|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 8, 2024 11:06:52 GMT
But it has. Previous Monarchs HAVE refused to grant Royal Assent. Since those times NO CHANGES AT ALL have been made to Royal Assent. Ergo Royal Assent remains as it was when previously used. All The Best When was it exercised and in what circumstances? When, where, how and why is wholly irrelevant, and I am sure you are aware of that. But it was 1708. Parliament advised Queen Anne not to grant assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. What really matters is "do the circumstances that allowed it to happen still exist". If the answer is No then I am wrong, and will gladly admit to that. If the answer is Yes then we are not a Democracy in any real sense of the word. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 8, 2024 18:39:56 GMT
When was it exercised and in what circumstances? When, where, how and why is wholly irrelevant, and I am sure you are aware of that. But it was 1708. Parliament advised Queen Anne not to grant assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. What really matters is "do the circumstances that allowed it to happen still exist". If the answer is No then I am wrong, and will gladly admit to that. If the answer is Yes then we are not a Democracy in any real sense of the word. All The Best Did Queen Anne do it at her own behest or at the behest of those who had actually passed the bill in parliament? I will answer it was the latter which means that no Constitutional Crisis occurred because it was not contested by those who passed the bill. If it happened now at the Monarchs own behest against the wishes of those who passed the bill the circumstances would be different. So we are not dealing with identical circumstances. I repeat with all its flaws and limitations we have a democracy because it has arisen over many years as opposed to being invented and imposed from the top down as for example the EU which limits the power of the electorate to make meaningful change. They get to tinker with detail and occasionally some important policies but in the main have little input into direction and speed of travel. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 8, 2024 20:08:40 GMT
When, where, how and why is wholly irrelevant, and I am sure you are aware of that. But it was 1708. Parliament advised Queen Anne not to grant assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. What really matters is "do the circumstances that allowed it to happen still exist". If the answer is No then I am wrong, and will gladly admit to that. If the answer is Yes then we are not a Democracy in any real sense of the word. All The Best Did Queen Anne do it at her own behest or at the behest of those who had actually passed the bill in parliament? I will answer it was the latter which means that no Constitutional Crisis occurred because it was not contested by those who passed the bill. If it happened now at the Monarchs own behest against the wishes of those who passed the bill the circumstances would be different. So we are not dealing with identical circumstances. I repeat with all its flaws and limitations we have a democracy because it has arisen over many years as opposed to being invented and imposed from the top down as for example the EU which limits the power of the electorate to make meaningful change. They get to tinker with detail and occasionally some important policies but in the main have little input into direction and speed of travel. The issue is NOT will the Monarch refuse to grant Royal Assent when asked to by Parliament. The answer to this is: very unlikely, but not impossible. The issue IS CAN the Monarch refuse to grant Royal Assent when asked to by Parliament. The answer to this is: YES! Until the answer is a resounding NO!, we are not a Democracy, because the ultimate power to legislate lays NOT with Parliament, but with the Monarch. It really isn't too difficult a thing to grasp, I can only assume most people are in denial about out of some misguided nostalgic reverence for the Monarch. A Monarch by the way who is only a Monarch based on the accident of who fucked who within a tiny circle of Wealthy Elite. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on May 8, 2024 20:47:04 GMT
What a way to bore a thread to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 9, 2024 20:48:26 GMT
Did Queen Anne do it at her own behest or at the behest of those who had actually passed the bill in parliament? I will answer it was the latter which means that no Constitutional Crisis occurred because it was not contested by those who passed the bill. If it happened now at the Monarchs own behest against the wishes of those who passed the bill the circumstances would be different. So we are not dealing with identical circumstances. I repeat with all its flaws and limitations we have a democracy because it has arisen over many years as opposed to being invented and imposed from the top down as for example the EU which limits the power of the electorate to make meaningful change. They get to tinker with detail and occasionally some important policies but in the main have little input into direction and speed of travel. The issue is NOT will the Monarch refuse to grant Royal Assent when asked to by Parliament. The answer to this is: very unlikely, but not impossible. The issue IS CAN the Monarch refuse to grant Royal Assent when asked to by Parliament. The answer to this is: YES! Until the answer is a resounding NO!, we are not a Democracy, because the ultimate power to legislate lays NOT with Parliament, but with the Monarch. It really isn't too difficult a thing to grasp, I can only assume most people are in denial about out of some misguided nostalgic reverence for the Monarch. A Monarch by the way who is only a Monarch based on the accident of who fucked who within a tiny circle of Wealthy Elite. All The Best The Monarch can do anything he wishes, he always however has to be cognizant of the consequences. It all boils down to legality which for some reason you missed off this time. What the Monarch can do legally is not the same as he what he can do legally with no consequences. People can do many things legally but for which they have to bear the consequences that ensue. Because there are likely to be consequences not conducive to the well being of the King then it is unlikely that he will so act. I can easily grasp that the Monarch has the legal ability to act in such way, you seem unable to grasp that if he did so then because he did act so it would trigger a Constitutional Crisis which would have to be resolved. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 13, 2024 15:13:13 GMT
So any migrant who doesn't want to go to Rwanda can go to NI instead. I'm sure there are plenty of old army camps we can house them in and possibly a good time to have a referendum on unification...  |
|
