Constitutional Monarchy 10 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#1 7 years ago

Thought some of you might find this interesting.

For all it sort of looks like a republic - it's worth remembering from time to time that the UK is, on paper, a constitutional monarchy:

[INDENT]Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles to pass at least a dozen government bills, according to a Guardian investigation into a secretive constitutional loophole that gives him the right to veto legislation that might impact his private interests.

Since 2005, ministers from six departments have sought the Prince of Wales' consent to draft bills on everything from road safety to gambling and the London Olympics, in an arrangement described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" over public policy. Unlike royal assent to bills, which is exercised by the Queen as a matter of constitutional law, the prince's power applies when a new bill might affect his own interests, in particular the Duchy of Cornwall, a private £700m property empire that last year provided him with an £18m income.

Neither the government nor Clarence House will reveal what, if any, alterations to legislation Charles has requested, or exactly why he was asked to grant consent to such a wide range of laws.

Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005 | UK news | The Guardian[/INDENT]

Then again considering the only credible parties in the UK at this stage are the Conservatives and Labour - both slightly to the right of the Nazi party - does it really matter? When you can't tell the difference between your options what's the point of even pretending to have a functional democracy?

On poorly related issues, Queen Anne was a bit of a looker if her portrait's any measure:

Anniex.jpg

;)

(It was on the constitutional monarchy page of wikipedia)




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,013 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#2 7 years ago

Seems like the only way to be sure that those monarchs don't mess with your country is the old-fashioned Cheka method.




Granyaski VIP Member

High as a kite

107 XP

29th May 2008

0 Uploads

11,881 Posts

1 Threads

#3 7 years ago

I am dissapointed with the new heir system.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#4 7 years ago
MrFancypants;5579831Seems like the only way to be sure that those monarchs don't mess with your country is the old-fashioned Cheka method.

Didn't work for the French, sadly. =p

In the grand scheme of things it probably doesn't amount to much - our political system if messed up enough as it is anyway.... One party gets an absolute majority and becomes the next best thing to god. It's not like it could be made a great deal worse.

It's seems much like crime - the key is to know when you've made enough money and back off. The royals don't interfere too much with the normal process and we don't kill them all. ;)

When you start looking at government though you start to see - patterns - people who don't change from government to government; the keepers of secrets who alone have access to the records of successive governments. One aspect of that is royalty, another was the Lords, I believe the intelligence chief doesn't change either in this country....

If you're in a position to play the long game, have the elected representatives listen to your briefings, then the will of any particular government of the moment doesn't amount to much. Control someone's information and you control their reality.

Royalty seems to operate in the anarchy - they don't have a lot of active control - but their power arises from the fact that you can erode a position very easily if you're just prepared to wait for someone who agrees with you to fall into power.... Persistence has a power all of its own.




Fortune

something to believe.

50 XP

19th February 2005

0 Uploads

7,750 Posts

0 Threads

#5 7 years ago

A little off topic, and possibly a very obvious fact for more in the know gentry, but I just discovered like 2 days ago that the House of Bourbon still exists and there still has direct descendants of Louis XIV, including the current head, Louis XX.

162017_14247182946_1553390_n.jpg

Although he seems like a nice man, he does not quite have the Sun King's flair for fabulous hair-care, spending all of France's treasury or; having any power whatsoever, actually. What amuses me is how his Wikipedia article talks about his quarrels with relatives over the claim to a throne that hasn't existed in over 200 years. :lulz:

What people do for bragging rights!




Granyaski VIP Member

High as a kite

107 XP

29th May 2008

0 Uploads

11,881 Posts

1 Threads

#6 7 years ago
Nemmerle;5580196One party gets an absolute majority and becomes the next best thing to god. It's not like it could be made a great deal worse.

So a majority is worse than not having a majority? The system may not be perfect but it still works to a degree, politics keep moving. Thank God we didn't have proportional representation.

It still saddens me to see how we voted to veto AV because people were worried parties like the monster raving looney party would come into power. IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN! I hate the media sometimes, I really really do.

It's seems much like crime - the key is to know when you've made enough money and back off. The royals don't interfere too much with the normal process and we don't kill them all. ;)

Indeed, we may need the Queens 'approval' but she will never not sign anything as not only is it expected but if she doesn't the royal family would be thrown out by the government.

