|
|
Post by see2 on May 13, 2024 9:18:12 GMT
In reality it would be the very essence of civil war, likely to see people minded like yourself fighting against people minded like myself. The people have done it once and could do it again if necessary. That prediction is pretty stark and definitive. I think it's likely that, if this ever happened it would commonly understood that the 'democratically elected' government had become dis empowered (ineffective) or it had gone badly off the rails. Perhaps if the Germany's aristocracy had more institutional power, something could have been done to stop Adolf Hitler? It was the German aristocracy that gave the final OK for Hitler to take control. Hitler never won a clear democratic vote. Germany was already in an economic mess when the 1930s economic depression, that fell on top of Germany's economic mess (caused by reparation payments) that finally persuaded the aristocracy to make way for Hitler to take control. According to history the aristocracy thought they would be able to control Hitler in power. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 13, 2024 10:33:25 GMT
That prediction is pretty stark and definitive. I think it's likely that, if this ever happened it would commonly understood that the 'democratically elected' government had become dis empowered (ineffective) or it had gone badly off the rails. Perhaps if the Germany's aristocracy had more institutional power, something could have been done to stop Adolf Hitler? It was the German aristocracy that gave the final OK for Hitler to take control. Hitler never won a clear democratic vote. Germany was already in an economic mess when the 1930s economic depression, that fell on top of Germany's economic mess (caused by reparation payments) that finally persuaded the aristocracy to make way for Hitler to take control. According to history the aristocracy thought they would be able to control Hitler in power. Hindenburg saw it as a way to provide a sop to revolutionary sentiment (ie to compromise). Hitler didn't have much time for the aristocracy, who he saw as corrupt and cowardly, and soon there was to way to slow things down. Germany didn't have a backstop. You can avoid the issue here by noting that Hitler didn't get the clear win, but there is nothing that logically prevents that happening. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 13, 2024 12:34:07 GMT
It was the German aristocracy that gave the final OK for Hitler to take control. Hitler never won a clear democratic vote. Germany was already in an economic mess when the 1930s economic depression, that fell on top of Germany's economic mess (caused by reparation payments) that finally persuaded the aristocracy to make way for Hitler to take control. According to history the aristocracy thought they would be able to control Hitler in power. Hitler didn't have much time for the aristocracy, who he saw as corrupt and cowardly, and soon there was to way to slow things down. Germany didn't have a backstop. You can avoid the issue here by noting that Hitler didn't get the clear win, but there is nothing that logically prevents that happening. I suggest you look up the history of just who made Hitler's move into power possible, it wasn't just Hindenburg, it was the top Conservative politicians. You are attempting to rewrite the history of Hitler's move to power. Hitler never attempted to take full power until the path was opened up for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 13, 2024 13:34:12 GMT
Hindenburg saw it as a way to provide a sop to revolutionary sentiment (ie to compromise). Hitler didn't have much time for the aristocracy, who he saw as corrupt and cowardly, and soon there was to way to slow things down. Germany didn't have a backstop. You can avoid the issue here by noting that Hitler didn't get the clear win, but there is nothing that logically prevents that happening. I suggest you look up the history of just who made Hitler's move into power possible, it wasn't just Hindenburg, it was the top Conservative politicians. You are attempting to rewrite the history of Hitler's move to power. Hitler never attempted to take full power until the path was opened up for him. You are engaging in pointless pedantry now - take a look at my last line. No part of my point relies on it being exclusively Hindenburg. You are reduced to silliness |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 13, 2024 16:08:37 GMT
Well, our at best semi-democratic form of so-called democracy is barely worth fighting for.
