Let’s look at Belgium.Read above to find out how each judge is appointed politically. We point the finger at Poland and the US but we (Belgians) are so young or so badly informed (the one often goes together with the other) that we do not know how the appointments from the past until now ran. Can you actually endure the facts? Then read down.
The federal elections were a few weeks ago.
- We regularly have ministers who were elected by no one.
Ministers who were not even on a list.
Google leaves me once more in the lurch to verify the names.
- Until 2014, in the Banana monarchy Belgium became the children of the King Senator by law.
- In a monarchy, We do not need to talk about democracy.
King Filip appointed the French hero (Legion D’honeur for services to France) Didier Reynders and “Emperor of Ostend” Vandelanotte as informateurs.
The first thing the informer said (VDL) is that the Flemish interest was not allowed to participate, the PTB and PVDA (both of them extremely left).
An informateur is not a formateur.
- We also have co-opted senators, who were not elected, who, due to too much information about internal sailing, need an impressive monthly bet.
(Source: co-opted senator-Wikipedia)
- We have the politicians who stand up but only then say that they are not going to sit down anyway.
Yet not really voters cheating according to data subjects.
Now bit difficult by the decimation of traditional mailing packers.
The Batselier was parked at the National Bank for so long ago.
Anyone have an idea why the NBB did not arrive at the banking crisis in 2008? Jannie Haeck (public secret alcohol) was parked at the National Lottery. The chief of staff of Reynders was reappointed to the FSMA (supervisory banks and stock exchange) after it was demonstrated how the FSMA did not touch a finger on the politically controlled Dexia that was converted from bank to lever fund under his nose.
We remember the vaudeville between the three Fortis judges of which 1 Iun was directly in contact with SP-A and the second was married to a CD & V Apparatsjik, the third I do not know anymore. It was CD & V which Dexia controlled via the ACW trade union and CD & V that Fortis gave away to the French to be able to use Dexia to cope with public money. Just shudder? How dare they?| The Hendriken at the helm of the banking sector
Have to resign because of alleged gesjoemel. Yes, we have to say supposedly because politicians are turning into the bucket (such as Dexia Board of Directors, with Di Rupo, ex-European president Van Rompuy, Loge Broeder De Gucht,…) is virtually impossible. Dropped by her party in the court, the highest law court in Belgium. No, not Poland. No, not the US. Belgium.
Belgian politicians in intercession by money from Azerbaijan
Judge Constitutional Court dives into affair-Azerbaijan
Luckily there was really nothing going on:
Brussels Parket classifies Azerbaijan affair
Whoever dares to argue that judges are independent would have to read all newspapers of the last twenty years from inside out and then an exam specifically related to articles on judges should be subject.
The elections are being reversed to a deal between some party presidents who agree the majority in Parliament (legislative power).From this, the executive power is taken (again the same presidents) and they choose the judges and all the top functions in which everything is permissible to bring in a top function.
This does not explain the 200 a 300 km file every day on the Belgian roads, the state of the road and the tunnels in Brussels, the desplabled cities, Antwerp where there is more cocaine in the water than anywhere in the world, 102% of the GDP of the state debt , 8 a 10 billion budget deficit (spend more than enters), the guarantee that the government already gave for 375% of GDP in pensions (Belgium has repartition system, i.e. all the money that has been passed for the pension has already been issued, the current workers The retirement of their pension, but that is used to pay the pensioners from now on, the babybommers are now on a massive pension.
It does not explain Dutroux, series Dinges Jannsens or late Julie Van Espen.We don’t even talk about the gang or so.
Dossiers are not very important in Belgium:
Sale and leaseback to non-linked business people:
HMM, was that De Gucht not at Dexia in the board of Directors?
There is not enough space on Quora to do some fine things about how Belgium is actually a paradise.
As the one who orders for all the deals and dealers that our elected representatives in a flanks, I made the only decision day I could decide.
I have sold everything and have left the banana monarchy in Belgium.To the charity (Belgium (Is there life on Pluto…?)-Wikipedia), GE knows nothing about boys.
And then you will find out how the EU is not actually a union.
The one country where you leave immediately deletes all the benefits, but taxes not of course, which remain eternal.
The other country has such a paper shop that needs a lot of paperwork from the previous country, also dragging for months, so that you do not get any benefits but already pay taxes.
If you do not believe it, try to relocate from country to the EU.
(*) EDIT, on August 1, 2019 appeared next article in the newspaper time:
“Deputy director of the Cabinet-Geens not in pole position as European attorney“
The KB-Lux affair was uplifting.KBC was born from the Kredietbank and Cera, the control of the bank has always been in the hands of the Christian pillar (Boerenbond, CD & V, ACW,…). Verelst is today mentioned as an ex-cabinet member of the CD & V Minister Geens. Interesting link.
Geens moved his deputy director, Yves Van Den Berge, as a candidate for the European Public Prosecutor.
There is an interesting link between CD & V and Van Den Berge.
From a book (Google Books), thouding Punishment, screenshot:
KUL, is the Catholic University of Leuven where, among others, Rik Torfs, ex-Senator for CD & V and professor of ecclesiastical law and later became rector.