With the new succession system Cameron wants, if we had done that in the past then Wilhelm would of been king of England at some point.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#7 7 years ago

Granyaski;5580351So a majority is worse than not having a majority? The system may not be perfect but it still works to a degree, politics keep moving.[/QUOTE]

I suspect that just sounds like a good thing. Imagine if we changed or added to the rules here every week so that we could claim moderation keeps moving.

So I'll ask you: What problem do you imagine changes so often that someone needs the power to pass almost unlimited legislation?

[QUOTE=Granyaski;5580351]Thank God we didn't have proportional representation.

Proportional representation would have been a great tool to stop government abuse of power; to slow the political process down to something sane.




Granyaski VIP Member

High as a kite

107 XP

29th May 2008

0 Uploads

11,881 Posts

1 Threads

#8 7 years ago
Nemmerle;5580427 So I'll ask you: What problem do you imagine changes so often that someone needs the power to pass almost unlimited legislation?

What changes? Peoples beliefs. We need a strong government or politics would move much slower. I'm not saying I like majority governments or our system but it is the lesser of two evils for me.

Proportional representation would have been a great tool to stop government abuse of power; to slow the political process down to something sane.

PR is a lovely idea in theory, much like Communism but in reality it isn't practical. Things would just never move or would move at a very slow pace, coalitions are a bad idea as things don't get passed. PR is just a worse version than coalitions.

This is why I liked AV. It not only allowed everyones vote to actually count but also put the most popular party in power.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#9 7 years ago

Granyaski;5580472What changes? Peoples beliefs. We need a strong government or politics would move much slower. I'm not saying I like majority governments or our system but it is the lesser of two evils for me.[/QUOTE]

Peoples' beliefs change over time but not on a weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis. I thought murder was wrong last year, chances are I will think murder is wrong next year too - along with rape and large scale theft and....

The law currently moves much faster than our beliefs change. The only explanation is it's not a matter of it representing the will of the people, that it's tied to something else entirely. Representing the will of politicians and big business perhaps...

[QUOTE=Granyaski;5580472]PR is a lovely idea in theory, much like Communism but in reality it isn't practical. Things would just never move or would move at a very slow pace, coalitions are a bad idea as things don't get passed. PR is just a worse version than coalitions.

This is why I liked AV. It not only allowed everyones vote to actually count but also put the most popular party in power.

It was just an attempt to stop the Liberal Democrats from getting the electoral system changed. If you'd given people a choice between proportional and first past the post they'd have taken proportional. It sounds fairer. If you give someone a choice between the alternative vote and the current system then whatever the alternative is it's already cast as a lesser thing.

It's like the difference between an equity or inheritance tax and a death tax. People tried to get rid of the former for years and had no real success - then they called it a death tax and it was gone overnight. There are study groups that just sit around day after day working out how to say these things to get them through. In an area where most people are horribly naive, the wording is often the most important thing.

And they're going to be mostly naive; no-one's going to organise a decent education system, it'd let people sit down and work out how badly they're getting fucked.




Granyaski VIP Member

High as a kite

107 XP

29th May 2008

0 Uploads

11,881 Posts

1 Threads

#10 7 years ago
Nemmerle;5580778 The law currently moves much faster than our beliefs change. The only explanation is it's not a matter of it representing the will of the people, that it's tied to something else entirely. Representing the will of politicians and big business perhaps...

The law only moves as fast as the current government want it to. The tories' motto was about change thus they are going to do it, as anti conservative as it is really...

Change isn't always bad my friend, well unless you're an OAP.:lulz:

It was just an attempt to stop the Liberal Democrats from getting the electoral system changed. If you'd given people a choice between proportional and first past the post they'd have taken proportional. It sounds fairer. If you give someone a choice between the alternative vote and the current system then whatever the alternative is it's already cast as a lesser thing.

Proportional is fairer but impractical from my point of view and we can see the evidence in history, like Germany. Theres still flaws with PR.

AV I feel was the medium between the current system and PR. It made sure every party got a decent chance and everyones vote did actually matter.




  • 1
  • 2