Have a heaping dish of irony: Dutch king: say goodbye to welfare state

[cali]

AMSTERDAM (AP) — King Willem-Alexander delivered a message to the Dutch people from the government Tuesday in a nationally televised address: the welfare state of the 20th century is gone.

In its place a "participation society" is emerging, in which people must take responsibility for their own future and create their own social and financial safety nets, with less help from the national government.

The king traveled past waving fans in an ornate horse-drawn carriage to the 13th-century Hall of Knights in The Hague for the monarch's traditional annual address on the day the government presents its budget for the coming year. It was Willem-Alexander's first appearance on the national stage since former Queen Beatrix abdicated in April and he ascended to the throne.

<snip>

A series of recent polls have shown that confidence in Rutte's government is at record low levels, and that most Dutch people — along with labor unions, employers' associations and many economists — believe the Cabinet's austerity policies are at least partially to blame as the Dutch economy has worsened even as recoveries are underway in neighboring Germany, France and Britain.

<snip>

The monarchy was not immune to cost-cutting and Willem-Alexander's salary will be cut from around 825,000 euros ($1.1 million) this year to 817,000 euros in 2014. Maintaining the Royal House — castles, parades and all — costs the government around 40 million euros annually.

<snip>

http://news.yahoo.com/dutch-king-goodbye-welfare-state-134224369--finance.html

[JI7]

1. and the people stand for this ? at least the British Royals bring in tourist dollars

[Tien1985]

2. My sister in law is from

The Netherlands. I've tried to get it before, but she has mostly told me folks from the US just don't get royalty. It's part of the culture and not something they'll move away from lightly.

Who knows, maybe this will cause a wedge?

[ErikJ]

22. So should France bring back their royalty?

I would bet France gets more tourism than Britain.

[Diclotican]

29. ErikJ

ErikJ

I doubt France will go back to have a King or Queen, mostly because they have a rather turbulent past when it come to royalty - The revolution in 1789 - and the execution of the royals before 1793, and the Napoleon times - and then a couple of kings who believed they could turn back the clock to pre-revolution times - made it impossible to have a king as head of state. Even a seminal King or Queen would have been a bridge to fare in France today...

In UK they have a whole different experience with the Royals - in fact the brits tried a Republic in the late 1600s - and was less than impressed with it - and when the chance was there - they got back the royals as fast as Charles the second could sail back to UK from France.. And for the most part the royals in UK have at least been respected for their job performance - even as they have had a few very bad apples over the last 1000 years... The current Queen in UK, is respected - and in many cases also respected for her job performance - even as she is starting to be rather old she stay one on the job - and do a good job when it comes to represent her country.

Diclotican

[pampango]

3. Kings (even ceremonial ones) endorsing austerity for common folks is indeed ironic.

And it seems that the far right is benefitting from the unpopularity of austerity politics, as is happening in many countries.

Geert Wilders, whose far right Freedom Party currently tops popularity polls, called Rutte's budget the equivalent of "kicking the country while it's down."

[cali]

4. particularly as his $1 million+ salary and $40 million annual upkeep

are paid by the citizens.

[oberliner]

5. And how much income do they generate for the citizens?

Probably at least that and more.

[cali]

8. I have no idea and neither do you. obivously.

but there are other ways of generating income. there is something wholly fucking disgusting about someone who lives in the lap of luxury supported by taxpayers demanding that those very people become more "self-reliant".

It's a pity you don't grasp something so fucking basic.

[oberliner]

10. I have a rough idea

Dutch Royal House is one of the more popular tourist destinations in the country. And tourism brings in a lot of revenue for the country.

I'm not sure why you have to swear and insult. I don't believe my post was anything but polite.

[EOTE]

13. So let's give some random assholes here their own Royal House so that we can reap the benefits of

all that tourism revenue! Maybe Bush could be our new king? Romney? So long as they're completely out of touch with average citizens and want to force austerity on us all while they live in utter opulence in the lap of luxury. Why didn't we think of this before? Fuck Disney World, we could be visiting a bunch of dumb, evil fucks who think they know what's best for us while living it up on our dime.

Or, we could use an ounce of common sense and realize that the monarchy belongs in the 17th century and has absolutely no place in civilized society or whatever "Idiocracy"-like society we happen to be heading toward. I'm guessing common sense is overrated, though.

[oberliner]

19. We have a very different history

I'm not arguing in favor of a royal family, just pointing out that they do bring in revenue for the country.

[EOTE]

24. And I'm arguing that whether or not something brings in revenue for a country is a REALLY shitty way

of determining something's worth. So I'm not even quite sure why it was brought up. The Hunger Games would probably bring in a great deal of money as well.

