European Prime Ministers Vs US President

tintinr35

who would ye reckon to be more powerfull,
US president or the likes of Bertie, tony blair, and other european PM's

PM's control legislature and executive. President's only control executive. So PM's could be argued to be stronger.

DadaKopf

PMs also lead cabinet and, I think, appoint representatives to the European Commission and ministers to the Council of Ministers at the EU. The Commission's mandate is granted by the Council, so while the Commission has some freedom to act, it can only do so within the limits set upon it by Prime Ministers of the member states.

ivan087

Deleted User wrote:

PM's control legislature and executive. President's only control executive. So PM's could be argued to be stronger.

yeah depends which way you look at it. the president is the leader of the strongest and most influential nation that can practically go to war on his own agenda (ie Iraq). European pm's are leaders of smaller nations that cant flex their military might as much as the USA. cant imagine bertie sending us to war if we think another nation might be a threat to us.
having said that, bertie has more internal power then bush has.

extragon

A PM has more real power ( relative to the size of his country ) assuming he has control of parliament.
A President, however, can do his own thing, and hang on. Look at Clinton. In a European country he'd have been pushed out, or have lost a vote of confidence and have gone, quickly.

The Corinthian

The US system is quite different from most of the European systems, largely down to historical reasons. Most European democracies evolved from monarchies, with power transferring from the monarch to the Prime Minister, until the monarch was nothing more than a figurehead or even replaced with a republican monarch - a president.

The US system was largely ‘invented’, in that rather than model government upon the English system (replacing the monarch with a figurehead president) they opted for something completely new. This difference in origin would explain much of the difference in the role of a European Prime Minister and US President.

An interesting exception to this is France, which changed its constitution following World War II to strengthen the role of president and if far more comparable to the US position.

Anyhow that’s another perspective on it.

ISAW

tintinr35 wrote:

who would ye reckon to be more powerfull,
US president or the likes of Bertie, tony blair, and other european PM's

If Colin Powell ran for the presidency and it was one-on-one I think his Marine training would put hm on short odds to win. If he won as a third party candidate then him and Jesse Ventura would fairly much make a "dream team". I couldnt see any Europeans beating them. There was a UK politician called Cyril Smith who had a weight advantage over ventura but he is way too old now. Paddy Ashdown the old Lib/Dem leader was in the Special Boat Squadron and his special forces training might see him through but with Jesse Ventura - not without weapons.

But these people never got elected to Presidency or as Prime minister. I think Bertie "slippery" Ahern and Tony "twister" Blair would certainly have the speed and age advantage on George "bad boy" Bush and Dick "cheerleader" Chaney in particular. In a tag team match team US would really be long odds.

Yeah the smart money is on Bertie.

Pazaz 21

The Corinthian wrote:

The US system was largely ‘invented’, in that rather than model government upon the English system (replacing the monarch with a figurehead president) they opted for something completely new. This difference in origin would explain much of the difference in the role of a European Prime Minister and US President.

QUOTE]

Ya, i mean the american governemt was set up to restrict the power the president had over the people, that is why congress and the senate are there to limit the presidents power and to stop him from doing what ever he wants with/to the country. In bushs case he had the support of congress so he was able to go to war but i mean if congress said no it just wouldn't have happened. The founding fathers of america wanted to make sure they didnt have a leader with absolute power ( like the king of england) so thats why they decided to invent there own system.

ISAW

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The Corinthian wrote:

The US system was largely ‘invented’, in that rather than model government upon the English system (replacing the monarch with a figurehead president) they opted for something completely new. This difference in origin would explain much of the difference in the role of a European Prime Minister and US President.

Ya, i mean the american governemt was set up to restrict the power the president had over the people, that is why congress and the senate are there to limit the presidents power and to stop him from doing what ever he wants with/to the country. In bushs case he had the support of congress so he was able to go to war but i mean if congress said no it just wouldn't have happened. The founding fathers of america wanted to make sure they didnt have a leader with absolute power ( like the king of england) so thats why they decided to invent there own system.

A mite simplistic. First the Constitutional Congress were in the main representing the views of land owners. true there were civil libritarians among them but they lost out at least until the Bill of rights so it could not be claimed the original constitution was a "power to the people" doccument.

The other houses were heavily influenced by British and French thinking. While it may have wanted to restrict the power of the Monarch like Magna Carta US thinking (in the constitutionally congress) was not necessarily based on diluting the leaders power and giving it to the people but more so on giving it to the landowners and gentry just as Magna Carta had given it over to the Nobility. One could argue that it remained that way until today. Only White Anglo Saxon Middle Class english speaking protestants get elected president (one notable exception) and few others get a look in even in congress.

The French did have thinkers which went further and wanted all power to devolve from the people to the government. Their declaration of the rights of Man was a precursor to the Us Constitution.

I still figure Bertie and Blair would win in a tag team match. Mind you a Bertie and Cowan team would have added weight!

Hobbes

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=US+president&word2=EU+president

US President by a roundhouse to the head.

Pazaz 21

I mean if Bush can't handle a mountain bike,or even a pretzel for that matter, how would he be able to beat the awesome tag team that is Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney, the gruesome twosome, as i like to call them, with their patented "sure you can land your planes in Shannon" attack, what is this appeasment or something.