Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2024 7:10:33 GMT
If the Monarch refuses to grant Royal Assent and the monarch fails to act within six months of the bill being presented to him, it becomes law without his signature. Royal Assent is the Monarch’s agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; as stated earlier the last such occasion was in 1707, Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality. It's really only a formality that stamps the end of the process. The Islamists no doubt object for the obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 7, 2024 7:19:41 GMT
My point about Constitutional crises and their resolution was that IF the Monarch so decided to withhold assent then that would initiate a Constitutional crisis that would have to be resolved. Once a legal dead end is reached then the only way to progress is by new methods as happened in 1911. That is the way Constitutions arise if they are not drawn up and if they are drawn up and such an impasse is reached then amendments are made. IF it happens we all do not just sit on our hands. Once again it would be idiotic of a Monarch to behave in such a way given our Constitution and his position in it. The fact it has not happened in the way you define indicates that it is not a problem in our democracy nor on the sovereignty of the people who win by either legal or new legal methods. I got your point. My point, the more pertinent point, is have any of those past Constitutional Crises been resolved in such a way as to prevent further Constitutional Crises on the same issue. The answer is they have not. These, alleged, Constitutional Crises in fact preserved the status quo - and that is because the mechanisms of state's primary function is to preserve the status quo - that we are a Monarchy and NOT a Democracy. All The Best No they did not, they restricted the powers of both the Monarch and the House of Lords. Charles 2 thought he was God on earth in terms of powers but the removal of his head quickly disabused him of that belief, the Lords wished total control to veto bills and in the end had to give way through compromise and negotiation. Resolutions come about through fair means and foul. If you believe we have the status quo from 300 odd years ago then you are just plain wrong. In order to have a power then it must be exercised once in a while with no consequence. Charles 2 tried and failed, the Lords tried and failed; what is the betting? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on May 7, 2024 7:30:29 GMT
If the Monarch refuses to grant Royal Assent and the monarch fails to act within six months of the bill being presented to him, it becomes law without his signature. Royal Assent is the Monarch’s agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; as stated earlier the last such occasion was in 1707, Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality. It's really only a formality that stamps the end of the process. The Islamists no doubt object for the obvious reasons. Thank god we have your expert wit and knowledge on board rebirth. Glad that's cleared up. One thing though...............who is "the islamists"? |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 7, 2024 7:58:34 GMT
A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation." The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would very likely lead to a government resigning.
There is more chance of that ^^ happening than there is of Starmer coming up with a policy, and I hope if it ever did it will result in the Labour government resigning.  Well, as the questions proved too difficult to for you let's try again: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? Both only require Yes or No answers in the first instance. All The Best Talk about slow on the uptake, a few posters have tried to spell it out to you, but it's like educating pork.
I have told you 'exactly' what it means, if you want to continue making a tit of yourself, be my guest, but I have no intentions of repeating myself over and over and over again, unless of course you enjoy the trolling?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 7, 2024 8:44:35 GMT
Simple question, yes or no answer: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? Follow up question: If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? All The Best A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation." The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would very likely lead to a government resigning.
There is more chance of that ^^ happening than there is of Starmer coming up with a policy, and I hope if it ever did it will result in the Labour government resigning. A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation." The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would very likely lead to a government resigning.
There is more chance of that ^^ happening than there is of Starmer coming up with a policy, and I hope if it ever did it will result in the Labour government resigning. Well, as the questions proved too difficult to for you let's try again: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? Both only require Yes or No answers in the first instance. All The Best What is it you do not understand. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 7, 2024 8:51:22 GMT
I got your point. My point, the more pertinent point, is have any of those past Constitutional Crises been resolved in such a way as to prevent further Constitutional Crises on the same issue. The answer is they have not. These, alleged, Constitutional Crises in fact preserved the status quo - and that is because the mechanisms of state's primary function is to preserve the status quo - that we are a Monarchy and NOT a Democracy. All The Best No they did not, they restricted the powers of both the Monarch and the House of Lords. Charles 2 thought he was God on earth in terms of powers but the removal of his head quickly disabused him of that belief, the Lords wished total control to veto bills and in the end had to give way through compromise and negotiation. Resolutions come about through fair means and foul. If you believe we have the status quo from 300 odd years ago then you are just plain wrong. In order to have a power then it must be exercised once in a while with no consequence. Charles 2 tried and failed, the Lords tried and failed; what is the betting? This is a falsehood. Once does not have to use a power to retain the choice to use that power at some other time. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 7, 2024 8:53:13 GMT
A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation." The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would very likely lead to a government resigning.
