|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 20:05:51 GMT
But they still have to comply with both the law and treaties which all have to ultimately ratified by The Crown. But well done for admitting the UK is not, and never has been, a genuine Democracy. All The Best I was clarifying the position with the civil service and since they are employees of the Crown it is to the Crown that they look for guidance as to their duties or Ministers of the Crown who are the Crown in Parliament. Do not confuse the Crown with the Monarch who is the embodiment of the Crown and just as much subject of the Crown. The peculiarities of the British Constitution does not mean Britain is not a democracy it is just important to recognise how the democracy functions In the UK are the People Sovereign? No, we are not. Because even if we elect a government that will actually put in place the policies we want (which is a long shot anyway) The Crown can refuse to ratify those policies without giving a reason, and without there being an legal recourse for the People to overturn that refusal. And unless the People are Sovereign we are, manifestly NOT a Democracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on May 2, 2024 20:21:20 GMT
The meaning is the same .If they knew there was a potential problem they should have raised it . If its right that they sit on their hands until the instruction lands on the desk then someone in the government has dropped a clanger . Either way the system doesn't work if a marquee policy can fall apart as easy as this one repeatedly seems to . Yes, the Government. For not publishing, in full, the legal guidance and advice they obtained on this issue. Make no mistake, if that advice came even close to showing this process was legal it would already be in the public domain, because it would bring a total end to any lingering doubts. The only logical conclusion to come to is that they have not published that advice because it does not show this process to be legal. The alleged marquee policy was only ever lip-service anyway. The Government have always known it will stand the test of scrutiny in UK Courts. Which is why they gave dragged their feet. After the impending Tory Wipe-out they will claim "look we tried, but the courts and Labour stopped it" when in truth the fact it was illegal from the get go is the reason it will fail. It was a very expensive smoke and mirrors con job to fool some of the Tory faithful into thinking they (the Tories) care about reducing immigration - they don't, their real paymasters want more immigration, bot illegal and legal. All The Best Feck me what a shitshow that version of events is (Im not doubting it ) . Incompetence at the highest level . Still it will all be over soon ,Labour will grant an Amnesty all will become legal citizens and housed in the 100,000 council houses they are going to build before Christmas |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 20:28:30 GMT
I was clarifying the position with the civil service and since they are employees of the Crown it is to the Crown that they look for guidance as to their duties or Ministers of the Crown who are the Crown in Parliament. Do not confuse the Crown with the Monarch who is the embodiment of the Crown and just as much subject of the Crown. The peculiarities of the British Constitution does not mean Britain is not a democracy it is just important to recognise how the democracy functions In the UK are the People Sovereign? No, we are not. Because even if we elect a government that will actually put in place the policies we want (which is a long shot anyway) The Crown can refuse to ratify those policies without giving a reason, and without there being an legal recourse for the People to overturn that refusal. And unless the People are Sovereign we are, manifestly NOT a Democracy. All The Best The sovereignty of the people is expressed through the Crown and Parliament. The Crown has no ability to refuse anything, the Monarch may but would place himself into a Constitutional crisis. In a rather obtuse way the Crown is the people and it is the will of the people that determines the direction of teh work of teh Crown. Of course in recent years, certainly as regards the EEC and the EU, that relationship vis a vis the Crown and the people has suffered serious damage by those who seek higher authorities to have the power. The ultimate power lies with the people through the Crown who seeks reelection of all members by the people when the Monarch dissolves parliament. It is by no means perfect but it broadly works, even with two houses. It was dealt another blow with the Supreme Court which now can judge on absolute sovereignty which should, and must, remain as expressed by the people in Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 2, 2024 20:29:23 GMT
I was clarifying the position with the civil service and since they are employees of the Crown it is to the Crown that they look for guidance as to their duties or Ministers of the Crown who are the Crown in Parliament. Do not confuse the Crown with the Monarch who is the embodiment of the Crown and just as much subject of the Crown. The peculiarities of the British Constitution does not mean Britain is not a democracy it is just important to recognise how the democracy functions In the UK are the People Sovereign? No, we are not. Because even if we elect a government that will actually put in place the policies we want (which is a long shot anyway) The Crown can refuse to ratify those policies without giving a reason, and without there being an legal recourse for the People to overturn that refusal. And unless the People are Sovereign we are, manifestly NOT a Democracy. All The Best So what next with Civil Servants, they refuse to give benefits to Tory voters, or the Courts refuse to send JSO protesters to prison, because basically what you are saying that any department within the Civil Service can refuse to do things they think 'maybe' not right, you do realise that you are saying Civil Servants are now unelected departments free of government rule. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 20:35:36 GMT
