ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Actually, we replaced your king by granting executive authority to a monocameral legislature.
The British Monarchy
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
Chavs may be unkind, but we already have the daily mail reader.
The monarch is harmless. She has negiligible power anyway, and only serves to be a potentially unifying factor, and to bring in tourists.
The house of Lords is really quite powerful. It can successfully undermine almost anything that the Commons decide to do. If the Lords rejects legislation, it almost always doesn't pass, because, as a matter of principle, the Commons does not overrule the Lords.
We don't need a president because there are enough checks and balances already to make such a position functionless. Why don't you get rid of the president? That's far too much power for one individual (like George Bush). A cabinet of a few dozen people with a Prime Minister supervising is far safer. If you'd elected a crypto-fascist, they could have done an enormous amount more harm than a similar person could have done to Britain as Prime Minister.
Maybe America actually made a mistake in emulating the wrong elements of the Roman Republican constitution, which it used among others in making the American constitution. One of the most important checks is to be found in the position of the Roman consuls, of whom there were two, who could balance each other out, and each of which was only in position for a year. If we did that, then no-one could ever disturb the stability of government. The problem, of course, would be that nothing would ever get done.
The house of Lords is really quite powerful. It can successfully undermine almost anything that the Commons decide to do. If the Lords rejects legislation, it almost always doesn't pass, because, as a matter of principle, the Commons does not overrule the Lords.
We don't need a president because there are enough checks and balances already to make such a position functionless. Why don't you get rid of the president? That's far too much power for one individual (like George Bush). A cabinet of a few dozen people with a Prime Minister supervising is far safer. If you'd elected a crypto-fascist, they could have done an enormous amount more harm than a similar person could have done to Britain as Prime Minister.
Maybe America actually made a mistake in emulating the wrong elements of the Roman Republican constitution, which it used among others in making the American constitution. One of the most important checks is to be found in the position of the Roman consuls, of whom there were two, who could balance each other out, and each of which was only in position for a year. If we did that, then no-one could ever disturb the stability of government. The problem, of course, would be that nothing would ever get done.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
You're sure, but you're most certainly wrong. An elected official could simply not do what the Queen does. It'd be impossible.
The Queen can act as head of the state and head of the nation precisely because of her political neutrality. She is thoroughly apolitical and completely untainted by the corrosive environment of modern politics. It is only through this lack of partisanship that she is able to speak for the nation as a whole. On national holidays or days of commemoration (E.g V.E day) she is the only person with the credibility to speak to all, regardless of political orientation.
Make no mistake; an elected president could never avoid the baggage of partisan allegiance. British parties are far stronger then American parties for many reasons, and no figure could seize a presidency without party support. I doubt I need to point out how partisan the presidential campaign in the US has become, and how polarizing a figure your president invariably is. This is leaving aside the issue of devolution; Britain continues to federalize and any president would be Scottish, Irish, Welsh or English; quite distinctly. In Belgium it is often said that the King is the only true Belgian, the rest being Walloon or Flemish. In the UK it behooves the head of state to belong to all nationalities, not just one. The idea that a partisan president could fulfill the roles of the monarchy is absurd.
I have left aside arguments pertaining to the Queen role as head of the Commonwealth and her fiduciary benefit to the UK, both of which yield significant advantage. Suffice to say, an elected official could provide neither.
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
Really ? What was the Parliament Act enacted for then ?
If you lose the funny hats and pomp then you lose the tourist dosh. That'd be naff right?
So that they could, with extreme difficulty and delay, if the Lords were being extraordinarily unreasonable or awkward, overrule them.
In addition to Lovett's post, who'd want to stand for an office like that? Living as the queen these days would probably be like living as, say, the Doge of Venice, who, while possessing real power, could never leave the castle except on state visits. Therefore few Venetian patricians wanted the role. The same role of secluded respectability and unending fame is one that no-one but a wannabe celebrity would want. And who wants a celebrity, and at that one that isn't good enough at anything to become a celebrity otherwise, as queen?
PrinceOfLeigh
Wigan, England
Being the Head of State in England is like being milk monitor; you have some power but you'll get beaten up pretty bad if you ever use it.
So when the Lords don't pass something the commons like the commons take away a toy of the Lords i.e. the Hunting Acts
The claim that the commons don't overrule the Lords out of principle is slightly redundant, the Lords rarely go against the commons as in the majority they agree as it is packed full of supporters and they also realise that going against the commons on minor things is not worth the effort.
I always felt that the monarchy should be abolished upon the death of Elizabeth II, with all remaining powers transferred to a President.
The President would be directly elected by the people for the position, with the unwritten laws regarding the monarch's powers to become written for the position of President. He/she would have a salary equivalent to the Prime Minister and the official residence of the President would be Buckingham Palace.
Of course, all laws recognizing peerage and titles of nobility would be done away with, along with any special powers and privileges held by the Queen and nobility, etc etc.
The House of Lords would be renamed to a name chosen by direct electoral ballot. All members of the House of Lords would lose there seats and would have to stand for election to get the seat back. Name would have to be approved by the House of Lords
The House of Commons would also be renamed by ballot. Parliament would be immediately dissolved and would have to stand for election. Name would have to be approved by House of Commons.
All government ministries, offices, etc etc which make reference to the monarchy will be renamed by Commons.
A new flag would be voted upon, to either retain the current flag, to alter it, or to pick a new one. The Commons, President, and House of Lords would all have to approve of the flag.
The President would be directly elected by the people for the position, with the unwritten laws regarding the monarch's powers to become written for the position of President. He/she would have a salary equivalent to the Prime Minister and the official residence of the President would be Buckingham Palace.
Of course, all laws recognizing peerage and titles of nobility would be done away with, along with any special powers and privileges held by the Queen and nobility, etc etc.
The House of Lords would be renamed to a name chosen by direct electoral ballot. All members of the House of Lords would lose there seats and would have to stand for election to get the seat back. Name would have to be approved by the House of Lords
The House of Commons would also be renamed by ballot. Parliament would be immediately dissolved and would have to stand for election. Name would have to be approved by House of Commons.
All government ministries, offices, etc etc which make reference to the monarchy will be renamed by Commons.
A new flag would be voted upon, to either retain the current flag, to alter it, or to pick a new one. The Commons, President, and House of Lords would all have to approve of the flag.
So when the Lords don't pass something the commons like the commons take away a toy of the Lords i.e. the Hunting Acts
The claim that the commons don't overrule the Lords out of principle is slightly redundant, the Lords rarely go against the commons as in the majority they agree as it is packed full of supporters and they also realise that going against the commons on minor things is not worth the effort.
It works both ways: plenty of bills start in the Lords.
Of course, there are some very clever people that sit in there but they do realise where the power lies and must be getting increasingly concerned with the prospect of a lib den/labour parliament where they might be for the chop.
Mad Man
Your lord and master
Queen Elizabeth is much to soft on you Brits, so I suggest you deposed her and crown me instead. I will rule your country with an iron fist and bring dignity back to the British people and annihilate anyone who opposes me.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Why do you hate Britain?
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Love how all those calling for change are not able to explain why there should be change.
lithium30
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2002
- Messages
- 111
Wow that sounds very expensive.
A drop in the bucket.
But a uselessly misspent one.
Similar threads