[oberliner]

25. In response to the citizens paying the salary and upkeep

I was just responding that it's not a one-way situation in terms of payments going out with nothing coming in. The Hunger Games doesn't currently exist in the Netherlands, whereas the royal family does so that kind of seems like a non sequitur.

[EOTE]

28. It IS a one-way situation. They do no work and they reap the benefits.

It doesn't matter WHO the royalty is, they would always be visited regardless. And, as some posters have already noted in this thread, the royalty doesn't even need to exist in order to bring in the money as people want to see the infrastructure, not the lazy assholes spending their money. What's a non-sequitur is suggesting that these psychopathic, worthless, lazy assholes contribute anything of value to any country.

[oberliner]

30. Wouldn't the infrastructure still be paid for by tax dollars?

As the post to which I initially responded pointed out, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is 20 times the amount of what the royals themselves get.

[EOTE]

35. Yes, just like museums and state parks.

But notice that we don't pay people insane salaries for ruling over said parks and museums. Instead, they're used for the enrichment of all, instead of a pathetic few.

[oberliner]

38. Right

But eliminating the "insane salary" (which is about 1 million dollars) would have virtually zero effect on the average Dutch citizen's tax bill. Whereas whatever enjoyment they get out of having a royal family would be forever eliminated.

From a recent article:

The Dutch still love their royal family: a recent survey indicates that 75 percent of the population supports the monarchy; it's an approval rating that most presidents or prime ministers can only dream of.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/strong-support-dutch-royals

[EOTE]

45. The monarchy is not just the king.

There are a number of other royal house members who receive wages and a number of other ridiculous perks (like legal tax evasion) merely for being born to the right family. Which is also the most awful part of having a monarchy that you seem to be completely missing. It perpetuates the idea that some people are simply better and more worthy of happiness simply due to the circumstances under which they were born. You little guys are just going to have to work harder if you want to thrive (or at the very least, survive), maybe if you hard tried harder to be a member of royalty, you wouldn't be in the sorry lot in life you find yourself in now. The divine right of Kings is something that should have been outdated by the 1500s. The fact that we still have it today, even in supposed 'enlightened' countries, shows how incredibly far we need to progress as a society.

[MADem]

62. The part that you are missing is the will of the people.

The Dutch like their monarchs, they're very popular with an enviable (over eighty percent) approval rating. The Dutch, apparently, believe they are getting good value for their money when it comes to these folks.

I have a feeling that if they didn't like them, they'd have gone by the wayside long ago.

As for their monarchs' "divine right," they don't have any power. They're PR flacks with crowns. Cheerleaders with scepters.

I also think, unless you're Dutch, your opinion is just that--an opinion; the Dutch people will give it all the attention that it deserves.

[EOTE]

64. Sure, we all know that money isn't in any way equated to power.

I'm sure the king with his 7 figure salary can't do anything the average citizen can do. He just sit around playing Xbox.

[MADem]

70. You are being willfully obtuse. nt

[MADem]

58. Why are you blaming this nation's faux king for the words in a speech written by

the elected government leadership?

You're heaping all your vitriol on this guy who was "earning his salary" by doing as he was told. His "job" is to cut ribbons at supermarkets, read speeches written by "the government," hand out awards, shake hands, wave the flag, that kind of thing. You might argue that the guy is overpaid, but he does do work--and has his personal life constrained--for the money he is given.

From your comments, it sounds like you don't understand the system over there. The "king" is the tool used by "the government" to pass on this bad news. He didn't write the speech, he didn't make the policies that are articulated in the speech.

From what I understand, the monarchy is very popular over there, so if this guy is a psychopathic, worthless, lazy asshole, as you want to believe, he is a lazy asshole who is beloved by the population. What does that make the Dutch people, then? A bunch of psychopathic, lazy idiot-assholes?

The Netherlands is celebrating its new King, Willem-Alexander. His mother Queen Beatrix bid an emotional farewell after a reign that has spanned more than three decades. When she took the throne, back in 1980, Republicans hit the streets to protest against the monarchy. Now, the royal family enjoys the support of more than 80 percent of the Dutch people. We look at what has changed and examine the new king's role.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130430-focus-netherlands-abdication-willem-alexander-queen-beatrix-monarchy-popular-orange-amsterdam

I'm not going to second-guess the Dutch people on this matter. If it works for them, and eighty percent of them apparently think it does, more power to them.

[EOTE]

59. I'm not blaming the king, I'm talking about how awful it is that the monarchy even exists.

He can't help but be an awful example and overall drain on society. As a people, we CAN demand better and do away with the awful and backward example set by the divine right of kings.

