|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2024 7:18:16 GMT
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 Now we are moving into opinion. There are many flaws in our system but there is a difference between a smoke and mirrors sham democracy and a democracy within which those who exercise power have to do so with a degree of consensus from the demos. The latter more closely fits what we have, the whole edifice could be swept away purely by a vote of the public which makes it a democracy, there are many vested interests that would not wish that to happen not least a large proportion of the electorate themselves as what we have offers a degree of stability within which people can reasonably live their lives. I said it has arisen through many reasons. If the one purpose you say is true then it also generally benefits the multitude as in general terms the people in the UK have a good standard of living compared to many other countries and democratic pressure is what has created what we have. Democracy is not necessarily having a say it is having a collective level of power to change things. There are many varied interests currently trying to keep a large influx of legal and illegal migrants flowing into the UK. Some are altruistic, some are nefarious, some are misled, some are those who mislead. The democratic will to actually control that influx is gaining ever more pressure and the forces willing it are finding it harder to avoid those changes. It is British democracy in action, a bit slow, a bit ponderous, a bit open to abuse, a bit unable to counter minority opinion but in the end quite relevant and difficult to actually defeat. There are many examples in history. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2024 7:25:50 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 Constitutional crises are not necessarily resolved by legally valid means but usually they ate resolved. The Monarch can say what he likes but in the end there is a consequence for how he behaves even in a legal way. It boils down to a simple analogy, one man with the legal power says you cannot have sweets, all the rest change the law and take the sweets anyway. Any dictator or power holder has to keep the demos happy in many ways the bread and circuses outlook but in real terms that is a democracy as the people have the power. Others may try to use it for their own ends but the power always resides with the populace and if they do not like what the man in charge does they remove him legally or illegally, it makes no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 4, 2024 19:59:04 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 Constitutional crises are not necessarily resolved by legally valid means but usually they ate resolved. How then? What EXACT mechanism do you think exists that would allow the UK to remove an intransigent Monarch who refuses to ratify Acts of Parliament, a Parliament whose oath of allegiance is to THAT self same Monarch. The Police, Armed Forces etc swear allegiance to the Monarch, NOT the Law (and that doesn't matter anyway as there is no legal route to removing a Monarch that can not be denied by that Monarch) and NOT The People. You do know why so many EX MPs become Peers, don't you? Gives them a reason never to question the fact that we are a Constitutional Monarchy, with some smoke and mirrors trappings of Democracy. They are made Peers in the very system of privilege it suits the Monarch to have preserved, to maintain the Monarch's own state-subsidised privilege. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2024 20:26:23 GMT
Constitutional crises are not necessarily resolved by legally valid means but usually they ate resolved. How then? What EXACT mechanism do you think exists that would allow the UK to remove an intransigent Monarch who refuses to ratify Acts of Parliament, a Parliament whose oath of allegiance is to THAT self same Monarch. The Police, Armed Forces etc swear allegiance to the Monarch, NOT the Law (and that doesn't matter anyway as there is no legal route to removing a Monarch that can not be denied by that Monarch) and NOT The People. You do know why so many EX MPs become Peers, don't you? Gives them a reason never to question the fact that we are a Constitutional Monarchy, with some smoke and mirrors trappings of Democracy. They are made Peers in the very system of privilege it suits the Monarch to have preserved, to maintain the Monarch's own state-subsidised privilege. All The Best The Monarch knows the mechanism exists and therefore does not test it. That is exactly why the Constitutional crises in that respect are not triggered. I did not say a Monarch would be removed I said the crisis resolved. I cannot tell you exactly what would transpire but an option would be illegal formation of a government which would function as a legal government. All swear to serve the Monarch as he is the physical embodiment of the Crown. The King is a servant of the people as well which is why duty and responsibilities are often referred to. Once again I did not say remove a Monarch. It is largely a symbiotic relationship whereby Monarch serves the people and the people serve the Monarch. I am not denying the system has privileges and that flaws and inconsistencies and injustices are there for all to see, I am saying that it is a democracy as the people at the top have to keep a lid on the people at the bottom so to speak.If they did not have to consider them then it would not be democratic, but they do therefore it is democratic. I think it is a better system than the US where the democracy is effectively controlled by money and not by the people who think they get a choice but effectively money speaks as regards who stands. In teh UK a complete idiot can, and often does, stand which creates variety and an element of fun. EDIT Apologies I did say remove the power holder but I was referring in generalities and dictators and at that point but I was unclear and inaccurate. Apologies for my lack of clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 4, 2024 20:33:29 GMT
