Why our consituional monarchy is the best Watch

gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by otester)
Democracy means equality when it comes to vote power and electability.
And we are blessed to have it in this country
0
reply
Libtardian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
(Original post by gladders)
And we are blessed to have it in this country
Why are we?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by otester)
Why are we?
Why are we what?
0
reply
SignFromDog
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
Feigning a knee injury seems far more unprincipled than simply bowing.

I'm broadly a Republican (though I am not pushing for any immediate change). But I would be happy to bow for two reasons;

(1) It is the tradition, and until our constitution is changed, it is perfectly reasonable to render the normal etiquette to the head of state

(2) I would say that, as a practical matter, one should go through the necessary motions to join a body like the Privy Council because the substance of real policy (like defence, fiscal matters, taxation, housing etc) matter far more and if joining the Privy Council is another step to achieving the policy aims of my party and our supporters, then of course I would do it.

There is something quite unprincipled and duplicitous about the way Corbyn has gone about this. Instead of just saying "No, I won't bow" or "No, I won't sing the national anthem", he lies and makes excuses and plays for time. Where is the marvelously principled man of no spin we were led to believe had been elected?
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
(Original post by gladders)
Which would run up against separation of powers issues, among other things.
Powers are not separated in the UK, and ever if they are, making the PM head of state would not change a thing.

The government has all the powers the monarch has, that's the constitutional basis of how the UK works. Since the PM is now a position of absolute power within the government, making the PM the head of state would not change a thing.

Also, parliament is sovereign and is supreme above all powers under God. There's no separation of power. And with the PM being the person controlling parliament, the PM theoretically has all powers already.

Having a monarch does not, in any way, diminishes the power of a prime minister. Yes, Her Majesty can dismiss the PM, but if Elizabeth is to do it tomorrow, do you honestly think she would succeed? On the contrary, she'd be gone within weeks with a vote in parliament, if they cannot just ask HRH The Prince of Wales to be regent and declare her mad.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
Powers are not separated in the UK, and ever if they are, making the PM head of state would not change a thing.

The government has all the powers the monarch has, that's the constitutional basis of how the UK works. Since the PM is now a position of absolute power within the government, making the PM the head of state would not change a thing.

Also, parliament is sovereign and is supreme above all powers under God. There's no separation of power. And with the PM being the person controlling parliament, the PM theoretically has all powers already.

Having a monarch does not, in any way, diminishes the power of a prime minister. Yes, Her Majesty can dismiss the PM, but if Elizabeth is to do it tomorrow, do you honestly think she would succeed? On the contrary, she'd be gone within weeks with a vote in parliament, if they cannot just ask HRH The Prince of Wales to be regent and declare her mad.
But there's an important distinction between the Queen's powers being exercised by the PM in Her name versus the PM having the powers traditionally held by a Head of State by virtue of his office.

The Queen has powers over the Armed Forces, appointments, legislation, and the regulation of Parliament. They are exercised on the PM's advice, but such advice is accepted as long as it proposes appropriately constitutional behaviour.

If a PM proposed a course of action that would be constitutionally problematic (for example, permitting an early dissolution or the PM refusing the resign following a defeated vote of confidence), then the Queen would be duty-bound to refuse and have the issue resolved by the people. It's not an issue nowadays as broadly the government gives sensible advice - but as an example, in the middle of Thatcher's last days, an idea was floated that Thatcher beat off a leadership challenge by forcing a dissolution, until it was pointed out that the Queen would have to reject such advice.

It would be different if the PM had those powers as their own, as it would put a whole bunch of powers over Parliament in the hands of the one person who would seek to use them purely for their own advantage.

By this same token is the office of Head of State universal worldwide.

Also, I would question the notion that we have no separation of powers of the UK. It may not be on the same lines as the US, but that doesn't mean we have them.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by gladders)
But there's an important distinction between the Queen's powers being exercised by the PM in Her name versus the PM having the powers traditionally held by a Head of State by virtue of his office.

The Queen has powers over the Armed Forces, appointments, legislation, and the regulation of Parliament. They are exercised on the PM's advice, but such advice is accepted as long as it proposes appropriately constitutional behaviour.

If a PM proposed a course of action that would be constitutionally problematic (for example, permitting an early dissolution or the PM refusing the resign following a defeated vote of confidence), then the Queen would be duty-bound to refuse and have the issue resolved by the people. It's not an issue nowadays as broadly the government gives sensible advice - but as an example, in the middle of Thatcher's last days, an idea was floated that Thatcher beat off a leadership challenge by forcing a dissolution, until it was pointed out that the Queen would have to reject such advice.

It would be different if the PM had those powers as their own, as it would put a whole bunch of powers over Parliament in the hands of the one person who would seek to use them purely for their own advantage.

By this same token is the office of Head of State universal worldwide.

Also, I would question the notion that we have no separation of powers of the UK. It may not be on the same lines as the US, but that doesn't mean we have them.
If you wish to question a notion, you should explain why. An assertion does not cut it. The law-makers are the executives (MPs are government secretaries), and the same bunch of people can fire and hire judges. There's no separation of power.

---

But what I'm saying is there's no actual difference.

Consider these scenarios:

David Cameron with Elizabeth as Queen:
Declaring war - Queen only declares war if Cameron asks her to. If Queen declares war on her own randomly, she will be stopped.
Cameron without Queen:
Cameron only declares war if there's a mandate from parliament. If Cameron declares war on his own randomly, she will be stopped by parliament and his party.