[MADem]

69. The Dutch, apparently, LIKE the degree of separation that the monarchy provides.

They vote for politicians to run the government, and they look to the example of the monarchs as an idealized representation of their better selves. They also require that the monarchs work--those public appearances, meeting and greeting, eating rubber chicken, cutting ribbons, kissing babies, and posing for photos may not seem like "work" but it is mind-numbing after a few days. The thrill wears off in a hurry.

Who is anyone, who is not Dutch, really, to criticize the Dutch for their choice, and it is their choice, of government? If they didn't want a monarch, they've got the tools to get rid of it. There is no "divine right" any more, the people in the jobs now simply had ancestors who hit a genetic lottery--constitutional monarchs serve at the pleasure of their 'constituents,' as it were.

Monarchs in constitutional monarchies are living embodiments of the best qualities of a nation--they serve as examples, their goal is to embody their countries in a way that engenders pride in the population. They are a nationalistic focal point, as it were. Those who do their jobs well are more often than not beloved. Those who sit on their asses and do nothing are resented.

This bifurcated system of loyalties works for many countries. If you're from the left, or from the right, the odds are you'll find someone who agrees with you about the monarchy. In the Netherlands, 80 percent of the nation like them, so that admiration plainly crosses party lines.

It is not an American custom, so Americans cannot understand it or appreciate it. It remains popular in many places, though, like Japan, Denmark or UK.

[Orangepeel]

43. Tourists visit the palace because they are in Amsterdam, they don't go to the Netherlands for that

It's the Dutch people's business whether or not they have royalty. It's part of the culture, they just like it, whatever. (Americans have Hollywood, so who am I to talk?)

But tourist dollars would be a silly reason to keep it. Tourists who visit the palace do so because they are in Amsterdam, they don't go to the Netherlands for that. As an illustration, Trip Advisor ranks the Palace as the 119th most popular tourist attraction in Amsterdam. (the Amsterdam Pipe Museum is #88)

If the goal is generating revenue from tourists, there have to be better ways.

[oberliner]

65. The Royal Palace is #43 out of 260 attractions in Amsterdam on Trip Advisor

There is also the Noordeinde Palace in The Hague.

[Orangepeel]

71. Well, that makes all the difference!

I don't begrudge the Dutch people having a king if that's what they want.

I'm not sure how trip advisor displays ratings and why you saw a higher number than I did. But I am sure that "it attracts tourist dollars" is not a good reason to have royalty, except possibly for England and American tourist dollars. What tourist who goes to the Netherlands would have not gone if there was no king?

"That's the way it is and we like it that way" is a much more convincing argument.

[oberliner]

75. I was responding to one specific remark

Which talked about the cost of maintaining the upkeep for the infrastructure.

My only claim was that I think that they generate as much revenue as it costs to maintain them (or more).

[Frankie the Bird]

78. I know exactly where to go to Amsterdam when I go....

It'll be to the nearest marijuana cafe.....

Even though my state has legalized marijuana, I would still like to try European style of marijuana.

[oberliner]

85. To each his or her own

I'd be much more keen to check out the palace than to try European style marijuana.

[LuvNewcastle]

72. People are much more likely to visit Amsterdam for the drugs than the royal family.

The hash is a hell of a lot more important than the king, that's for fucking sure.

[MADem]

89. Americans also have "political" royalty.

It's less permanent than a monarchy (we're not still getting all fluttery over the descendants of John Adams, for example, but they're out there) but it does exist (Kennedy, Clinton, Bush family members, e.g.).

The thing is, the people LIKE their royalty over there. THEY believe they are getting good value for their euro. How many politicians do we have who enjoy eighty percent approval ratings, after all? And if they tire of them, they can dump them through the constitutional process--so in a way, the royal families do, in fact, serve at the pleasure of the people.

[Theyletmeeatcake2]

15. Well,keep the royal house for the tourists ,

But why have to support the royals...as well as being funded by taxpayers they probably have perks like not paying income tax on other investments,owning vast tracts of land,literally having a free lunch on the country.i may be wrong about some stuff but if they ar e like the Brits ....they're all related anyway....

[oberliner]

20. That makes a lot of sense

Thanks for your thoughtful reply!

Incidentally, I wasn't arguing in favor of the royal family, just pointing out that they do bring in revenue for the country.

[7962]

21. Thats the DU way, dontcha know!

[Democracyinkind]

23. Versailles still attracts tourists 200+ years after beheading the king.

Tourists do not vist kings, they visit their infrastructure. No one advocates doing away with that.

[oberliner]

27. Who pays for the upkeep of Versailles?

Is it paid for by French tax dollars?

[Democracyinkind]

36. Technically, it is supposed to pay for itself... In reality

it is indirectly subsidized by the french state (they pay most of the salaried positions at Versailles).

