Cheers But, aren't they just stand-up and sketch shows? Literally EVERY country has those. They were OK but they lose in the translation. I'm guessing that's because it's the use of language that gives the the skewed viewpoint which are shared by those performing and those viewing them. If you lose it, the comedy loses some of it's 'power'. Here's the Two Johns discussing the subprime markets... Here's a couple of Australian comics doing the same thing... Stewart Lee, (born and brought up a few miles from me as it happens ), discussing UKIP and immigration...
WTF are you talking about... That's a sketch show about politics, the same as thousands all over the planet. That's stand-up about politics, the same as thousands all over the planet. The only difference with these ones is, they're not particularly funny by the looks of it. Assuming the ones you've linked to to are example of the breed and assuming the wiki despription is more or less accurate, that's what they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabarett Kabarett is the German word for the French word cabaret but has two different meanings. The first meaning is the same as in English, describing a form of entertainment featuring comedy, song, dance, and theatre (often the word "cabaret" is used in German for this as well to distinguish this form). The latter describes a kind of political satire. Unlike comedians who make fun of all kind of things, Kabarett artists (German: Kabarettisten) pride themselves as dedicated almost completely to political and social topics of more serious nature which they criticize using techniques like cynicism, sarcasm and irony.[1][2][3] I mean, that is literally EVERY political sketch show since 'That Was The Week That Was' which first appeared over here in 1962 and every political stand-up since Ben Elton, Alexei Sayle, etc. and moving forward to Stewart Lee, Mark Steele, etc. The problem with a lot of these things is, if you stick to JUST politics and make them entirely polemical in nature, they're not particularly amusing. That's why people with more talent can mix up politics and social issues with observational humour. If it's a comedy show it has to be at least mildly funny. That's kinda the point after all.
If you can't explain the difference... If you can't put it into words. Maybe it's because there IS no difference. Has that occurred to you? I mean, 'cynicism, sarcasm and irony'... oh yeah, they're obviously missing from British humour, aren't they. Oh... wait! Of course, that also ignores the fact that the yanks have fellas like Bill Hicks, George Carlin and hundreds of fellas that are similar doing the same thing. The only thing the Germans have added, apparently, is that they're just not particularly good at it from what I can tell. This guy... Is OK but, tbh, that act, (or a variation of it, at least), has been done by pretty much every left-wing comic since Sayle and Elton onward... and he's not particularly funny. This guy... Sort of... IS! Like the old saying... 'A German joke is no laughing matter'
What's this... MORE trouble in paradise? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/world/europe/andrej-babis-ano-czech-election.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41708844
Bundeswehr is running their own youtube channel and this is the intro for it. It even went into the spotify charts
Anyways, now that the petty Brits are out, we're finally building a common miliatry force under the umbrella of Pesco. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/...e-militaerische-komponente-erhalten-1.3743971
@babaorum congrats, I think you deserve it London loses EU agencies to Paris and Amsterdam in Brexit relocation https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-medicines-agency-amsterdam-brexit-relocation
Well it would be weird for a non EU member to have EU agencies. I guess the news is why didn't they go to East Europe to spread the pork around?
Worker retention is an issue. Amsterdam and Paris are just an hour by plane and allow London based workers to commute at least for a while. It takes time to find housing and new jobs and schools for spouses and children.
Wir wollen die Vereinigten Staaten von Europa.Nous voulons les États-Unis d'Europe.We want the United States of Europe.— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) December 7, 2017 A convention shall draft this treaty in close cooperation with the civil society and the people. Its results will then be submitted to all member states. Any state that won’t ratify this treaty will automatically leave the EU.— Martin Schulz (@MartinSchulz) December 7, 2017
So if only France and Germany sign the treaty, would they leave the EU, or would they try to kick everyone else out?
You notice how he refers to a 'convention' drawing it up in 'close cooperation with civil society and the people'... but he doesn't quite get around to mentioning the 'D' word... democracy. Are the people actually going to get their say as well or is that a preposterous idea not even worthy of discussion. Past history indicates that member states unsure of whether their people will agree simply avoid the matter by not asking them... or, if they DO ask and they get the 'wrong' answer, they keep asking until they get the 'right' one. That's why only France, Denmark and Ireland held referendums on the Maastricht treaty changes, despite it being of huge importance. Of course, the Maastricht Treaty could only come into effect if all members of the European Union ratified it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Maastricht_Treaty_referendum,_1992 Either that or they just ignore the whole question and redefine changes they want to make as something other than treaties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_related_to_the_European_Union#Treaty_of_Lisbon So Ireland 'lost' that vote in the first round but 'won' it in the second... presumably on the away goals rule
Ireland got concessions on some key concerns of theirs. After which they approved the treaty on a second vote. What's your point? "They changed their mind after getting what they wanted!" Oh, really? How surprising and devious.