With the Queen:
Dissolving parliament - If Queen dissolves parliament randomly, she will be stopped.
If Cameron without Queen dissolves parliament randomly, he will be stopped by his own party.

With Queen:
Dismissing the RAF - if Queen dismisses the RAF suddenly, she will be stopped.
If Cameron without Queen dismisses the RAF suddenly, he will be stopped.

There's no difference between having a monarch and not having one. If the Queen does something without parliamentary mandate, she will be stopped. If the PM does something without parliamentary mandate, he will be stopped. You can of course make the argument that if the PM has the powers himself, legally he can dissolve parliament before his power could vote him out; but that's exactly the same with the Queen. Parliament, in the Queen's case, would collaborate with Charles to declare her mad and thus the decisions void. What's stopping parliament and the Conservatives to declare Cameron mad if he's legit gone crazy?
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
If you wish to question a notion, you should explain why. An assertion does not cut it. The law-makers are the executives (MPs are government secretaries), and the same bunch of people can fire and hire judges. There's no separation of power.
Well that's interesting as the conception of a British separation of powers is well known, albeit, as AV Dicey described it, a 'weak' separation. So your claim is problematic from an academic point of view at very least.

But what I'm saying is there's no actual difference.

Consider these scenarios:

David Cameron with Elizabeth as Queen:
Declaring war - Queen only declares war if Cameron asks her to. If Queen declares war on her own randomly, she will be stopped.
Cameron without Queen:
Cameron only declares war if there's a mandate from parliament. If Cameron declares war on his own randomly, she will be stopped by parliament and his party.
Not really - in both cases, parliament's input is not necessary (if we are discussing nothing more than transferring the monarch's powers to the PM), and comes down to the motivations of the officeholders. A sudden, unwarranted declaration of war would come as a surprise to a monarch and ask the PM questions and seek his reasoning for what he's doing, and if she's still unclear can urge on the PM at least a debate in Parliament. A PM who decides to declare war will simply do it without further ado.

With the Queen:
Dissolving parliament - If Queen dissolves parliament randomly, she will be stopped.
If Cameron without Queen dissolves parliament randomly, he will be stopped by his own party.
Wrong.

If the PM had the power to dissolve parliament by himself, then he cannot be stopped by his party, as it is his power to use as he wishes. The Queen has a higher constitutional responsibility and can tell him no if he is using his advice to sidestep parliamentary/party censure.

With Queen:
Dismissing the RAF - if Queen dismisses the RAF suddenly, she will be stopped.
If Cameron without Queen dismisses the RAF suddenly, he will be stopped.
Wrong.

If the Queen was advised to abolish the RAF, she'd rightly question the PM's motives - why does he want to? Has it been discussed in Parliament? Is there a danger? If she suspects some underhand motive of the PM, she can urge at least a debate in Parliament before she gives consent.

If the PM decides to abolish the RAF, it's done, because he wants to.

There's no difference between having a monarch and not having one. If the Queen does something without parliamentary mandate, she will be stopped. If the PM does something without parliamentary mandate, he will be stopped.
But I'm not talking about the Queen doing something without Parliament. I'm talking about her capacity for power denial - to stop a reckless PM from doing something rash, or at least prompting pause for thought and seeking direction from Parliament.

You can of course make the argument that if the PM has the powers himself, legally he can dissolve parliament before his power could vote him out; but that's exactly the same with the Queen. Parliament, in the Queen's case, would collaborate with Charles to declare her mad and thus the decisions void. What's stopping parliament and the Conservatives to declare Cameron mad if he's legit gone crazy?
The second the Queen or, in this scenario, the PM, dissolves Parliament, business ends. There is no forum in which they can displace the PM. If the PM dissolves Parliament, it would be in desire to bypass Parliament and appeal to the people, which could be abused to avoid parliamentary control.

The Queen cannot do that as there are a) clear conventions surrounding the usage of the dissolution power and b) even clearer conventions of a monarch's political presence in elections. The Royal Prerogative is, in practice, far more constrained by checks and balances even when used on the advice of the Prime Minister than if the PM held those powers ex officio.

You also have to ask yourself if it's as obvious as you assume, why does such a system no exist anywhere in the world? We are in no shortage of countries recently forming new constitutions, and plenty of them are parliamentary democracies - so why do they unanimously agree that a ceremonial Head of State is necessary?
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by gladders)
Well that's interesting as the conception of a British separation of powers is well known, albeit, as AV Dicey described it, a 'weak' separation. So your claim is problematic from an academic point of view at very least.
So basically you don't know how to explain or back up your claim so you have completely given it up?

The document published by the British Parliament themselves stated that 'in the UK,the powers of Parliament, Government and courts are closely intertwined. In fact, theexecutive and legislature are seen as a “close union, [a] nearly complete fusion of the1 Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de. The Sprit of Laws (c.1748). Translated and edited by AnneCohler, Basia Miller, Harold Stone. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989)2 executive and legislative powers,” which Walter Baghot viewed as the “efficient secret of theEnglish constitution”'.

Interesting how you mentioned 'academic' points of view by citing one view, ignoring all other ones, and present that as the one and only truth.

