|
|
Post by sandypine on May 5, 2024 9:01:09 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. He has not quite grasped the fact that the government is the Crown in parliament that is seeking the permission of the people to act. In such ways does democracy operate. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 5, 2024 9:37:57 GMT
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. No, Parliament is NOT Sovereign. Parliament can draft Acts Of Parliament - but those Acts MUST receive Royal Assent before becoming Law, and the Monarch can refuse to grant assent at any time, and there is absolutely NOTHING Parliament, nor the People, could do if the Monarch chose to withhold Assent. The ultimate arbiter of law in the UK is the Monarch. There is no legal procedure to pass an Act into Law without Royal Assent. There is is no legal procedure to compel the Monarch to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to admonish a Monarch for refusing to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to remove an intransigent Monarch from power. Finally, the Police, Armed and Emergency Services ALL swear allegiance to the Monarch. The Monarch CHOOSES to open Parliament as decided by Parliament - this is a matter of habit, NOT Law. The Monarch could equally CHOOSE not to do so, and there would be absolutely NOTHING we could legally do about it. This the great con of the British Monarchy - they actually retain all real power, but pretend they don't, and it has successfully fooled millions of useful idiots into not questioning the fact that we are not actually a Democracy at all. The British system is essentially a "benign Monarchy", but that could change, and there would absolutely be nothing we could do about it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 5, 2024 10:46:40 GMT
By the the way Charlie has been known to interfere with policy behind the scenes, been caught at it once or twice. Just so we can put some context on it. As every policy is sent for him to peruse.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 5, 2024 13:17:51 GMT
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. No, Parliament is NOT Sovereign. Parliament can draft Acts Of Parliament - but those Acts MUST receive Royal Assent before becoming Law, and the Monarch can refuse to grant assent at any time, and there is absolutely NOTHING Parliament, nor the People, could do if the Monarch chose to withhold Assent. The ultimate arbiter of law in the UK is the Monarch. There is no legal procedure to pass an Act into Law without Royal Assent. There is is no legal procedure to compel the Monarch to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to admonish a Monarch for refusing to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to remove an intransigent Monarch from power. Finally, the Police, Armed and Emergency Services ALL swear allegiance to the Monarch. The Monarch CHOOSES to open Parliament as decided by Parliament - this is a matter of habit, NOT Law. The Monarch could equally CHOOSE not to do so, and there would be absolutely NOTHING we could legally do about it. This the great con of the British Monarchy - they actually retain all real power, but pretend they don't, and it has successfully fooled millions of useful idiots into not questioning the fact that we are not actually a Democracy at all. The British system is essentially a "benign Monarchy", but that could change, and there would absolutely be nothing we could do about it. All The Best Authority, if it means anything has to be exercised. The Monarch has never done any of the above despite having the legal power to do so. He has not done so as it would initiate a Constitutional Crisis which would result in the Monarch losing that authority. So he does not. Which makes the people sovereign as sovereign is not a specific legal allowance it is a reality situation. If the Monarch does not behave in the way the legal constitution allows and expects that power will be lost to him. That is the way the power of the Monarch has been eroded over time and why the Crown is the important aspect of our democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 5, 2024 14:30:27 GMT
No, Parliament is NOT Sovereign. Parliament can draft Acts Of Parliament - but those Acts MUST receive Royal Assent before becoming Law, and the Monarch can refuse to grant assent at any time, and there is absolutely NOTHING Parliament, nor the People, could do if the Monarch chose to withhold Assent. The ultimate arbiter of law in the UK is the Monarch. There is no legal procedure to pass an Act into Law without Royal Assent. There is is no legal procedure to compel the Monarch to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to admonish a Monarch for refusing to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to remove an intransigent Monarch from power. Finally, the Police, Armed and Emergency Services ALL swear allegiance to the Monarch. The Monarch CHOOSES to open Parliament as decided by Parliament - this is a matter of habit, NOT Law. The Monarch could equally CHOOSE not to do so, and there would be absolutely NOTHING we could legally do about it. This the great con of the British Monarchy - they actually retain all real power, but pretend they don't, and it has successfully fooled millions of useful idiots into not questioning the fact that we are not actually a Democracy at all. The British system is essentially a "benign Monarchy", but that could change, and there would absolutely be nothing we could do about it. All The Best The current, and previous, Monarch have never withheld Royal Assent (though Her Maj allegedly came close with withholding Royal Assent from the Brexit legislation). But it HAS been withheld, and there was NOTHING that could be done about it. The same is true now the Monarch could withhold Royal Assent and there is NOTHING (except some ephemeral "constitutional crisis" that you can't describe and offer no solution to - so it may as well be a fairy-tale) that could be done about it What you are saying is that "it is OK to give a paedophile the right to have sex with a six year old with no legal consequences as long as he doesn't actually do it". That is a stupid argument. You look at the Legal Position, and ask - "In a worse case scenario is that legal position justifiable?". In the case of the Monarch, and the paedophile, it is clearly NOT justifiable. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 5, 2024 21:25:55 GMT
