I cited Saudi Arabia as a genuine example of absolute monarchy because their king and Prime Minister are the same person. I say that no Emir has ever removed a Prime Minister and you cannot disprove this, because it has never happened - yet when I say that the Queen has the unchallenged ability to refuse an elected Prime Minister you try to say that's somehow different. It isn't different, get over it.
Those were municipal elections. There is no direct challenge allowed to the ruling family allowed, as I'm sure you're aware.
Yes, I'm sure they'll be allowed to 'consult' to the ruling family, and then do what they're told. Like everybody else in a Qatar!
I hate to be the party pooper for those cheering that Blatter's gone...but he hasn't. He has stated that he intends to stay in his role until his successor is elected - but the next election won't be until the next FIFA Congress, which means that Blatter is going to remain in charge of FIFA until 2016. In other words, Blatter's got his exit strategy planned well in advance, so expect a legion of paper shredders to grossly inflate Zurich's carbon footprint for the next few months before Blatter walks out of FIFA's front door with a handful of absolution letters in his hand. You mean like how the leader of a party that wins the General Election has to "consult" the Queen in order to be allowed to govern?
Come on Croydon, I don't know why you are arguing this. The ability of the Monarch to choose a government is notional/ceremonial only. There is a grey area in a few limited scenarios when both main parties struggle to form a government, but if the Queen chose a govt that does not have the support of the commons it would soon fall. And they know better than to precipitate a constitutional crisis by picking a govt that doesn't have commons support. I'd love it if the Queen tried to go against the elected members of the commons cause we'd be able to sweep the anachronism away.
....And incorrect again. Blatter himself said in his speech that a year is too long to wait. FIFA's rules dictate a 4 month notice period, but elections are expected in December. He's a 'lame duck' anyway - shortly to be made a dead duck by the FBI!...
Indeed it is but people on here are calling for rules which FIFA members have to follow when determining who can have a World Cup. I don't think there is a simple rule that could be written down which would disqualify Qatar and not a whole pile of other countries by mistake.
To cut costs perhaps only countries that had sufficient suitable stadia to host a World Cup should be allowed to bid. It would prevent the wasted money that could be better spent on other things, such as welfare and housing for the poor and stop the use of a very expensive stadium as a bus garage.
How about having more than 300,000 citizens and some actual human rights legislation? Might be a start. Not allowing bids that are then completely and utterly changed beyond all recognition when they've won would be good, too. You've debunked nothing. You've simply made a claim that the Emir's not a dictator because there's a separate Prime Minister. The fact that the guy's his relative, was hand picked and can be removed at will without fear of reprisals is irrelevant, apparently. It's an utterly laughable argument. You seem to believe, by your own words, that Qatar was a dictatorship until the mid 90s, then wasn't anymore because of an extremely minor decision. The latest Emir would be the first to have never been a dictator, apparently. The son of one, but not one himself. The fact that the country's own website sets him out as one doesn't appear to matter!
If you can think of any logical reason why a W.C. Which has always been held in the summer months, should be held in a giant sandpit with summer temps of more than 50c other than that they just happen to be obscenely wealthy, love to hear it.
Succinct, but yes. Blatter and co have only their own arrogance and belief in their own untouchability to blame. Russia was, I suppose, a just about defendable choice. But Qatar?? It was bound to set alarm bells ringing. It seems now that the U.S. Investigations have been ongoing since 2011.
It didn't seem like a constitutional nicety when sin the case of Alec Douglas-Home in 1963. When the Harold Macmillan stepped down as PM due to illness, he suggested that Douglas-Home should replace him - not only did The Queen not appoint him as PM, but before he was appointed he was expected to renounce his peerage. Calling him a lame duck is wildly off base - the definition of a lame duck is a President or Prime Minister whose successor has been elected, but they remain in office until they are inaugurated (case in point, the period where George W Bush was still POTUS even though Obama had won) At this moment in time, Blatter is in charge and there is nobody lined up to replace him, so his power and/or authority have not been diminished. Just because there's an election this December - and the timing of that should immediately set off alarm bells, as there's a four month notice period yet the elections aren't for another six months - that doesn't mean he's going in December. Be honest here, would it surprise you in the slightest if Blatter's successor was elected in December, yet Blatter held on until the next FIFA Congress in May next year before handing over the reigns? That is when Blatter will be a lame duck, as he spends his final weeks in power shredding documents with one hand while receiving absolution letters with the other - but that's several months from now, so proclaiming victory right now is on a level with this... please log in to view this image First of all, I've debunked plenty: I have proven that Qatar isn't a dictatorship based on the following grounds: i.) The dictionary definition of what a dictatorship is ii.) By proving that there is nobody with absolute power in Qatar as the Emir and the Prime Minister are not the same person - which is what the definition of absolute power is iii.) Citing websites such as nation Master who clearly state Qatar is not a dictatorship, and they clearly know more about the subject than you do since it's their job to know what is and is not a dictatorship iv.) Our monarchy's website says that, by your own definition, that The Queen qualifies as a dictator - but apparently she's not because of reasons v.) I'm not the one posting false statistics on this forum just to say QATAR BAD And that's the point right there: if the 2022 tournament was awarded to China under similar circumstances, would every discussion about FIFA soon degenerate into people slagging off China rather than focusing on the FIFA problem instead? Of course they ****ing wouldn't - and I'll back this up by stating that nobody was calling for Blatter's head when it emerged Morocco were caught trying to bribe FIFA officials for the right to stage the 2010 tournament, just like nobody is saying South Africa only got the 2010 tournament through bribery even though it's recently emerged they topped up Jack Warner's pension fund.
I kind of remember why I don't lurk here during the off season... Play stupid webgames? How about "Feed Blattr"? Warning: It makes sounds. http://www.blattr.co.uk/
I'm not even going to get into this any further and play your point scoring game. As far as I'm concerned, Blatter has formally resigned, he wil be replaced, and therefore he is, to all intents and purposes, a lame duck. As I've already said, I suspect the point is moot as he will most likely be a dead duck before he has a chance to become a lame one, according to your definition. Secondly, I'm sure you're bright enough to know the difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional one very well. So, what exactly is the point you are trying to score - sorry, make?