How is this an argument that a king is needed? Tax euros or not, people visit Versailles even if it lacks a king. The same is true for most monarchic infrastructure in Europe that now lack monarchs.

What am I missing? Surely you're not arguing for an equivalency of the salaries a king receives and the french public paying for the upkeep of Versailles?

Tourists do not vist kings. They visit their monuments.

[oberliner]

40. Not making an argument that a king is needed

Making an argument that eliminating the king (and not the royal infrastructure, so to speak) would have virtually zero positive effect financially for the citizenry.

Also, the monarchy is very popular there, for what that is worth.

[Democracyinkind]

42. "Virtually zero positive effect"

His salary could feed many hungry bellies. A question of priorities, I suppose.

At least you're not claiming that the king has a positive economic effect. That would have shocked me. Kings always cost the poor, if anything, it is their monuments - which are paid for by the people anyway- that generate some revenue.

[hfojvt]

76. even just 40% of his salary

would provide a year's worth of food stamps for 165 single people.

Even for the Netherlands that is not a lot of people, but it is not nothing either, and obviously 90% or 100% would do even more and the King obviously has assets enough to live in stylem especially since his living expenses are taken care of.

[Democracyinkind]

77. Plus, the whole family is said to be worth 10 billion...

Now that would fund a good part of the welfare state...

[Marr]

49. Versaille is a lot more popular.

The actual royal parasite seems to be optional as tourism goes.

[dotymed]

26. I agree Cali, it is disgusting.

I won't even fault you for swearing....people who can least afford to even survive are expected to suffer more for the elite. This is a world-wide (almost, South America is bucking this trend of greed because they have suffered from American elite economic policy)
trend that can only be alleviated by restoring pre-Reagan tax codes.
In America our congress needs to be paid minimum wage, K street needs to become illegal (all lobbyists).
If we can safely do banking and shopping on our computers, we can vote on them, complete with printed "receipts" that one part is sent to an ACLU type of election validation .
Money must be removed from politics everywhere if governments are expected to represent the average citizen.
Monarchies are a form of serfdom that, especially in our current world of greed, cannot adequately represent the average citizen unless an Arthurian type of leader emerges. Growing up in luxury with most other citizens being considered beneath royalty and being isolated in your elite caste, it would be improbable that would happen.

[MADem]

55. Good grief, reading is fundamental. Talk about "grasping something basic!"

King Willem-Alexander delivered a message to the Dutch people from the government Tuesday ....


He didn't write the speech. He just read it. "He" didn't "demand" anything. He just read what the government provided to him. If they handed him a piece of paper with the Gettysburg Address or the lyrics to "Old Cape Cod" on it, that's what he would have read.

That's what "from the government" means.

For those who remained unclear, this bit was further clarified later on in the piece:

"The shift to a 'participation society' is especially visible in social security and long-term care," the king said, reading out to lawmakers a speech written for him by Prime Minister Mark Rutte's government.

The guy is a mouthpiece, nothing more. He has absolutely no power or control over these issues.

[cali]

79. yes, I read and comprehended. more than I can say for you, honey

that the speech was penned by the PM, doesn't detract one whit from the irony I'm pointing out. duh.

and furthermore, I doubt anyone put a gun to his head and made him do it.

[warrant46]

37. Well I'm sure this Lackey doesn't think about eating Cat food for supper

[elehhhhna]

47. 50MM upkeep in USD

[snooper2]

57. how much does the dude get paid to clean up the horse shit?

I got a car I can sell him



http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/725W6KDvbQ5t7tcyiXU2RQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTYxMDtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz05NjA-/

[Diclotican]

34. pampango

pampango

I'm not sure how things works out in the Netherlands - but here in Norway, where we have a King - and a Queen - the number one rule the royals have had since our first King in modern times Haakon the 7th was given the throne in 1905 - was not to speak out about the kings political leanings. The King should stay over the politic of the day - and be the King for everyone - that be the rich - the poor - and the middle... And as our king Haakon once said when he after WW2 was asked by some in our Parliament - what to do with the communist, who had won a few seats in the first election in 1945 - "Nothing - they are also my subjects - and should be treated exactly as everyone else" was the answer from the King . He won a few points even from the communist in Norway when he answered in that fashion.. Specially as he was not exactly found of the communists at all - and already right after the October revolution in 1917 had let down a VETO against any royal in Norway to ever set their feet in the Soviet Union as long as the communists was in power.. Specially after his first cousin Nicolai the 2 and the family was executed in Yekatarinburg....