(Original post by gladders)
Not really - in both cases, parliament's input is not necessary (if we are discussing nothing more than transferring the monarch's powers to the PM), and comes down to the motivations of the officeholders. A sudden, unwarranted declaration of war would come as a surprise to a monarch and ask the PM questions and seek his reasoning for what he's doing, and if she's still unclear can urge on the PM at least a debate in Parliament. A PM who decides to declare war will simply do it without further ado.

Wrong.

If the PM had the power to dissolve parliament by himself, then he cannot be stopped by his party, as it is his power to use as he wishes. The Queen has a higher constitutional responsibility and can tell him no if he is using his advice to sidestep parliamentary/party censure.

Wrong.

If the Queen was advised to abolish the RAF, she'd rightly question the PM's motives - why does he want to? Has it been discussed in Parliament? Is there a danger? If she suspects some underhand motive of the PM, she can urge at least a debate in Parliament before she gives consent.

If the PM decides to abolish the RAF, it's done, because he wants to.
Strawman, strawman, strawman. Or do you simply lack the ability to read?

(Original post by gladders)
But I'm not talking about the Queen doing something without Parliament. I'm talking about her capacity for power denial - to stop a reckless PM from doing something rash, or at least prompting pause for thought and seeking direction from Parliament.
And under the current system, the Queen can certainly do something without parliamentary support.

All the fears you have for a PM to be having all the powers are the same with the Queen or a ceremonial president with all the powers. You just simply have the weird idea that if the Queen is mad her orders would be disregarded but if the PM is mad his/her order wouldn't be.

You're also wrong on the account that the Queen could actually deny power. The Prime Minister can at any time declare her mad, and all he really needs even considering all technicalities, is a regent.

(Original post by gladders)
The Queen cannot do that as there are a) clear conventions surrounding the usage of the dissolution power and b) even clearer conventions of a monarch's political presence in elections. The Royal Prerogative is, in practice, far more constrained by checks and balances even when used on the advice of the Prime Minister than if the PM held those powers ex officio.
So if there can be restrictions to royal powers with rules and regulations, you can just as easily have them for a Prime Minister. You can have a codified constitution. You're creating problems that do not exist.

(Original post by gladders)
You also have to ask yourself if it's as obvious as you assume, why does such a system no exist anywhere in the world? We are in no shortage of countries recently forming new constitutions, and plenty of them are parliamentary democracies - so why do they unanimously agree that a ceremonial Head of State is necessary?
What? Are you really this ignorant? Lots of places have a head who is both the head of state and the head of government.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
So basically you don't know how to explain or back up your claim so you have completely given it up?

The document published by the British Parliament themselves stated that 'in the UK,the powers of Parliament, Government and courts are closely intertwined. In fact, theexecutive and legislature are seen as a “close union, [a] nearly complete fusion of the1 Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de. The Sprit of Laws (c.1748). Translated and edited by AnneCohler, Basia Miller, Harold Stone. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989)2 executive and legislative powers,” which Walter Baghot viewed as the “efficient secret of theEnglish constitution”'.

Interesting how you mentioned 'academic' points of view by citing one view, ignoring all other ones, and present that as the one and only truth.
That entirely misses the point, though. Dicey and Parliament would both agree that a separation of powers exists, but that, as Dicey says, it is 'weak'; or rather, that in parts, those powers overlap (it being a parliamentary system after all).

To deny there is a separation of powers in the UK at all is nonsense.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Or do you simply lack the ability to read?
I don't think you really understand the meaning of the term strawman, do you? Or is it a trait of your character that you start hurling insults the moment someone contradicts your blinkered view of the world?

And under the current system, the Queen can certainly do something without parliamentary support.
Not really.

All the fears you have for a PM to be having all the powers are the same with the Queen or a ceremonial president with all the powers. You just simply have the weird idea that if the Queen is mad her orders would be disregarded but if the PM is mad his/her order wouldn't be.
It's not weird at all, because it's how our system has worked for the past few centuries. There's a clear distinction between a political, elected, actor doing something, or advising it be done, against a ceremonial, hereditary, actor doing or advising the same.

You're also wrong on the account that the Queen could actually deny power. The Prime Minister can at any time declare her mad, and all he really needs even considering all technicalities, is a regent.
Well, that flies in the face of the Regency Acts, so no, he could not declare the Queen mad. It's not his call.

So if there can be restrictions to royal powers with rules and regulations, you can just as easily have them for a Prime Minister. You can have a codified constitution. You're creating problems that do not exist.
These concerns existed under republics with codified constitutions, and it is never as simple as your seem to think it is. Constitutions, however perfect and codified, grew more imperfect with age and conventions grow around them to accomodate its idiosyncrasies. The US Constitution is rife with conventions to govern its gaps.

What? Are you really this ignorant? Lots of places have a head who is both the head of state and the head of government.
Yes, and they are presidential states, not parliamentary ones. You want to advocate we go entirely to a presidential system, go right ahead - but your initial claim was that we could keep our present parliamentary system but place the Queen's Prerogative in the office of the Prime Minister, which is frankly not the case. No other country does this, because it would be a dangerous folly to attempt.

And that is entirely beside the issue that a parliamentary system is better than a presidential one!
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by gladders)
That entirely misses the point, though. Dicey and Parliament would both agree that a separation of powers exists, but that, as Dicey says, it is 'weak'; or rather, that in parts, those powers overlap (it being a parliamentary system after all).