Sedens Sapientiae, the seat of wisdom led by a professor of ecclesiastical law.
Who do we still find as a professor at the KUL?
Ah, Minister Geens.
Patrick Develtere, Professor know-I-what and former ACW chairman at the time of KBC and the Dexia demise (Arco of the ACW).
It is particularly interesting how the same names and organisations are emerging in connection with the famous independence of the court in Belgium.
They can already speak of “our cause”, I suspect.
Did you know that we can still not data-Minen the database of justice to be able to find statements with retroactive effect that are “abnormal” and can be correlated with a particular magistrate?
(perhaps Google has much more detailed information about law and Kromspeech in Belgium than we can get from justice in Belgium itself, what did the constitution say again about public administration?
Now yes, it’s just the Constitution, Hey, Fientje.).
Source screenshot: Court of JUSTICE of EU: 3 judges appointed
Judges determine who is allowed to…
This seems to me to go against freedom of expression and other rights.
If you are not allowed to speak on TV because you are not invited by a media company.. Start a Facebook/YouTube/Twitch etc. Live, organize yourself on other platforms. If someone gets a platform that proclaims nonsense, make sure you have the same or other means to hear your correct truth. So a ban would not even make much.
The beautiful thing about our society is that the people decide.We have to resign ourselves to that. If someone is not well informed about a situation and I have an interest in making the missing piece known… better that I do my best than to convey it. I have the confidence of my supporters to experience the consequences.
During a crisis there are so many protocols that come into force.. I do not know whether the judge is going to be there, but in some cases it even seems to me… the only thing I can think of where a judge could possibly decide whether the person on TV can talk about political issues.. Its the king and Queens… but I don’t know enough of to know for sure
HMM more a rant than an answer think I…
Yes, they have to do those judges.Then we exchange freedom and democracy against wettering. People who cannot resist democracy and freedom are better off.
Apart from the fact that it is not feasible at all in crisis time, it is also totally undesirable in electoral times.
Elections are the moment when we choose the legislative power and, to some extent, stepped, the executive power.The separation of powers gives the judiciary an independent position, not above, but in addition to the legislative and executive power. If you are going to mess with it, you will get the sort of situation in the US, where politicians have every interest in having maximum influence on the appointment of judges. For then, their boyfriends determine who has access to mass media at critical moments.
Seems like an interesting but predictable experiment.
Judging how a crisis has run you can only post afterwards.The fact that someone on TV flies off the bend is something that the person has to be approached for later. In advance someone 芒 鈧?虄straffen芒 鈧劉 really goes the wrong way.
That would mean a breach of the right to freedom of expression.
I do not think that many judges would venture to this.
The key question here is limiting propaganda during elections and unjust distribution of publicity during election.
Judges should decide who can speak.No
Judges must ensure that each person receives the same amount of time on TV and other mass media regardless of whether a party or individual has more or less funds so that propaganda and publicity are limited and distributed.
No.Judges are a necessary evil in a modern society, but they certainly do not have the wisdom in lease.
Then you abolish all the merits of the French Revolution (and modern Civilization). In A modern democracy, judges have neither legislative nor executive power.
In theory, however, it is possible.Should one fascist party suddenly appear on all state channels without having sufficient voters to justify it, a procedure can be initiated (at least in Belgium) whereby both chambers headed by the President of the Chamber to Impossible to make. In that case, the judiciary may pronounce In the case of lawsuits following non-compliance with that particular law. That method of voting a law is applied in very exceptional cases.
A well-known example of the necessity of applying Zo芒 鈧劉 n Stick old exception law was when King Boudewijn refused to sign the abortion law.He was our head of state and if he wanted to remain, he had to sign any parliamentary law approved or he would be deposed, argumentarily one argued carefully.
芒 鈧?虄Then I step off, 芒 鈧劉 he replied.As a convinced Catholic, he refused to live in science to have signed a law that admitted 芒 鈧?虄moord芒 鈧劉.
Although the royal signature has no value, it must be on any law to be valid.It would not be long before one would pick up some bright red Walloon professional politicians from their favorite cabardouchkes (private clubs) to seriously stoke the mess. This could really mean the end of Belgium.
To a Constitution Prof.or an assistant reminded himself of a dusty law. The law foresaw that a king could get a battle of the Mill 芒 鈧劉 and what was to happen. Thus, during the day of the signing, the king was declared “trading competence”鈩?and received the 5 signatures of the members of the nuclear cabinet, in which 3 Catholics, the same value as that of a head of state. At 00:00 of that day the king turned out again at sentences and able to take up its function again.
Conclusion: The king had followed his Catholic beliefs, even though he risked being forced to be dropped off.Thus he proved for the massively present world press balls to have. And… he put the 3 hypocrites who were, at least from piety, a member of the mighty Catholic party to CNN and thus worldwide in their shirt. Even that last broadcaster was struggling to explain clearly that the Catholic king would rather fall dead than to sign the law, while the-on paper-just as Catholic Ministers were not expecting to risk their job and sans embarrassment accepted a Catholic death sin.
If it is to Diederick donkey and consorts probably is.Therefore, you should never vote on them either.