In the UK are the People Sovereign? No, we are not. Because even if we elect a government that will actually put in place the policies we want (which is a long shot anyway) The Crown can refuse to ratify those policies without giving a reason, and without there being an legal recourse for the People to overturn that refusal. And unless the People are Sovereign we are, manifestly NOT a Democracy. All The Best The sovereignty of the people is expressed through the Crown and Parliament. The Crown has no ability to refuse anything, the Monarch may but would place himself into a Constitutional crisis. In a rather obtuse way the Crown is the people and it is the will of the people that determines the direction of teh work of teh Crown. Of course in recent years, certainly as regards the EEC and the EU, that relationship vis a vis the Crown and the people has suffered serious damage by those who seek higher authorities to have the power. The ultimate power lies with the people through the Crown who seeks reelection of all members by the people when the Monarch dissolves parliament. It is by no means perfect but it broadly works, even with two houses. It was dealt another blow with the Supreme Court which now can judge on absolute sovereignty which should, and must, remain as expressed by the people in Parliament. Explain to me how within the framework of UK Constitutional Procedure and UK Law the People could seek any redress at all from a Monarch who refused to ratify an act of Parliament. I'll give you a hint... ...there is no such option for redress. The Monarch has ABSOLUTE authority to ratify or refuse to ratify any and all acts of Parliament. You keep saying that "ultimate power lies with the people through the Crown"; well that just means ultimate power lies with the Crown... ...end of. The Crown can also refuse to dissolve Parliament. The Crown can also refuse to accept an elected Government - remember the Government has to seek the permission of the The Crown to actually govern. We are NOT a Democracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 20:40:05 GMT
In the UK are the People Sovereign? No, we are not. Because even if we elect a government that will actually put in place the policies we want (which is a long shot anyway) The Crown can refuse to ratify those policies without giving a reason, and without there being an legal recourse for the People to overturn that refusal. And unless the People are Sovereign we are, manifestly NOT a Democracy. All The Best So what next with Civil Servants, they refuse to give benefits to Tory voters, or the Courts refuse to send JSO protesters to prison, because basically what you are saying that any department within the Civil Service can refuse to do things they think 'maybe' not right, you do realise that you are saying Civil Servants are now unelected departments free of government rule. Well giving benefits to Tory voters is not potentially illegal. The duties they have been given regarding deportations to Rwanda are. It is not about "what they think is right", it IS about "what they believe is illegal" - two very different things. What I am saying is that is part of the Civil Service's duties to ensure the Government is acting in accordance with both the Law and with legally binding Treaties we have signed - only where they have doubts about that do they have the DUTY to seek legal advice. Surely genuine Tories would refuse benefits anyway, as the outdated trappings of a pseudo-socialist state and a betrayal of the free market? Funny how they never have the courage of their convictions, isn't it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 2, 2024 20:46:21 GMT
The sovereignty of the people is expressed through the Crown and Parliament. The Crown has no ability to refuse anything, the Monarch may but would place himself into a Constitutional crisis. In a rather obtuse way the Crown is the people and it is the will of the people that determines the direction of teh work of teh Crown. Of course in recent years, certainly as regards the EEC and the EU, that relationship vis a vis the Crown and the people has suffered serious damage by those who seek higher authorities to have the power. The ultimate power lies with the people through the Crown who seeks reelection of all members by the people when the Monarch dissolves parliament. It is by no means perfect but it broadly works, even with two houses. It was dealt another blow with the Supreme Court which now can judge on absolute sovereignty which should, and must, remain as expressed by the people in Parliament. Explain to me how within the framework of UK Constitutional Procedure and UK Law the People could seek any redress at all from a Monarch who refused to ratify an act of Parliament. I'll give you a hint... ...there is no such option for redress. The Monarch has ABSOLUTE authority to ratify or refuse to ratify any and all acts of Parliament. You keep saying that "ultimate power lies with the people through the Crown"; well that just means ultimate power lies with the Crown... ...end of. The Crown can also refuse to dissolve Parliament. The Crown can also refuse to accept an elected Government - remember the Government has to seek the permission of the The Crown to actually govern. We are NOT a Democracy. All The Best You are confusing the Crown with the Monarch. Absolute power is not wielded if a Constitutional crisis ensues, it is power to create a Constitutional crisis which is not the same thing as absolute power. The Monarch dissolves parliament upon instruction from Ministers of the Crown. The Monarch approves the government which then becomes the Crown in parliament. No government is elected, it is formed with the consent of the elected house |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 2, 2024 21:06:17 GMT
Explain to me how within the framework of UK Constitutional Procedure and UK Law the People could seek any redress at all from a Monarch who refused to ratify an act of Parliament. I'll give you a hint... ...there is no such option for redress. The Monarch has ABSOLUTE authority to ratify or refuse to ratify any and all acts of Parliament. You keep saying that "ultimate power lies with the people through the Crown"; well that just means ultimate power lies with the Crown... ...end of. The Crown can also refuse to dissolve Parliament. The Crown can also refuse to accept an elected Government - remember the Government has to seek the permission of the The Crown to actually govern. We are NOT a Democracy. All The Best You are confusing the Crown with the Monarch. Absolute power is not wielded if a Constitutional crisis ensues, it is power to create a Constitutional crisis which is not the same thing as absolute power. 1) The Monarch dissolves parliament upon instruction from Ministers of the Crown. 2) The Monarch approves the government which then becomes the Crown in parliament. 3) No government is elected, it is formed with the consent of the elected house 1) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 2) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 3) If a Government is not elected we most definitely do not have Democracy. If the people are not Sovereign, and you have shown they are not, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 3, 2024 7:23:02 GMT