To deny there is a separation of powers in the UK at all is nonsense.
So are you ever going to explain your stance, or are you even ever going to even provide evidence to any of your claims? The parliament said it's not separated, and that is all there is to it.

If you don't understand those claims yourself and cannot explain why there is a separation of powers even though there clearly is not, that's OK. But I'd prefer dropping this instead of wasting any more of our time reading how you coming up with ways to say 'but...it just is!'.

(Original post by gladders)
I don't think you really understand the meaning of the term strawman, do you?
I do. You said I was 'wrong' but you either deliberately or accidentally misunderstood everything I said. I was referring to the Queen doing those things herself and you interpreted it as the PM doing those things with the Queen stopping him.

(Original post by gladders)
Or is it a trait of your character that you start hurling insults the moment someone contradicts your blinkered view of the world?
Saying someone has misrepresented arguments is not an insult. Personal attacks (character trait), however, is.

(Original post by gladders)
Not really.
Once again you're misrepresenting my point. What I meant was she had the power to do that but she would be stopped. Parliament would declare her mad and her decisions void as a result. The same with a prime minister.

(Original post by gladders)
It's not weird at all, because it's how our system has worked for the past few centuries. There's a clear distinction between a political, elected, actor doing something, or advising it be done, against a ceremonial, hereditary, actor doing or advising the same.
Once again misrepresenting my point. I said 'weird' as in the idea that the PM wouldn't be stopped. The PM can be stopped, and if you want rules, you can make them. It's not rocket science to create a codified constitution.

(Original post by gladders)
Well, that flies in the face of the Regency Acts, so no, he could not declare the Queen mad. It's not his call.
Parliament, which the Prime Minister nowadays controls, can declare her mad with the consent of the crown prince. It has happened before, and in this day and age when the PM is no longer just the 'first among equals' it would be his call.

(Original post by gladders)
These concerns existed under republics with codified constitutions, and it is never as simple as your seem to think it is. Constitutions, however perfect and codified, grew more imperfect with age and conventions grow around them to accomodate its idiosyncrasies. The US Constitution is rife with conventions to govern its gaps.
So? And the system the UK has is perfect now? If it is so perfect and no powers can be abused, why were they worried about Edward VIII getting more involved? Or is it really just because he fancied an American divorcee?

(Original post by gladders)
Yes, and they are presidential states, not parliamentary ones. You want to advocate we go entirely to a presidential system, go right ahead - but your initial claim was that we could keep our present parliamentary system but place the Queen's Prerogative in the office of the Prime Minister, which is frankly not the case. No other country does this, because it would be a dangerous folly to attempt.
Once again, you throw out an assertion without any explanation or support. If it is indeed dangerous, explain why. In what would would a PM having the powers be any more dangerous than what we have now or what other countries with an all-powerful president have?

This is without stating the fact that in many countries in the world, even with a president, the PM may still be more powerful. And in South Africa, the president is chosen by its parliament, which does not differ much as this suggests that the legislative body controls the presidency. There exists also absolute monarchies and one-party states where one person holds all the powers and they haven't collapsed.

That 'no country does this' is a false argument to begin with. Ever if that was true, that would still mean absolutely nothing. Lots of things didn't exist in the past and they are good and/or they do work: Democracy, dictionaries, same-sex marriage, universities, loos, etc. By your logic, 5000 years ago people can say 'no-one has used a dictionary because it's useless and rubbish'.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
So are you ever going to explain your stance, or are you even ever going to even provide evidence to any of your claims? The parliament said it's not separated, and that is all there is to it.
If you don't understand those claims yourself and cannot explain why there is a separation of powers even though there clearly is not, that's OK. But I'd prefer dropping this instead of wasting any more of our time reading how you coming up with ways to say 'but...it just is!'.
What on earth are you talking about? I've already explained it quite clearly, and gave plenty of examples too.

But, if you want it spelled out in bright neon letters, here's the separation of powers: unlike your assertion that "the law-makers are the executives (MPs are government secretaries) which only tells half the story, is the fact that not all MPs are in the executive, but well outside of it, and have the job of scrutinising the work of the government. What's more, no judges sit in the Executive, and, since 2009, in the legislature either.

I mean, it's astonishing. AV Dicey, one of the most famous British constitutionalists of the past two centuries, observed that separation of powers at least exists in the UK, and that it is 'weak' does not mean that it's non-existent. I have no idea how you can make such a bald assertion.
In case you missed it, Parliament's note that says powers are 'closely intertwined' does not negate that powers are separated in the UK, albeit, as Dicey said, weakly. That you are incapable of appreciation such a subtle distinction is not my problem.

I do. You said I was 'wrong' but you either deliberately or accidentally misunderstood everything I said. I was referring to the Queen doing those things herself and you interpreted it as the PM doing those things with the Queen stopping him.

Once again you're misrepresenting my point. What I meant was she had the power to do that but she would be stopped. Parliament would declare her mad and her decisions void as a result. The same with a prime minister.
I think it's become apparent that you and I are arguing across each other. You are concerned with the actions of the monarch. A reasonable concern, but really a vanishingly small one. I am concerned with the actions of the Prime Minister, which are far more immediate and rife with risks.