How then? What EXACT mechanism do you think exists that would allow the UK to remove an intransigent Monarch who refuses to ratify Acts of Parliament, a Parliament whose oath of allegiance is to THAT self same Monarch. The Police, Armed Forces etc swear allegiance to the Monarch, NOT the Law (and that doesn't matter anyway as there is no legal route to removing a Monarch that can not be denied by that Monarch) and NOT The People. You do know why so many EX MPs become Peers, don't you? Gives them a reason never to question the fact that we are a Constitutional Monarchy, with some smoke and mirrors trappings of Democracy. They are made Peers in the very system of privilege it suits the Monarch to have preserved, to maintain the Monarch's own state-subsidised privilege. All The Best The Monarch knows the mechanism exists and therefore does not test it. That is exactly why the Constitutional crises in that respect are not triggered. I did not say a Monarch would be removed I said the crisis resolved. I cannot tell you exactly what would transpire but an option would be illegal formation of a government which would function as a legal government. All swear to serve the Monarch as he is the physical embodiment of the Crown. The King is a servant of the people as well which is why duty and responsibilities are often referred to. Once again I did not say remove a Monarch. It is largely a symbiotic relationship whereby Monarch serves the people and the people serve the Monarch. I am not denying the system has privileges and that flaws and inconsistencies and injustices are there for all to see, I am saying that it is a democracy as the people at the top have to keep a lid on the people at the bottom so to speak.If they did not have to consider them then it would not be democratic, but they do therefore it is democratic. I think it is a better system than the US where the democracy is effectively controlled by money and not by the people who think they get a choice but effectively money speaks as regards who stands. In teh UK a complete idiot can, and often does, stand which creates variety and an element of fun. You could have just admitted that you can not give an answer to "How then?" - and the reason you can't is because there really isn't one. And please stop peddling the bullshit myth that the monarchy are "servants to the people". Name one point in the entirely of human history when the actual "servants" have it a thousand times better than the people they serve. You can't - there's never been such a time. They refer to "duty and responsibility" constantly to fool some people into thinking we don't live in a Monarchy where the Monarch has absolute legal authority to deny both Parliament and the Will Of The People. Well, we do - and it is clear it has fooled you. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 4, 2024 20:56:52 GMT
The Monarch knows the mechanism exists and therefore does not test it. That is exactly why the Constitutional crises in that respect are not triggered. I did not say a Monarch would be removed I said the crisis resolved. I cannot tell you exactly what would transpire but an option would be illegal formation of a government which would function as a legal government. All swear to serve the Monarch as he is the physical embodiment of the Crown. The King is a servant of the people as well which is why duty and responsibilities are often referred to. Once again I did not say remove a Monarch. It is largely a symbiotic relationship whereby Monarch serves the people and the people serve the Monarch. I am not denying the system has privileges and that flaws and inconsistencies and injustices are there for all to see, I am saying that it is a democracy as the people at the top have to keep a lid on the people at the bottom so to speak.If they did not have to consider them then it would not be democratic, but they do therefore it is democratic. I think it is a better system than the US where the democracy is effectively controlled by money and not by the people who think they get a choice but effectively money speaks as regards who stands. In teh UK a complete idiot can, and often does, stand which creates variety and an element of fun. You could have just admitted that you can not give an answer to "How then?" - and the reason you can't is because there really isn't one. And please stop peddling the bullshit myth that the monarchy are "servants to the people". Name one point in the entirely of human history when the actual "servants" have it a thousand times better than the people they serve. You can't - there's never been such a time. They refer to "duty and responsibility" constantly to fool some people into thinking we don't live in a Monarchy where the Monarch has absolute legal authority to deny both Parliament and the Will Of The People. Well, we do - and it is clear it has fooled you. All The Best There are many options with civil war being one that did transpire from a Constitutional crisis. I did say legal and illegal but that is the way Constitutions arise especially the British Constitution. I gave an example why would you ignore that, there is an endless list of variations. There is a host of civil servants who are significantly better off than the public they serve, it is not an unusual situation. A servant carries out duties for another or others, they have duties and responsibilities. The Monarch is in reality the stand alone top civil servant. Having absolute legal authority to do something does not mean that there will be no consequences if that absolute authority is exercised and because there are, and most certainly will be, consequences that that absolute authority is not, and will not, be exercised. As we saw in the Pandemic parliament is, and can be, a democratic dictatorship but has to tread very carefully in any despotic action it takes as 'the people' in the end, are the power holders and have to be convinced to accept and obey. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2024 21:15:35 GMT