You are confusing the Crown with the Monarch. Absolute power is not wielded if a Constitutional crisis ensues, it is power to create a Constitutional crisis which is not the same thing as absolute power. 1) The Monarch dissolves parliament upon instruction from Ministers of the Crown. 2) The Monarch approves the government which then becomes the Crown in parliament. 3) No government is elected, it is formed with the consent of the elected house 1) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 2) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 3) If a Government is not elected we most definitely do not have Democracy. If the people are not Sovereign, and you have shown they are not, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best 1 and 2 would initiate a Constitutional crisis which I keep saying. That crisis would have to be resolved and a new Constitutional position created. That is the way it works. 3 A government is approved by the majority of the elected house who are the representatives of the people. HM government cannot function unless it takes that house with it. If ultimate power rests with the people, and it is clear it does, then the people are sovereign. The established system operates on the principle of consent and in large measure works by keeping power in the hands of those who direct operations so to speak. However ultimate power does not rest with them, it is a fine balance they have to keep. Our system has its flaws but it is better than most because it has arisen as opposed to being constructed and it has arisen because of power plays, civil war, Constitutional crises and democratic pressure. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 3, 2024 20:04:06 GMT
1) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 2) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 3) If a Government is not elected we most definitely do not have Democracy. If the people are not Sovereign, and you have shown they are not, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best 1 and 2 would initiate a Constitutional crisis which I keep saying. No, it wouldn't. There is no current legally valid recourse to do anything about it. The Monarch can just say "That's the law." And we can't change the law because the Monarch could just, quite legally, refuse to ratify any law that threatens to undermine their current primacy of power. It WOULD cause a PR crisis - but as we have seen with Ordinary Andy Windsor that would soon blow over and the SOP would soon be back in place. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 3, 2024 20:09:02 GMT
1) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 2) But can, constitutionally, refuse to do so. 3) If a Government is not elected we most definitely do not have Democracy. If the people are not Sovereign, and you have shown they are not, then we are not a Democracy. All The Best 1 and 2 would initiate a Constitutional crisis which I keep saying. That crisis would have to be resolved and a new Constitutional position created. That is the way it works. 3 A government is approved by the majority of the elected house who are the representatives of the people. HM government cannot function unless it takes that house with it. If ultimate power rests with the people, and it is clear it does, then the people are sovereign. The established system operates on the principle of consent and in large measure works by keeping power in the hands of those who direct operations so to speak. However ultimate power does not rest with them, it is a fine balance they have to keep. Our system has its flaws but it is better than most because it has arisen as opposed to being constructed and it has arisen because of power plays, civil war, Constitutional crises and democratic pressure.It has arisen for one purpose, and one purpose only. To offer a "smoke and mirror sham democracy" while keeping the inordinately wealthy landed-gentry sucking at the teat of the public purse. The Royals being exempt from Inheritance Tax being the most obvious recent example. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 3, 2024 21:26:09 GMT
1 and 2 would initiate a Constitutional crisis which I keep saying. No, it wouldn't. There is no current legally valid recourse to do anything about it. The Monarch can just say "That's the law." And we can't change the law because the Monarch could just, quite legally, refuse to ratify any law that threatens to undermine their current primacy of power. It WOULD cause a PR crisis - but as we have seen with Ordinary Andy Windsor that would soon blow over and the SOP would soon be back in place. All The Best History is littered with people who thought the same as you. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 3, 2024 22:43:36 GMT
No, it wouldn't. There is no current legally valid recourse to do anything about it. The Monarch can just say "That's the law." And we can't change the law because the Monarch could just, quite legally, refuse to ratify any law that threatens to undermine their current primacy of power. It WOULD cause a PR crisis - but as we have seen with Ordinary Andy Windsor that would soon blow over and the SOP would soon be back in place. All The Best History is littered with people who thought the same as you. Yeah, they are called Historians who understand facts. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 4, 2024 6:03:09 GMT
No, it wouldn't. There is no current legally valid recourse to do anything about it. The Monarch can just say "That's the law." And we can't change the law because the Monarch could just, quite legally, refuse to ratify any law that threatens to undermine their current primacy of power. It WOULD cause a PR crisis - but as we have seen with Ordinary Andy Windsor that would soon blow over and the SOP would soon be back in place. All The Best History is littered with people who thought the same as you. The same as you then, he is explaining the outcome of the last civil war, except this time, there is a complete refusal to comply. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2024 6:25:21 GMT
History is littered with people who thought the same as you. Yeah, they are called Historians who understand facts. All The Best Yes - and historical fact proves that you are wrong.  |
|