One of our legislative chambers seems to be occupied by people none of us vote for nor can vote out of office, and all too often there for services rendered - not to we the people but to particular politicians and parties. The whiff of corruption and buying positions in our legislature does kind of stink.And our other legislative chamber is elected by a hugely disproportionate system capable of delivering huge majorities with the votes of a minority of the electorate, whilst shutting out many strands of opinion and ensuring that for a majority of people voting is an utter waste of time. As for the so-called free press, all it ever has been is the freedom of people rich enough to own it telling us the news they want to tell us and what to think about it. The internet has a far wider plurality of opinion, but the drawback there is that it is full of utterly fake news. Which leads to the problem of people basing their opinions on things that are not true. And we are seeing all too clearly the dangers of that playing out in the USA. And it is far easier on the internet than in the older media for bad actors - political extremists, conspiracy theorists, religious nutcases, terrorist groups, overt hatemongers, potentially hostile states, etc - to put out untrue narratives, flooding people's heads with untrue so-called facts and in this way potentially subverting democracy - flawed as it already is - even more. The inherent problem with democracy - I have sadly concluded - is that a majority of most electorates are too lacking in political knowledge and/or intelligence to make sensible decisions about whom to vote for. And no, this is not about left or right, ill-informed, politically stupid people can vote both left, right and centre. I would say that everyone on a forum such as this is intelligent enough to think sensibly and vote based upon intelligent and informed thought processes, however much we may disagree with each other. But only a minority of the electorate is like us. Most of the rest are pig ignorant about politics, and no party has ever won an election without the support of at least part of this idiot bloc. I am deeply cynical but don't know what the solution is. Because clearly any alternative to democracy just about always ends up being even worse. So that leaves me to conclude that the only way of making democracy work better is to educate people in school about it much more. But getting that past an elite-owned media whose best interest lies in keeping the people stupid, the easier to manipulate them, would be a tough ask. I largely agree with your post. IMO, the problem is not democracy per se, it is, as you indicate, ill informed people that are the problem and I put that down to the extreme bias in various forms of the media. It shouldn't matter how ill-informed people are if the Democratic System has been designed from the ground up to protect the integrity Democratic Process and serve the wishes of the Majority of the People. Our Sham-Democracy was designed from the ground up to protect the status quo and serve the, already, corrupt establishment. @srb7677 The establishment will never, and has never, permitted a sufficiently rigorous teaching of either Politics or the Political Processes of this country to ensure the majority of people are properly informed on matters political. If they did so more people would realise we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Monarchy with an elected probouleutic chamber whose legislation must first clear the hurdle of the unaccountable House Of Lords, and then face the potential veto of the unelected and even more unaccountable Monarch. The Parliament Acts allow, in extremis, for the HoC to ignore the rulings of the HoL; it took 200 years for that to be implemented after the founding of Parliament. Maybe in another 200 years we will have caught up to the 20th Century and done away with the need for the Monarch to give their seal of approval. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2024 16:25:21 GMT
I largely agree with your post. IMO, the problem is not democracy per se, it is, as you indicate, ill informed people that are the problem and I put that down to the extreme bias in various forms of the media. It shouldn't matter how ill-informed people are if the Democratic System has been designed from the ground up to protect the integrity Democratic Process and serve the wishes of the Majority of the People. Our Sham-Democracy was designed from the ground up to protect the status quo and serve the, already, corrupt establishment. @srb7677 The establishment will never, and has never, permitted a sufficiently rigorous teaching of either Politics or the Political Processes of this country to ensure the majority of people are properly informed on matters political. If they did so more people would realise we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Monarchy with an elected probouleutic chamber whose legislation must first clear the hurdle of the unaccountable House Of Lords, and then face the potential veto of the unelected and even more unaccountable Monarch. The Parliament Acts allow, in extremis, for the HoC to ignore the rulings of the HoL; it took 200 years for that to be implemented after the founding of Parliament. Maybe in another 200 years we will have caught up to the 20th Century and done away with the need for the Monarch to give their seal of approval. All The Best Basic question, what happens if the Monarch decides to withhold Royal Assent for a bill the HoC wishes to become law? |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 13, 2024 17:00:39 GMT