That's not a strawman, but I am recognising that two related ideas are being addressed here.

Once again misrepresenting my point. I said 'weird' as in the idea that the PM wouldn't be stopped. The PM can be stopped, and if you want rules, you can make them. It's not rocket science to create a codified constitution.
Except how would such rules be made? Through Parliament. Who has a majority in the Commons, which is essential for such rules? The Prime Minister.
And that's not addressing the point that for many issues, everyone may agree that present practice is unacceptable but not agree on what should replace it, and therefore a dissatisfactory status quo arises which nobody likes.

Parliament, which the Prime Minister nowadays controls, can declare her mad with the consent of the crown prince. It has happened before, and in this day and age when the PM is no longer just the 'first among equals' it would be his call.
No it can't. It requires the endorsement various officials, the only ones of which being in Parliament being the Speakers of the Commons and the Lord Chancellor, to recognise the monarch as incapacitated.

So? And the system the UK has is perfect now? If it is so perfect and no powers can be abused, why were they worried about Edward VIII getting more involved? Or is it really just because he fancied an American divorcee?
Again, you're missing my point. I never said the British system is perfect - it is, as ever in politics, in danger of system failure - but no country has it down pat, and never will.

Edward VIII's deposition was a combination of various concerns, but it boils down to his fundamental insuitability as King. In that scenario, enormous pressure was put on the King to abdicate, which he did through an Act of Parliament. I am unsure why you bring it up.

Once again, you throw out an assertion without any explanation or support. If it is indeed dangerous, explain why. In what would would a PM having the powers be any more dangerous than what we have now or what other countries with an all-powerful president have?
I already explained how: the PM asking for the exercise of powers still has to justify their exercise, even if it's a routine case: he has to have a rationale, and has to dress the justification to the Queen in line with the principles of the constitution. He knows that the Queen will be ever-obliging while all actors follows the constitution, but if there were irregularities in a request, be it method, motivation or otherwise, then questions wil be asked and pauses for thought asked for. It's subtle, but it's there.

A PM who exercises such powers could simply justify its use to himself - powerful people frequently confuse their interests with those of the country, after all. And it is more dangerous in a system such as Britain's, or Germany's - where the separation of powers is weak and overlapping - as such powers could be used to shut down criticism, restrain or censure of the government, such as bypassing Parliamentary scrutiny.

This is without stating the fact that in many countries in the world, even with a president, the PM may still be more powerful. And in South Africa, the president is chosen by its parliament, which does not differ much as this suggests that the legislative body controls the presidency. There exists also absolute monarchies and one-party states where one person holds all the powers and they haven't collapsed.
Who's talking about collapsing? It's about violation of the spirit of the constitution, not a fall into anarchy, that we're discussing here. As for South Africa, the legislature appoints the President, but he is not resident in the legislature and his Cabinet is accountable to him, not to Parliament. He has a fixed term, and so does Parliament, and he can only be removed by impeachment. It's closer to the US system than our own.

As for the PM's power, that's again beside the point. What I'm talking about is the relative advantage unlimited exercise of certain powers can give to a political actor who is meant to be ostensibly accountable to a body which he is part of. An elected, executive president is accountable to voters at periodic elections, and is in competition with the legislature; a Prime Minister is accountable to the legislature as a member of it. Go read some Juan Linz, or Ljipjart, who can tell you all.

Basically this: you complain of the power of the Prime Minister but propose a change that would make him even more powerful.

That 'no country does this' is a false argument to begin with. Ever if that was true, that would still mean absolutely nothing. Lots of things didn't exist in the past and they are good and/or they do work: Democracy, dictionaries, same-sex marriage, universities, loos, etc. By your logic, 5000 years ago people can say 'no-one has used a dictionary because it's useless and rubbish'.
That's...a view, but you still have to consider why such an apparently obvious thing hasn't occurred to any recent constitution-makers.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by SignFromDog)
Feigning a knee injury seems far more unprincipled than simply bowing.
It's the tradition of this country. Our Monarchy is only here because it had an ability to change over time. The one's that didn't ended up like that in France or Russia. instead of brutally suppressing republicans it just lets them feign knee injuries... so to speak. So it is still here.

Feigning a knee injury is now built into the fabric of the tradition fo this country just how bowing or courtesying to the Queen is. You are the one that has a problem with this country and its traditions.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by gladders)
What on earth are you talking about? I've already explained it quite clearly, and gave plenty of examples too.
Once again, just because you say you have doesn't mean that's the truth.

(Original post by gladders)
But, if you want it spelled out in bright neon letters, here's the separation of powers: unlike your assertion that "the law-makers are the executives (MPs are government secretaries) which only tells half the story, is the fact that not all MPs are in the executive, but well outside of it, and have the job of scrutinising the work of the government.
The government exists only with enough support from MPs.

(Original post by gladders)
What's more, no judges sit in the Executive, and, since 2009, in the legislature either.
Irrelevant. Who appoints the judges? Can parliament overrule the court?

Matter of fact: Parliament has all the powers. Where is the separation? The separation only exists under parliament.

(Original post by gladders)
I mean, it's astonishing. AV Dicey, one of the most famous British constitutionalists of the past two centuries, observed that separation of powers at least exists in the UK, and that it is 'weak' does not mean that it's non-existent. I have no idea how you can make such a bald assertion.
Oh I don't know, perhaps all the other constitutionalists who have voiced that separation of powers doesn't really exist in the UK? Why do you keep insisting on appealing to one authority? Is it because you yourself feel that you are incapable to winning the argument yourself?