Authority, if it means anything has to be exercised. The Monarch has never done any of the above despite having the legal power to do so. The current, and previous, Monarch have never withheld Royal Assent (though Her Maj allegedly came close with withholding Royal Assent from the Brexit legislation). But it HAS been withheld, and there was NOTHING that could be done about it. The same is true now the Monarch could withhold Royal Assent and there is NOTHING (except some ephemeral "constitutional crisis" that you can't describe and offer no solution to - so it may as well be a fairy-tale) that could be done about it What you are saying is that "it is OK to give a paedophile the right to have sex with a six year old with no legal consequences as long as he doesn't actually do it". That is a stupid argument. You look at the Legal Position, and ask - "In a worse case scenario is that legal position justifiable?". In the case of the Monarch, and the paedophile, it is clearly NOT justifiable. All The Best Last withheld by Queen Anne over 300 years ago and that was on the advice of her ministers due to sudden change in circumstances, things have moved on a tad since then and assent is largely by Commission now. You have given a rather stupid analogy there but then if we run with it the paedophile was not given anything it was right handed down through the Constitution and is a remnant of past proclivities. If he exercised his right now, there would be a problem and action taken against him and his right abolished by making new law. There are many worst case scenarios where the legal position is not justified relating mostly to inadmissible evidence but we live with all of these, The Freedom of cities and boroughs often brings with it rights that nowadays cannot be exercised like driving sheep over bridges which would cause a problem if they were freely exercised. Or taking geese to market through the high street. Royal Assent is part of our Constitution, it does not have to be but it is there as the official seal of any bill where the Crown, through the physical embodiment of the Monarch, gives final assent to law. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 6, 2024 9:06:23 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. Indeed the Monarch simply reads out the speech prepared by Parliament and commends it to both houses |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on May 6, 2024 9:12:42 GMT
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. Indeed the Monarch simply reads out the speech prepared by Parliament and commends it to both houses No, the speech is prepared by the government, not by Parliament. My point is Parliament does not have a say until afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 6, 2024 9:25:37 GMT
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. Indeed the Monarch simply reads out the speech prepared by Parliament and commends it to both houses But, crucially, can CHOOSE not to - and there is NOTHING Parliament could do about it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 6, 2024 9:35:44 GMT
Indeed the Monarch simply reads out the speech prepared by Parliament and commends it to both houses But, crucially, can CHOOSE not to - and there is NOTHING Parliament could do about it. All The Best In a monarchy, a king or queen is Head of State. The British Monarchy is known as a constitutional monarchy. This means that, while The Sovereign is Head of State, the ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 6, 2024 9:44:37 GMT
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. No, Parliament is NOT Sovereign. Parliament can draft Acts Of Parliament - but those Acts MUST receive Royal Assent before becoming Law, and the Monarch can refuse to grant assent at any time, and there is absolutely NOTHING Parliament, nor the People, could do if the Monarch chose to withhold Assent. The ultimate arbiter of law in the UK is the Monarch. There is no legal procedure to pass an Act into Law without Royal Assent. There is is no legal procedure to compel the Monarch to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to admonish a Monarch for refusing to grant Royal Assent. There is no legal procedure to remove an intransigent Monarch from power. Finally, the Police, Armed and Emergency Services ALL swear allegiance to the Monarch. The Monarch CHOOSES to open Parliament as decided by Parliament - this is a matter of habit, NOT Law. The Monarch could equally CHOOSE not to do so, and there would be absolutely NOTHING we could legally do about it. This the great con of the British Monarchy - they actually retain all real power, but pretend they don't, and it has successfully fooled millions of useful idiots into not questioning the fact that we are not actually a Democracy at all. The British system is essentially a "benign Monarchy", but that could change, and there would absolutely be nothing we could do about it. All The Best I disagree ever since the Restoration of the Monarchy when Parliament put Charles 11 back on the throne to avoid unrest and the possibility of another Civil War the deal was that Parliament was Sovereign from that day on they had all the power not the Monarch of the day. "Parliamentary sovereignty is a cornerstone of the UK constitutional system, which means that parliament is superior to the executive and judicial branches of government, and can therefore enact or repeal any law it chooses. Once both the upper House of Lords and lower House of Commons pass a piece of legislation and the monarch provides the Royal Assent, then no court or other body is able to invalidate the law" Yes the Monarch is asked to approve and give Royal Assent to any Legislation put in front of them which the Monarch of day has done so over the years even if they do not approve or fully support it . As mentioned earlier if the Monarch refused to give their Royal Approval it could mean a " Constitutional Crisis " the Monarch versus Parliament which could mean Parliament which has all the power could remove the Monarch full stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on May 6, 2024 10:01:02 GMT
By the the way Charlie has been known to interfere with policy behind the scenes, been caught at it once or twice. Just so we can put some context on it. As every policy is sent for him to peruse. Yes before Charles inherited the Crown he was able like the rest of us to lobby our MP's on matters he or we have strong opinions on, now he is the Monarch he will no longer do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 6, 2024 10:05:58 GMT
No, Parliament is NOT Sovereign... I beg to differ, Parliament most certainly is sovereign. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK. Under section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. link |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 6, 2024 10:14:05 GMT
Indeed the Monarch simply reads out the speech prepared by Parliament and commends it to both houses But, crucially, can CHOOSE not to - and there is NOTHING Parliament could do about it. All The Best And yet, this still doesn't result in the straw you are clutching to whilst claiming the UK isn't a democracy. The inverse is true, it is UK law that nobody is permitted to be drunk in a pub. Yet, this happens on a daily basis, and likewise with his/her majesty their absolute power hasn't been enacted legally in 300 years, as Sandy has already told you. Therefore, the reality of the UK's situation here; rather than an archaic law attributing the supremacy of the monarch, along with the semantics you take from it do no way entail the UK isn't a democracy. As evidenced by V-Dem's global democratic report. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 6, 2024 10:14:41 GMT
No, Parliament is NOT Sovereign... I beg to differ, Parliament most certainly is sovereign. Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK. Under section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. linkHe's getting mixed up with a constitutional monarchy and a 'absolute' monarchy a absolute monarchy rules with unlimited power. |
|