see2 It shouldn't matter how ill-informed people are if the Democratic System has been designed from the ground up to protect the integrity Democratic Process and serve the wishes of the Majority of the People. Our Sham-Democracy was designed from the ground up to protect the status quo and serve the, already, corrupt establishment. @srb7677 The establishment will never, and has never, permitted a sufficiently rigorous teaching of either Politics or the Political Processes of this country to ensure the majority of people are properly informed on matters political. If they did so more people would realise we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Monarchy with an elected probouleutic chamber whose legislation must first clear the hurdle of the unaccountable House Of Lords, and then face the potential veto of the unelected and even more unaccountable Monarch. The Parliament Acts allow, in extremis, for the HoC to ignore the rulings of the HoL; it took 200 years for that to be implemented after the founding of Parliament. Maybe in another 200 years we will have caught up to the 20th Century and done away with the need for the Monarch to give their seal of approval. All The Best Basic question, what happens if the Monarch decides to withhold Royal Assent for a bill the HoC wishes to become law? The Bill does not pass into law. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2024 18:15:33 GMT
Basic question, what happens if the Monarch decides to withhold Royal Assent for a bill the HoC wishes to become law? The Bill does not pass into law. All The Best So nothing else happens? Do the government, parliament and people sit on their hands and accept that decision. What do you think happens in reality? Say it was the Gay marriage bill that was not given Royal Assent what do you think would have happened? Would Stonewall have sat back and said well that is it then? It is a very important question as it is the next step in the democratic process. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 13, 2024 19:57:02 GMT
The Bill does not pass into law. All The Best So nothing else happens? Do the government, parliament and people sit on their hands and accept that decision. What do you think happens in reality? Say it was the Gay marriage bill that was not given Royal Assent what do you think would have happened? Would Stonewall have sat back and said well that is it then? It is a very important question as it is the next step in the democratic process. Legally they have no other choice. Parliament could resign in protest, but as any incoming replacement Government must seek permission from the Monarch to form a government, the Monarch could - quite legally - refuse that permission also. Such a resignation would, allegedly, usher in a "constitutional crisis", but there is no legal route to resolving that crisis that does not first need to seek approval from the Monarch. Note: I am not talking about likelihoods here, I have no interest in "what is likely to happen", I am ONLY interested in what - quite legally - can happen. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 13, 2024 20:38:21 GMT
I suggest you look up the history of just who made Hitler's move into power possible, it wasn't just Hindenburg, it was the top Conservative politicians.
You are attempting to rewrite the history of Hitler's move to power. Hitler never attempted to take full power until the path was opened up for him.
No part of my point relies on it being exclusively Hindenburg. You are reduced to silliness
Your last line -- "Germany didn't have a backstop. You can avoid the issue here by noting that Hitler didn't get the clear win, but there is nothing that logically prevents that happening." -- There were people in control who had to relinquish control before Hitler could claim power.
The so called backstop was there they had alternatives.
Hitler even with his cobbled together coalition still couldn't win a majority therefore there was plenty of opposition.
The bottom line is that it was right-wing Conservatives that persuaded Hindenburg to allow Hitler to take control. Right-wing politicians made way for a fascist to take control. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on May 13, 2024 21:02:54 GMT
Basic question, what happens if the Monarch decides to withhold Royal Assent for a bill the HoC wishes to become law? While our uncodified constitution leaves much room for uncertainty, this report from UCL argues that there is no longer a veto available to the Monarch over Bills presented for Royal Assent. If the analysis is correct and I tend to think it probably is, then should the Monarch purport to deny Assent I'd guess the next step for the Government would be to seek the assistance of the courts. In that respect, the Miller Cherry case from 2019 includes the following.
“the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”, indicating that the limits of prerogative powers were set by law and were determined by the courts.