I mean, you didn't even cite his argument, but only supposedly his opinion. I don't know where you got it from, but I'd guess that his argument would be more in line with in practice there is a separation of powers, but was not referring to anything the system has built in in itself.

(Original post by gladders)
In case you missed it, Parliament's note that says powers are 'closely intertwined' does not negate that powers are separated in the UK, albeit, as Dicey said, weakly. That you are incapable of appreciation such a subtle distinction is not my problem.
Where exactly did they say that it does not negate that powers are separated? Are you making this up yourself? I'm starting to doubt the truthfulness of all your claims.

This is what they actually said:

The system resembles a balance of powers more than aformal separation of the three branches

The United States Constitution adheres closely to the separation of powers. Article I grantspowers to the legislature; article II gives executive power to the President; and article IIIcreates an independent judiciary. Congress is elected separately from the President, whodoes not sit as part of the legislature. The Supreme Court can declare the acts of bothCongress and President to be unconstitutional.

In the UK,the powers of Parliament, Government and courts are closely intertwined. In fact, theexecutive and legislature are seen as a “close union...

In the UK, the executive comprises the Crown and the Government, including the PrimeMinister and Cabinet ministers. The executive formulates and implements policy. Thelegislature, Parliament, comprises the Crown, the House of Commons and the House ofLords. The judiciary comprises the judges in the courts of law, those who hold judicial officein tribunals and the lay magistrates who staff the magistrates’ courts. Senior judicialappointments are made by the Crown.

In the UK, and other common law jurisdictions, the executive and legislature are closelyentwined. The Prime Minister and a majority of his or her ministers are Members ofParliament and sit in the House of Commons. The executive is therefore present at the heartof Parliament.

In this way, in the UK legislature and executive are far from separate powers.

The Government usually has almost complete control over theagenda of the legislature.

Judges are expected to interpret legislation in line with the intention of Parliament

Constitutionally, judges are subordinate to Parliament and may not challenge the validity ofActs of Parliament.

The Judge as Lawmaker, Lord Reid said that while it was once “thought almostindecent” to suggest that judges make law, the notions that judges only declare the law wasoutdated

The whole document's main point is that there is no separation of power in the UK but it's not a bad thing and where it's potentially bad they already have done something about it. I don't understand how you could interpret any of the above as that there is separation. There isn't.

Who makes laws? Parliament.
Who executes laws and create policies? Parliament-backed government whose members are MPs.
The only question is whether parliament controls the courts,and it does. Its government appoints judges, and directly it can remove judges in the High Court, it can remove laws and create new laws as they wish to. If parliament is have broken the law, they can either avoid prosecution with their privileges or remove the laws right away. An Act of Parliament also cannot be challenged by the court.

As long as the Prime Minister controls parliament, there simply isn't a separation of power. Just because the PMs haven't been abusing the powers doesn't mean there is a separation.

(Original post by gladders)
Except how would such rules be made? Through Parliament. Who has a majority in the Commons, which is essential for such rules? The Prime Minister.
And that's not addressing the point that for many issues, everyone may agree that present practice is unacceptable but not agree on what should replace it, and therefore a dissatisfactory status quo arises which nobody likes.
So now you're recognising that parliament does hold all the power and as long as a PM controls it, there's no powers to overrule it?

(Original post by gladders)
No it can't. It requires the endorsement various officials, the only ones of which being in Parliament being the Speakers of the Commons and the Lord Chancellor, to recognise the monarch as incapacitated.
Who are both members of parliament, further proving my point that parliament holds all the power and there's no separation.

(Original post by gladders)
Edward VIII's deposition was a combination of various concerns, but it boils down to his fundamental insuitability as King. In that scenario, enormous pressure was put on the King to abdicate, which he did through an Act of Parliament. I am unsure why you bring it up.
Because his example showed how a monarch could potentially abuse the current powers. It is a real concern, and one that is not different to the concern that the PM might abuse the power. At least the PM was voted in!

(Original post by gladders)
I already explained how: the PM asking for the exercise of powers still has to justify their exercise, even if it's a routine case: he has to have a rationale, and has to dress the justification to the Queen in line with the principles of the constitution. He knows that the Queen will be ever-obliging while all actors follows the constitution, but if there were irregularities in a request, be it method, motivation or otherwise, then questions wil be asked and pauses for thought asked for. It's subtle, but it's there.

A PM who exercises such powers could simply justify its use to himself - powerful people frequently confuse their interests with those of the country, after all. And it is more dangerous in a system such as Britain's, or Germany's - where the separation of powers is weak and overlapping - as such powers could be used to shut down criticism, restrain or censure of the government, such as bypassing Parliamentary scrutiny.
And without a monarch, all the conventions can still potentially be used against the PM. It is unsure and potentially dangerous, but that's why there should be a codified constitution.

(Original post by gladders)
Basically this: you complain of the power of the Prime Minister but propose a change that would make him even more powerful.
But he or she was elected. There's a mandate for him to declare war if he wishes to, but there isn't necessarily any mandate for the monarch to stop him or to declare war herself.