And for the most part, our Royal Family does their job good - some mishaps have happened now and then, but the support is strong in the population - last time it was polled I believe 80 percent of the asked was in favor of the royal family - 10 percent was not sure - and between 8 and 10 percent was against the Royal familiy... I doubt the few who are Republicans in Norway will never got the royal family thrown out of the Palace anytime soon... And in Norway I think having a royal family is making the country more stable than a republic could have made it.. If our royals are not doing something really stupid - I doubt we will go over to a republic anytime soon...

Diclotican

[Yo_Mama]

44. Many Americans are pretty ignorant about other political systems

Diclotican - please don't be offended by the comments here. People don't understand that in the non-royalty parliamentary governments of Europe there is generally an apolitical president that serves the function of the King or Queen - head of state. You are going to have one or the other.

In the US system of government, a royal house could have no function, but that isn't true for every democratic government and in fact it is somewhat the outlier.

I do find it a bit funny that citizens of a state in which the head travels with an entourage of over a thousand at the cost of over a hundred million USD a day should be criticizing other states for having kings or queens that waste the people's resources - there is an almost hilarious lack of perspective here. It's obvious to me that many states get more bang for their ceremonial buck with their kings or queens than we do with our presidents.

I think anyone with a little bit of historical knowledge truly understands that the Dutch and Norwegian societies are more, not less, egalitarian than the USA.

[Diclotican]

48. Yo_Mama

Yo_Mama

I'm not offended by some who maybe have some ignorance when it come to other political systems - then I think it is important to try to tell - in broad ways how the system works in other country's where we do still have a king or a queen as head of state.

And as you point out - even in the country's who is a republic, you still have a head of state, in the form of a President - who have little or no power - but they often have a important sermional role - who represent the country abroad - or in the country itself.. But for the most part, the President in many country's do not have to much power.. Like in Germany where few ones even know the name of the current President, who by the way is Joachim Gauck who was elected 18 of march 2012.

The irony is that your presidents - who is flying around the world in a 747, with thousands of people a security apparatus that would make even some of the worst dictators in the past green of envy - is acting in a more royal way than most modern royals ever would dear to do.. Mostly because outside of the Saudis the royals tend to have to use the tools the government want them to have - not necessary the tools the royals want them to have.. In Norway example when our King and Queen is abroad to represent the country - the government often rent a 737 from SAS - or on long trips other aircrafts from SAS to use as aircraft the king and queen can use - A few years back when it was discussed in the parliament if the royal family should be given a private jet - it was kind of shot down both in public, and in the parliament before long - because it was decided that to buy a whole aircraft for the royals was little to much - So no "Air force One" for our king and Queen..

We even had a king - who in the 1970s was using the tram from the palace, to Kongsseteren at Holmenkollen when he wanted to go skiing on a regular basis.. And he did it many times before he was discovered by some - he was in fact rather known for his ability to "blend in" and not making any fuzz if he wanted to do it that way.. And he was deeply respected by anyone also (Olav V of Norway) I doubt your president would be allowed outside the White House on his own, without a little army of secret service agents even if it was just to take a bite on a local food restaurant... Our king was asked then, if he was afraid of being attacked by anyone - without bodyguards - he answered in his regular way - why should he be worried about that - he had 4 million bodyguards who would protect him... That kind of sum it all up I would say....

Norway have allways been verry egalitarian even as the country have shanged a lot the last 30-40 years - but still the fabric, and the trust between most norwigians is there - and as long as we manage to build on that - i think Norway would manage to be a good place to live - even if we have our share of shortcommings - and pay a lot more taxes than in the US...

dICLOTICAN

[MADem]

60. There's a whole heapin' helpin' of unbridled, unashamedly proud ignorance in this thread....

Four out of five of the Dutch people support the monarchy--even with a unpopular government at the helm.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130430-focus-netherlands-abdication-willem-alexander-queen-beatrix-monarchy-popular-orange-amsterdam

I think the problem is that some of the gripers don't "get" how the system works. Their insular beliefs and attitudes inform (poorly) their world view.

[cali]

80. sorry, but disagreeing with the like of YOU hardly makes one ignorant.

[MADem]

90. Disagreeing with eighty percent of the Dutch population does, though.

It suggests that one doesn't have their facts in order.

[Yo_Mama]

83. I think it is that our own system is so divergent from the western european norm

Unless a person brought up in the US has ever studied the workings of another western democracy, they have no context to put the OP article in, and in an American context it does seem odd. But it is not odd at all in a Dutch context - this was the head of state giving a speech that represented the views of the government, not some old-fashioned autarch handing down a diktat from on high, and that would be automatically understood by Dutch citizens.

The pity is that the western European norm is much more common than our own, and now is widely spread through the world, so without some education we naturally misunderstand some of the workings of other democratic governments.

