From: Gene McAloon 

I am aware both the UK and Canada have two houses. It is the nature of the
"other place" as the Brits would put it that rankles. In the UK,
the other house
can do anything it likes and the Commons can over-rule at its discretion. 
The final say on issues lies solely with the Commons. Worse yet, the other
house consists of members some of whom sit because they have inherited
titles and some
sit by appointment. There is utterly nothing democratic about it in the
slightest. More to the point, the other house is nothing but a charade that
exists simply as a result of tradition and the Brit unwillingness to junk
even such pointless anachronisms as the House of Lords and the monarchy.

In Canada, all of the members the second house, the Senate, are appointed
and like the House of Lords it cannot block anything the Commons does. In
the UK, the Commons has only to re-pass a bill three times and whatever the
Lords have done becomes moot. I am not certain what the procedure is in
Canada, but not the
affect is the same. So yes, both countries have two houses, but in each the
other house is a farce.

In the US system, all bills must be passed by both houses or they cannot be
submitted to the president for signature. If the two houses pass different
versions of a particular bill, a conference committee is appointed to
reconcile the two versions.  There is no permanent conference committee,
rather a new one is appointed by the leadership of both houses to deal with
the differences. Even
then, the reconciliation reached by a conference committee must be approved
by both houses, although unfortunately that has become almost automatic.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:46:18 -0500, "John Beamish"
 wrote:

>Parliamentary governments have two houses.  The UK has the Commons and
>Lords, we have the Commons and the Senate.
>
>A much more fundamental issue comes when the two houses vote slightly
>dissimilar issues and those have to be resolved.  In the US cases there is a
>committe which resolves these issues.  In Canada's case, the Senate is not
>allowed to amend the bill -- they can only approve it or reject it
>(actually, it's a bit more involved than that but for this message that's
>sufficient).
>
>There's been a lot of talk about electing our Senate ("Triple E:  Elected,
>Effective, E-something-or-other-else).  I much prefer the current system.
>If a bill is passed that one doesn't like, one knows where the ultimate
>source resides (in the Commons).  Further, if the two did pass dissimilar
>bills, which is supreme:  the Commons, the newly elected Senate or the newly
>created "committee".  My God, we Canadians can talk for hours on the
>weather -- what will we do in a situation like that!
>
>
>"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
>news:535otvsf4g30ec7855iosvv3j3fr3vq3aq{at}4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:10:58 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >This is going to be a long process for them -- and they never get it
>done.
>> >
>> >- Bob Comer
>>
>> It will get done and Spain and Poland will lose. The voting regime agreed
>upon
>> at Nice never made any sense. It gives countries like Spain and Poland 27
>votes
>> while Germany, with twice the population, has only 29.  It is absurd.
>>
>> Of course a two house setup on the US model would solve the problem
>nicely, but
>> unfortunately we are talking about countries with mostly histories of
>> parliamentary government. That makes it difficult for them to move into
>even the
>> twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first. But they will come up with
>> something.
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5