More interestingly, I think, the final section of the report asks the question whether some kind of veto should be in place. Taking an absurd example, say the next Labour government invokes the Parliament Act to have the Conservative Party proscribed as a terrorist organisation, should there be a veto available to prevent undemocratic (in this example) or unconstitutional Acts being passed by a rogue government.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 13, 2024 21:03:10 GMT
I largely agree with your post. IMO, the problem is not democracy per se, it is, as you indicate, ill informed people that are the problem and I put that down to the extreme bias in various forms of the media. It shouldn't matter how ill-informed people are if the Democratic System has been designed from the ground up to protect the integrity Democratic Process and serve the wishes of the Majority of the People. Our Sham-Democracy was designed from the ground up to protect the status quo and serve the, already, corrupt establishment. @srb7677 The establishment will never, and has never, permitted a sufficiently rigorous teaching of either Politics or the Political Processes of this country to ensure the majority of people are properly informed on matters political. If they did so more people would realise we are NOT a Democracy. We are a Monarchy with an elected probouleutic chamber whose legislation must first clear the hurdle of the unaccountable House Of Lords, and then face the potential veto of the unelected and even more unaccountable Monarch. The Parliament Acts allow, in extremis, for the HoC to ignore the rulings of the HoL; it took 200 years for that to be implemented after the founding of Parliament. Maybe in another 200 years we will have caught up to the 20th Century and done away with the need for the Monarch to give their seal of approval. All The Best Our democracy has changed this country making it immensely better and fairer as it forced changes on the actions of the society that preceded it. Democracy has matured over the years. It was not designed it was just a natural maturation direction, heading to the way the country could be better run. Your "IF" is just wishful thinking, ignoring the reality that while further improvements are to be expected, perfection is, as the saying goes, for the gods.  |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on May 14, 2024 0:02:12 GMT
Basic question, what happens if the Monarch decides to withhold Royal Assent for a bill the HoC wishes to become law? While our uncodified constitution leaves much room for uncertainty, this report from UCL argues that there is no longer a veto available to the Monarch over Bills presented for Royal Assent. If the analysis is correct and I tend to think it probably is, then should the Monarch purport to deny Assent I'd guess the next step for the Government would be to seek the assistance of the courts. In that respect, the Miller Cherry case from 2019 includes the following.
“the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”, indicating that the limits of prerogative powers were set by law and were determined by the courts.
More interestingly, I think, the final section of the report asks the question whether some kind of veto should be in place. Taking an absurd example, say the next Labour government invokes the Parliament Act to have the Conservative Party proscribed as a terrorist organisation, should there be a veto available to prevent undemocratic (in this example) or unconstitutional Acts being passed by a rogue government.
And who gets to sign that stuff into law? Oh, wait, would that be the Monarch... See the dilemma? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on May 14, 2024 6:17:03 GMT
While our uncodified constitution leaves much room for uncertainty, this report from UCL argues that there is no longer a veto available to the Monarch over Bills presented for Royal Assent. If the analysis is correct and I tend to think it probably is, then should the Monarch purport to deny Assent I'd guess the next step for the Government would be to seek the assistance of the courts. In that respect, the Miller Cherry case from 2019 includes the following.
“the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”, indicating that the limits of prerogative powers were set by law and were determined by the courts.
More interestingly, I think, the final section of the report asks the question whether some kind of veto should be in place. Taking an absurd example, say the next Labour government invokes the Parliament Act to have the Conservative Party proscribed as a terrorist organisation, should there be a veto available to prevent undemocratic (in this example) or unconstitutional Acts being passed by a rogue government.
And who gets to sign that stuff into law? Oh, wait, would that be the Monarch... See the dilemma? All The Best I don't think I do; in the same way as the law that says the Monarch may not be advised to prorogue Parliament to frustrate the will of both houses of Parliament is signed and sealed by no one but the court, any new formal limitation on the Prerogative would be similarly signed and sealed.
I think I would tend to worry more about the threat to democracy from a rogue government over the ever diminishing powers of the Monarch. Arguably, the Safety of Rwanda Act, whether one supports the idea or opposes it, represents a major threat in failing to recognise the separation of powers by misusing statute to overrule not a statement of law, but a finding of fact by the courts.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 14, 2024 7:22:51 GMT
So nothing else happens? Do the government, parliament and people sit on their hands and accept that decision. What do you think happens in reality? Say it was the Gay marriage bill that was not given Royal Assent what do you think would have happened? Would Stonewall have sat back and said well that is it then? It is a very important question as it is the next step in the democratic process. Legally they have no other choice. Parliament could resign in protest, but as any incoming replacement Government must seek permission from the Monarch to form a government, the Monarch could - quite legally - refuse that permission also. Such a resignation would, allegedly, usher in a "constitutional crisis", but there is no legal route to resolving that crisis that does not first need to seek approval from the Monarch. Note: I am not talking about likelihoods here, I have no interest in "what is likely to happen", I am ONLY interested in what - quite legally - can happen. All The Best Of course you are not interested in the alternative but it is the alternative upon which democracy is based. It is a consensus and once the consensus is lost then it moves on to a new consensus. The history of our democracy shows that clearly what was legal changes and chopping off heads and political stand offs are part and parcel of that consensus and that process of change. The Monarch knows this and what he chooses to do legally is a self censoring act. |
|