Constitutional crises are not necessarily resolved by legally valid means but usually they ate resolved. How then? What EXACT mechanism do you think exists that would allow the UK to remove an intransigent Monarch who refuses to ratify Acts of Parliament, a Parliament whose oath of allegiance is to THAT self same Monarch. well the last time a Monarch tried that it didn't work out too well for them..  |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 4, 2024 23:48:14 GMT
How then? What EXACT mechanism do you think exists that would allow the UK to remove an intransigent Monarch who refuses to ratify Acts of Parliament, a Parliament whose oath of allegiance is to THAT self same Monarch. well the last time a Monarch tried that it didn't work out too well for them.. And now we have an almost entirely disarmed population, and armed forces that swear allegiance solely to the Monarch. You naïve enough to think that is accidental? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 5, 2024 6:44:53 GMT
Well it would be a very brave Monarch who decided to put it to the test..  |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 5, 2024 7:52:14 GMT
LOL it's a nice try but the EU and its own government had already flooded the place long before any Rwanda policy. Which the Irish have been kicking off about for months, but if all else fails, blame the British government. It won't work. A bit like the smoke and mirrors of the said policy, record number of arrivals with a calm channel. Basically, the establishment has fucked everyone. So, nothing new there then.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 5, 2024 8:13:06 GMT
Well it would be a very brave Monarch who decided to put it to the test.. I agree. But the fact remains, that both legally and constitutionally the power of the Monarch is absolute. Abd because of that we can't really call ourselves a democracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 5, 2024 8:21:15 GMT
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 The Monarch of the day does not pay Inheritance Tax when the late Queen passed away Charles inherited much if not all of her assets which is a long standing agreement , all the other Royals pay Income Tax on their earnings, and Inheritance Tax. For many years the Monarch of the Day did not pay Income Tax on their earnings , however the late Queen from 1993 onwards. As for Sovereignty the Monarch of the day is Sovereign in name only, it is the Parliament of the day that is " Sovereign " the Government has all the power not the Monarch , the Monarch rubber stamps what the Government puts in front of them. Some wrongly think that when the Monarch opens Parliament and addresses both Houses Lords and Commons it is the Monarchs wishes , no they simply read out what the Parliament has decided to do and put in place. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 5, 2024 8:23:47 GMT
Well it would be a very brave Monarch who decided to put it to the test.. I agree. But the fact remains, that both legally and constitutionally the power of the Monarch is absolute. Abd because of that we can't really call ourselves a democracy. All The Best It is only absolute if there are no consequences for his actions. Being legally absolute is not the same thing. Because there will be consequences we can call ourselves a democracy. Caligula had absolute power over Rome and his guard swore absolute allegiance to him. It was his guard that killed him in the end because he went too far. The power in a democracy is limited by the people, both legally and illegally, but that is just how they operate. In some lands the plebiscite tends to be the riot and absolute rulers know this and guard against it. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 5, 2024 8:30:25 GMT
Well it would be a very brave Monarch who decided to put it to the test.. I agree. But the fact remains, that both legally and constitutionally the power of the Monarch is absolute. Abd because of that we can't really call ourselves a democracy. All The Best No matter the semantics of your argument, the UK is considered a liberal democracy by V-Dem and as such ranks 18th in the world from a total of 179. www.v-dem.net/documents/43/v-dem_dr2024_lowres.pdfen.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-Dem_Democracy_IndicesTherefore, claims we cannot really call ourselves a democracy aren't true. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 5, 2024 8:49:23 GMT
Some wrongly think that when the Monarch opens Parliament and addresses both Houses Lords and Commons it is the Monarchs wishes , no they simply read out what the Parliament has decided to do and put in place. Slight correction here, it is the government who proposes the King's/Queen's Speech, parliament does not vote on it until after it has been read. |
|