(Original post by gladders)
That's...a view, but you still have to consider why such an apparently obvious thing hasn't occurred to any recent constitution-makers.
First of all, there exists many systems similar or worse than with an all-powerful PM - absolute monarchies for example, would have all the disadvantages without the popular mandate. Or somewhere like Burnel where the Sultan is also the Prime Minister. Or somewhere like China where the leader of the party is president and thus controls also the congress. Secondly, it is more likely that people do not adopt it either due to historical reasons or because there are better systems to be adopted.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report 4 years ago
#35
The choice is between an hereditary executive head of state, an hereditary non-executive head, an elected executive head or an elected non-exec head.

There are very few happy examples of hereditary executive heads of state. North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Saudi Arabia wouldn't appeal to many.

The problem with an elected executive head of state such as the USA and France is the problem of being a divisive politician and the representative of the nation. Firstly, everything tends to become politicised from grief at a massacre to the pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey. Secondly, the HoS struggles to be a full time politician. Many overseas trips for example have ceremonial rather than active diplomatic importance.

The difficulty with elected non-execs is that they tend to be non-entities. The Greek, Italian, German and Irish presidents are insignificant figures compared to say the Prince of Monaco or the Grand Duke of Luxembourg. There are exceptions, such the previous two Irish Presidents but the fact the office has gone back into the shadows shows the fundamental problem.

The hereditary non-exec is probably the most satisfying form of head of state. The HoS can be the embodiment of the nation and avoid politics. There is glamour surrounding royalty. The cost is usually no greater than that for an elected exec because elected execs seem to be more attracted to the panoply of power and the security costs for someone taking active political decisions tend to be higher. Elected non-execs seem to be cheaper but lose PR value.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
It's very simple: the Queen's power is tied up with the long-term fortunes of the nation. She doesn't need to squabble, sell herself, climb greasy poles or think in four year terms like a president would.

She doesn't really even own anything much in the conventional sense. Her ownership is of a higher order, eminent domain for example. But she can't exactly make off with British land because what would she do with it? She could "sell" it to another country but what would be the point?

The Queen is next to God when it comes to ownership. Just like how God's omnipotence makes it pointless him interfering in the earthly realm because it would make the whole experiment redundant if you just have someone click their fingers and it's whatever outcome they want.

God's PhD supervisor would say, "Well what's the value in your experiment if you just MAKE everyone worship you?" and any foreign hed of state would say to the Queen, "OK you have kicked people off this land but what's the value in it? You'll have to hand out freeholds to get other people to realise its value and then we're back at the beginning.

If some political or constitutional crisis happened that threatened the stability or long-term viability of the nation, the monarch can intervene. The People's Budget was the most recent example of this with the Lords capitulating when the King said he would flood the House with Liberals to get it through.

Alternatively if the monarch is unfit, fraternising with enemies like Edward VIII, there is always a clear successor so the coup is not politically charged. Since there is a line of inheritance, individual monarchs are subject to the interests of the "Firm" in general, which again are aligned with those of the country.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by scrotgrot)


If some political or constitutional crisis happened that threatened the stability or long-term viability of the nation, the monarch can intervene. The People's Budget was the most recent example of this with the Lords capitulating when the King said he would flood the House with Liberals to get it through.
The key to being a successful constitutional monarch is being able to distinguish between an existential crisis for the nation and the ebb and flow of politics.

The Greek monarchy never managed it, hence the continuing alternation of coup and restoration. No one would take bets that cycle has finished yet and there may be a further restoration when Constantine dies.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by Little Toy Gun)
Once again, just because you say you have doesn't mean that's the truth.
I can only encourage you read Professor Vernon Bogdanors Monarchy and the Constitution for a clearer extrapolation, then.

The government exists only with enough support from MPs.
That does not negate the fact that not all MPs are in the executive. You're splitting hairs.

Irrelevant. Who appoints the judges? Can parliament overrule the court?

Matter of fact: Parliament has all the powers. Where is the separation? The separation only exists under parliament.
The Executive appoints the judges, and Parliament can petition for a judge's removal. The rule of sub judice governs the discussion of ongoing court cases in Parliament.

The separation in practice exists through aspects such as this. It doesn't have to be formally legislated for for it to exist.

Oh I don't know, perhaps all the other constitutionalists who have voiced that separation of powers doesn't really exist in the UK? Why do you keep insisting on appealing to one authority? Is it because you yourself feel that you are incapable to winning the argument yourself?
You haven't given a single example of a constitutionalist who has completely denied any separation of powers in the UK, but are over-interpreting the few you have given into something considerably different. *shrug* sorry.

I mean, you didn't even cite his argument, but only supposedly his opinion. I don't know where you got it from, but I'd guess that his argument would be more in line with in practice there is a separation of powers, but was not referring to anything the system has built in in itself.
Why does that matter? The practice is the thing that we're concerned about. I wouldn't care much for the American separation of powers if, for example, the constitution was rife with them but practice made them moot.

Where exactly did they say that it does not negate that powers are separated? Are you making this up yourself? I'm starting to doubt the truthfulness of all your claims.

This is what they actually said:

The system resembles a balance of powers more than aformal separation of the three branches
Precisely - a balance of powers, not a formal separation. As Dicey would say, a 'weak' separation. I think you're assigning to me a view I do not hold.