[MADem]

88. Queen Elizabeth II does the very same thing.

Her speech is written by Blair's government, Brown's government, Cameron's government....and she sits her butt down and reads it. The citizens of the UK understand where the words come from as well.

It's more of an historical artifact, a device to suggest continuity; and sometimes even a 'spoonful of sugar' to 'help the medicine go down.'

I like the US model of democracy, most of the time--it's not always terribly efficient or transparent, either, but it beats most alternatives. If I had to live in a country with a king, I'd prefer a real constitutional monarchy as opposed to a monarch-dictator who hides behind a faux constitutional system that provides limited authority to a legislature. I've lived in military dictatorships, and constitutional monarchies, and of course, USA, and I do like the American system best. That said, so long as there is representative government, and an historical monarchy that serves the nation at the will of the people, I don't have any problem with that. It's up to the people to keep or get rid of those systems....

[pampango]

46. Nice post. Thanks, Diclotican. Kings and queens are part of the history and culture of many

countries. Since they are unelected and should only serve - if at all - as a symbol of national unity, I think it is wise that they should not get involved in partisan politics or even in supporting or opposing policy choices - austerity, immigration, taxes, whatever.

While the Dutch king may be just reading a speech written for him by the politicians in power, it is not wise for the politicians to ask him to give a policy speech or for him to comply. Of course, Dutch history and culture may be different and this is not such a big deal to them, but it seems unwise if the goal is to have a royal family that unites the country behind an institution and not taint the royal family with day-to-day politics.

[Diclotican]

52. pampango

pampango

At least in Norway - it is a lot of history connected to our kings and Queen - as long as we can connect the dots back in history we have had a king or a queen in power in Norway.. Both in the Viking era where one of the first kings for the whole Norway Harald Hårfagre had to fight a few local kings here and there to make the case for his royalty to the election of Haakon the 7th in 1905, after the union with sweden broke down in the 1890s we have always had a king in power. That be our own, or by the king of Denmark and Sweden... It is traditions - and also a symbol of unity as our modern kings are not politic ans they are over that, they job is to be the head of state - opening our parliament every year - and do the job a king do without going to political about it... His political opinion is his own - but he can not if he want to be a king state his opinion public at least...

Day to day politics is something the Parliament can work with - I found it rather interesting that the new king in the Nederland would even try to go that political in his first years on the throne - he must have had some bad advice there about it all.... And it is also rather stupid of the governments side, to let him do it that way - this is something the Prime Minister should have stated - not the king...

Diclotican

[Laelth]

54. Your royals are quite impressive.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

-Laelth

[Diclotican]

56. Laelth

Laelth

Our current kings and queen does their job in a way that is not bad at least - for the most part they do a decent job - and have the ability to be "common" but even keep up the role of Head of State.

I once had the pleasure of speaking directly to the King - on a very un-formal way a couple of years ago - and he was great to talk to - the Queen was little "stiff" but the king was as human as it goes.. Of course some of the police officers in plain clothes was questing me sometime later - but it all was going very low key - and I doubt anyone other than me and the police officer ever noticed it all... I seriously doubt I would have had the possibility to speak that un formal with President Obama if I ever wist the US..... Even as I believe Obama would have been great to have an un formal hey with

Diclotican

[Laelth]

81. To an American liberal, Norway looks like paradise to me.

That said, whaling is still not cool (as far as I know, Norway and Japan are the two nations that continue to allow whaling). In addition, I am aware that Norway has oil/natural gas reserves in the North Sea that allow the country to avoid certain problems that the rest of the civilized world can not avoid. Still, if it were not for your long and harsh winters, I think Norway would be a great place to live.

And, more on point, your royals (if you must have royals) are excellent, and I would hope that the remaining vestiges of feudalism in the world would learn something from the remarkable example your nobles have demonstrated.

Regards,

-Laelth

[Diclotican]

82. Laelth

Laelth

Norway maybe look like a paradise - but it does have its vices as every country in the world And yes some hunt wales in Norway too - but I think it is on the decline - as more and more people kind of are not eating the meat from whales (even though it tastes great!) but it is expensive - you can get a lot of great beef for the prize of a little meat from a whale....

And yeah we do have a lot of natural gas and oil in the North Sea - who have given the country a lot of wealth - and also made it possible for our country to have a high economical life - even as the rest of europe is more or less going broke... But then again - we had some smart politicians who in the 1990s managed to save a lot of the money - to times when the days is rainy.. And also the fact that Norway kind of use our diplomats rather than our military to solve possible problems - make it more easy to save a lot of ressourses....