There is more chance of that ^^ happening than there is of Starmer coming up with a policy, and I hope if it ever did it will result in the Labour government resigning. Well, as the questions proved too difficult to for you let's try again: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? Both only require Yes or No answers in the first instance. All The Best What is it you do not understand. Your refusal to answer Yes or No to simple questions. I must assume you refuse to do so because the only honest Yes or No answers to my questions prove me to be correct, and your fragile ego can't admit to that. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 7, 2024 9:28:38 GMT
What is it you do not understand. Your refusal to answer Yes or No to simple questions. I must assume you refuse to do so because the only honest Yes or No answers to my questions prove me to be correct, and your fragile ego can't admit to that. All The Best I’m reading this and thinking “ the problem is with the poster demanding a yes or no answer due to HIS fragile ego “ |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 7, 2024 9:35:26 GMT
Your refusal to answer Yes or No to simple questions. I must assume you refuse to do so because the only honest Yes or No answers to my questions prove me to be correct, and your fragile ego can't admit to that. All The Best I’m reading this and thinking “ the problem is with the poster demanding a yes or no answer due to HIS fragile ego “ It's the limit of his intellect, if you don't respond with a yes or no the rest of it goes whooooshhhh over his head, very few people ask a question on a topic that requires a yes or no response unless the question happens to be ..... are you completely stupid ... yes or no? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 7, 2024 9:56:33 GMT
I’m reading this and thinking “ the problem is with the poster demanding a yes or no answer due to HIS fragile ego “ It's the limit of his intellect, if you don't respond with a yes or no the rest of it goes whooooshhhh over his head, very few people ask a question on a topic that requires a yes or no response unless the question happens to be ..... are you completely stupid ... yes or no? Indeed. He could post “ I could shag Dua Lipa” and it’s true . There is less than zero chance of that happening . Then he could insist that anyone who doubts it answer this question “ Could I shag Dua Lipa …Yes or No?”…and insist he is really clever and everyone else is stupid .😁 |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 7, 2024 10:00:49 GMT
I’m reading this and thinking “ the problem is with the poster demanding a yes or no answer due to HIS fragile ego “ It's the limit of his intellect, if you don't respond with a yes or no the rest of it goes whooooshhhh over his head, very few people ask a question on a topic that requires a yes or no response unless the question happens to be ..... are you completely stupid ... yes or no? The reason you post drivel that is, by the way, so easy to see through, rather than answering directly and honestly, is because the direct and honest answer shows me to be correct. Can the Monarch choose to withhold Royal Assent? YESIf the Monarch does so is there any legal procedure to overturn that refusal? NOBoth of those are FACTS. Once you start from that honest starting point we can then discuss the theoretical outcomes of alleged Constitutional Crises - none of which so far have sought to remedy the two glaring issues above. I am all for honest debate about this issue - but any premise that refuses to acknowledge the Constitutional and Legal facts above is not even close to being honest. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 7, 2024 10:04:12 GMT
It's the limit of his intellect, if you don't respond with a yes or no the rest of it goes whooooshhhh over his head, very few people ask a question on a topic that requires a yes or no response unless the question happens to be ..... are you completely stupid ... yes or no? Indeed. He could post “ I could shag Dua Lipa” and it’s true . There is less than zero chance of that happening . Then he could insist that anyone who doubts it answer this question “ Could I shag Dua Lipa …Yes or No?”…and insist he is really clever and everyone else is stupid .😁 LOL... |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 7, 2024 10:04:47 GMT
It's the limit of his intellect, if you don't respond with a yes or no the rest of it goes whooooshhhh over his head, very few people ask a question on a topic that requires a yes or no response unless the question happens to be ..... are you completely stupid ... yes or no? Indeed. He could post “ I could shag Dua Lipa” and it’s true . There is less than zero chance of that happening . Then he could insist that anyone who doubts it answer this question “ Could I shag Dua Lipa …Yes or No?”…and insist he is really clever and everyone else is stupid .😁 Well, I have never shagged Dua Lipa; the Monarch has, in the past, refused to grant Royal Assent. Someone who was clever, who was not stupid, would recognise therefore that your analogy is fundamentally flawed. Just on case you need help here: Definition: Fundamentally and Definition: AnalogyAll The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on May 7, 2024 10:06:04 GMT
A dissolution is allowable, or necessary, whenever the wishes of the legislature are, or may fairly be presumed to be, different from the wishes of the nation." The monarch could force the dissolution of Parliament through a refusal of royal assent; this would very likely lead to a government resigning.
There is more chance of that ^^ happening than there is of Starmer coming up with a policy, and I hope if it ever did it will result in the Labour government resigning. Well, as the questions proved too difficult to for you let's try again: Can the Monarch choose to refuse to grant Royal Assent? If the Monarch chooses to refuse to grant Royal Assent is there any legal option to overturn that refusal? Both only require Yes or No answers in the first instance. All The Best What is it you do not understand. It's the limit of his intellect, if you don't respond with a yes or no the rest of it goes whooooshhhh over his head, very few people ask a question on a topic that requires a yes or no response unless the question happens to be ..... are you completely stupid ... yes or no? The reason you post drivel that is, by the way, so easy to see through, rather than answering directly and honestly, is because the direct and honest answer shows me to be correct. Can the Monarch choose to withhold Royal Assent? YESIf the Monarch does so is there any legal procedure to overturn that refusal? NOBoth of those are FACTS. Once you start from that honest starting point we can then discuss the theoretical outcomes of alleged Constitutional Crises - none of which so far have sought to remedy the two glaring issues above. I am all for honest debate about this issue - but any premise that refuses to acknowledge the Constitutional and Legal facts above is not even close to being honest. All The Best Whoooooooshhhhhh |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 7, 2024 10:09:19 GMT
What is it you do not understand. The reason you post drivel that is, by the way, so easy to see through, rather than answering directly and honestly, is because the direct and honest answer shows me to be correct. Can the Monarch choose to withhold Royal Assent? YESIf the Monarch does so is there any legal procedure to overturn that refusal? NOBoth of those are FACTS. Once you start from that honest starting point we can then discuss the theoretical outcomes of alleged Constitutional Crises - none of which so far have sought to remedy the two glaring issues above. I am all for honest debate about this issue - but any premise that refuses to acknowledge the Constitutional and Legal facts above is not even close to being honest. All The Best Whoooooooshhhhhh Ridicule: the last refuge of someone with no tangible arguments. Well done, thanks for conceding the ground. All The Best |
|