[i]In the UK,the powers of Parliament, Government and courts are closely intertwined. In fact, theexecutive and legislature are seen as a “close union...
Close. Not complete. Weak.

[i]In the UK, and other common law jurisdictions, the executive and legislature are closelyentwined. The Prime Minister and a majority of his or her ministers are Members ofParliament and sit in the House of Commons. The executive is therefore present at the heartof Parliament.
Closely entwined. Not complete. Weak.

In this way, in the UK legislature and executive are far from separate powers.
Weakly separate. Not complete fusion.

The Government usually has almost complete control over theagenda of the legislature.
Almost, not entire, and the scope for loss of control has widened in recent years.

[i]Constitutionally, judges are subordinate to Parliament and may not challenge the validity ofActs of Parliament.
Precisely. Judges are subordinate to Parliament, but not part of it, and are operationally independent. In fact, you could say they are separated from the legislative function.

I would argue they have slightly overstated the separation of powers in the US by the way, as the three branches can actually interfere in the others constitutionally, not least by judges enacting law, but Congress appointing officers and the President having a legislative veto.

The whole document's main point is that there is no separation of power in the UK but it's not a bad thing and where it's potentially bad they already have done something about it. I don't understand how you could interpret any of the above as that there is separation. There isn't.
Weak separation of powers. I can only keep stressing this. You seem to be completely misreading my argument.

Who makes laws? Parliament.
Who executes laws and create policies? Parliament-backed government whose members are MPs.
The only question is whether parliament controls the courts,and it does. Its government appoints judges, and directly it can remove judges in the High Court, it can remove laws and create new laws as they wish to. If parliament is have broken the law, they can either avoid prosecution with their privileges or remove the laws right away. An Act of Parliament also cannot be challenged by the court.

As long as the Prime Minister controls parliament, there simply isn't a separation of power. Just because the PMs haven't been abusing the powers doesn't mean there is a separation.

So now you're recognising that parliament does hold all the power and as long as a PM controls it, there's no powers to overrule it?
I have to disagree. The Prime Minister only controls Parliament insofar as MPs are prepared to be led by him. A bad PM will lose control of Parliament and face a whole load of trouble, potentially his removal. As powerful as he could be, the PM is still subservient to Parliament and must respect it.

Who are both members of parliament, further proving my point that parliament holds all the power and there's no separation.
Well by that logic the US has no separation of powers either, given that the Vice President is also President of the Senate.

Because his example showed how a monarch could potentially abuse the current powers. It is a real concern, and one that is not different to the concern that the PM might abuse the power. At least the PM was voted in!
It's not a real concern at all, as removal of a monarch is quite easy. Out of the last two hundred years of decent constitutional monarchs, we had less than a year of a rubbish one. I'll take that.

And without a monarch, all the conventions can still potentially be used against the PM. It is unsure and potentially dangerous, but that's why there should be a codified constitution.
Not at all, as the dynamic changes. People are far more willing to forgive transgressions of an elected official than an hereditary/appointed one. They are far more easily constrained than a Prime Minister.

And that is still the case for codified constitutions. Italy and Germany have similar systems even if codified, and they avoid electing the Head of State out of concern for the danger of an elected president. Heck, even the Australian Republican Movement split right down the middle over the issue in 1999.

But he or she was elected. There's a mandate for him to declare war if he wishes to, but there isn't necessarily any mandate for the monarch to stop him or to declare war herself.
Oh so that's all that matters - he leads thousands to death, but hey, at least he was elected, that makes it okay. Never mind if he decided to do it on a whim or to shut down criticism of his administration by appealing to nationalism.

First of all, there exists many systems similar or worse than with an all-powerful PM - absolute monarchies for example, would have all the disadvantages without the popular mandate. Or somewhere like Burnel where the Sultan is also the Prime Minister. Or somewhere like China where the leader of the party is president and thus controls also the congress.
...yes? I can't argue with that. But I don't see why it's relevant. I'm discussing the merits of presidentialist v parliamentarist democracies.

Secondly, it is more likely that people do not adopt it either due to historical reasons or because there are better systems to be adopted.
That better system being US-style presidentialism or the Westminster system, not some monstrosity where the Westminster-style PM has the powers of the US-style president. That's the worse of both worlds.
0
reply
Midlander
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by stoltguyboo)
The Queen and the royal family has done more for your Country than any politician could ever do.

Do people fly half way around the world to visit any other monarchies residences and buy gifts etc.

Don't forget that money is going into your economy if a palace need's work on somebody is hired so somebody is getting paid from working on the palaces.

Don't be so naive!


Your monarchy is respected and the fact that Corbyn want's to remove it is frightening.
Well it is truly wonderful to have another thread on this subject so that the sycophants can come out in force in defence of people who don't give a rat's arse about them in return.

The Windsors are granted a life of privilege, fame and wealth for no good reason because we choose to give it to them. Not many among us can count banquets, stays in 5* hotels around the world and cutting ribbons as work engagements.

Better yet the tourism argument is a falsehood which denigrates the many other things in Britain worth coming here to see and do. The most optimistic estimates from British tourism boards put the total economic benefits of monarchy-related tourism to be around £500 million. Weighed up against the true cost it is of negligible cost or surplus to the average Joe.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (116)
65.91%
No I haven't decided yet (36)
20.45%
Yes but I might change my mind (24)
13.64%

Watched Threads

View All