Norway can be cold in the winters - I believe it can be a very cold winter this years - as some signs tell about a possibility of snow - maybe in october/november... Sometimes it comes a lot of snow in winter - others it tend to be little or nothing.. But it is something you can get used to.. Even if it is cold... We have warm houses for the most part
But then Norway have also some great summers - last summer was great with a lot of warm - and stable weather who gave us a hope for a good summer - between 20-25 C most days - some rains but for the most part good weather who made wonders for my bad bones

Our royals tend to do their job rather professionals - and I doubt our royal family will end up fired anytime soon. A long as they know their boundaries - and do not mess to much outside the boundaries - then I think we will have royals here in Norway for a long time.. It is maybe one of the last vestiges of feudalism in the world - but as such I think our royals have doing a great job doing it with grace - and to respect the people they in theory are "ruling" over...

Diclotican

[Laelth]

84. I thank you for this intelligent reply.

Let me also acknowledge your excellent skill with the English language. We are very bad, here in the United States, about teaching foreign languages, and that hurts us. I wish my Norwegian was as good as your English.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[Diclotican]

86. Laelth

Laelth

Thank you for your kind words - I think my english have improved - thanks to my writings here on Du over the years - at least I am better to communicate my english now than I was before - in the beginning I had a very bad written english but as time passed - i suspect my english have improved somehow.

English is learned in school from a young age here, mostly because it is important to also learn a language most people understand - norwigian is a small country with little over 5 million people - english is a world language who maybe hundreds of millions are using, either as their native language - or as the second language.

Practice, practice and then some practice again, nothing beats practice when it come to learn a language I suspect..

But then again - to learning norwigian - it is for the specially interesting I guess - somehow shallenging - and with a lot of wierd rules who make writing and speaking tiresome for some.. But most americans I have known - who have lived here for a while - get to know to speak it. In some way or another

Diclotican

[Laelth]

91. Your sig. line, fyi, reminds me of a Led Zeppelin song.

The Immigrant Song

One of my favorites ... in my testosterone-charged youth.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[Diclotican]

92. Laelth

Laelth

That was a cool song - Led Zeppelin had some great songs in its time - not all of them successfully survived to our time - but the best of them did.

And the sign line is in fact a prayer from the middle ages - when the vikings was putting their marks on Europe - and many who was in coastal areas was really afraid of our forefathers who had the habit on plundering and pillaging whatever they managed to get their hands on.. In fact, in parts of France, this prayer was common place up to the 17th century....

Diclotican

[Laelth]

93. Yes, I know. We have not yet forgotten your forefathers (as Led Zeppelin demonstrates).

To be honest, the U.S. could benefit from a Norwegian invasion at the moment. Are you up for it?



-Laelth

[Diclotican]

94. Laelth

Laelth

Maybe - we can always build more longboats and set out to find "Vinland" again .. Even though I suspect we had to have some real military power to do an invasion on the US, as US do have military power to spear...

I doubt the vikings of the past is forgotten yet, they really did made a mark on europe from ca 780 to 1066 at least.. After that even the vikings got calmed down - and the rest of the continent was starting to getting more powerfully local leaders who could counter the vikings better...

Diclotican

[steve2470]

63. Diclotican, this is off topic if I may....

Has the Breivik mass murder changed Norway in any way ? I'm simply curious. Norway seems to have a great society from what I know. Thank you kindly.

[Diclotican]

66. steve2470

steve2470

Of this off topic thing - No Breivik have not changed Norway much - after the shock about what he did - and the fact he got his day in court - I suspect Norway for the most part have turned its back to the man and what he was standing for - and have going back to what is seen to be normal in most cases... We have had general elections - where the conservatives got the Prime minister - (Not that Høyre is like the conservatives in the US by any means) they are now working out the government cabal - and I suspect the next 4 years will be as the last 4 years have being - for the most part stable and secure for most of us...

For most people Breivik is a person who sit in his cell - and will be in his cell for the rest of his natural life.. I doubt he will be a free man even after being in prison for the whole time he was sentenced... He will be kept in protective custody - both for his own sake - but also for the population as a whole I suspect...

Norwigians tend to be rather level headed when this things happend - after a while we are back to the normal - and go ahead with our business as we allways do it...

Diclotican

[steve2470]

68. thanks, I'm glad Norway is doing well :) nt

[Diclotican]

74. steve2470

steve2470

Norway have been in hot water before - and survived the ordeal - so I guess we wil make this works too

Diclotican

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. Speech written by the government. Yeah, Americans clueless about royalty & parliaments.

The speech from the throne is written by the government in power. It is not the king's personal statement. It's a formality. It's how parliamentary democracies with figurehead monarchies work.

The first four posts and the headline seem to completely miss this point.

The Financial Times in the UK gets it ( http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/934952a6-1fad-11e3-aa36-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2ftmVSm76 )

“Due to social developments such as globalisation and an ageing population, our labour market and public services are no longer suited to the demands of the times,” the king said, in a speech written by the Liberal prime minister, Mark Rutte, and his cabinet.

Even the Yahoo article copy-pasted (but not blockquoted or excerpt tagged) states "from the government" in the first sentence.

[cali]

7. I understand that. It's right in the story. hard to miss. so the fuck what?

that doesn't negate the irony inherent in the story.

[ctsnowman]

11. X 1000

In what fucking hell do we live in where people defend this shit?

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. You agreed with a post that said he 'endorsed' it

He doesn't get a choice of whether he 'endorses' it or not. It would be a constitutional crisis if he did. The Dutch government was elected in 2012, in an election largely about austerity, and this is their policy. That's the fuck what.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. I think cali was saying that a guy born into extreme wealth through no virtue or effort

on his part being the face of such a declaration is ironic considering the criticisms often leveled against families on public assistance.

[cali]

17. why yes, that is what I was saying. You got it with ease.

Not exactly hard to figure out, was it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. I dunno. Some people say I'm "special."

[BelgianMadCow]

9. It was a pretty astounding statement

goodbye, welfare state. We can't pay for you anymore. Not without taxing capital appropriately and closing offshores, so that's a no-no.

BS, and indeed ironic for a King of a dynasty that helped start the Bilderberg meetings (It's the name of the hotel where the first meeting took place, in Holland, and co-instigated by Prince Bernhard) to say these things - even if they're the words of the government, as rightly pointed out.

Monarchies = 0.01%ers all the way.

[trusty elf]

12. Let them eat space cake n/t

[Madmiddle]

14. Annual salary

is what I have a problem with. The King or whatever he is should have to live off his trust fund that I'm sure is probably worth billions. To tell people they have to give up so the rich can have more is the underlying pretext.

[dotymed]

31. Reminescent of America. We can and urgently need to change "our" system.

Publicly financed elections.
congress' salary tied to the earnings of their constituents.
End lobbying.
Many things MUST be done to fix America's broken system.

[Diclotican]

32. Madmiddle

Madmiddle

The Royals could live off their founds - most royal families is worth some money, but I doubt a modern Royal family is worth the billions - maybe millions - but very few have billions in their bank account - or in one form of trust fund here and there.. In the past, the royal family could use the STATE for their petty cash account - but as the country progressed - and in many cases, at least in Europe parliaments got the upper hand in governing the State, the royals had to rely on what they was given by the Parliament every year.. Some managed to make it works - other ended up without their head - or got fired by the Parliament and it ended in a Republic..

But for the most part - the few country's who still have a royal family it is the Parliament who decide how much a Royal family will be given every year - and for the most part, the annual salary is rather handsome compared to what others is given if they need public assitance... I doubt any of the royal families in Europe is feeling the same pain as "the commons" even if they have to get a cut from what usually is given them by the Government....

Diclotican

[brooklynite]

33. And apparently people are just as ignorant when it comes to the King's wealth...

Just because the British Royal family holds billions in assets doesn't mean th Dutch Royal family does. They receive a salary from the Government (you argue whether it's merited, but that's a decision for the democratically-elected Government) and the Palace they live in is state-owned. There isn't even a Dutch aristocracy to play polo with. But don't let a good cliche go to waste...

[Theyletmeeatcake2]

41. Queen Beatrix is worth a cool $200,000,000 +

That buys a lot of clogs!!!! Also rumoured she laid off $100,000,000 with old Bernie Maddof...they may not be as wealthy as the house of Windsor but I think it's just semantics when you talk about these parasites!!!!! I think the French had the right idea and you have to remember how many million of people died in two wars which were basically caused by a family feud..

[Democracyinkind]

53. They are said to have assets of about 10 billion Euros.

They are major shareholders in Shell, Unilever and other global companies. I would be careful with the whole "ignorance" thing. It tends to bite back.

[warrant46]

39. To tell people they have to give up so the rich can have more----

The face of the 1% in amerika is spreading world wide

[Coyotl]

50. America started in 1776 by shagging the 1%'ers

And we can do it again!

[Laelth]

51. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[HooptieWagon]

61. I'll take Dutch royalty over the Kardashians....

just sayin'...

[Puzzledtraveller]

73. I just received the new SNAP allotments that start in November

I won't list all the figures but a 1 person household max was $200/month will now be $189/month. The income limits were raised slightly but the allotments were reduced.

[kenny blankenship]

87. "Message: I care"

They've come a long way from 1992. Now they can openly say "Eat shit and die, you peasants."