Almost the time to dissolve Parliament?
Discussion
Sheets Tabuer said:
I swore an allegiance to the crown, I didn't swear an allegiance to the government.
If it was to kick off despite the fact I hate the monarchy I swore I would defend the queen.
I would defend her maj and I would protect this country against the elected idiots.
Bizarre as I am a republican.
Well goes without saying I will only do the bidding of the queen. Like you I would defend the queen if asked. But then I like the quuen.If it was to kick off despite the fact I hate the monarchy I swore I would defend the queen.
I would defend her maj and I would protect this country against the elected idiots.
Bizarre as I am a republican.
Edited by Sheets Tabuer on Saturday 28th March 00:11
s2art said:
Shuvi said:
From your source: But Edward VII insisted on a dissolution in 1910 before he would agree to act on certain policies preferred by the Prime Minister of the day (Asquith). A full constitutional crisis was prevented only by the King's death and his replacement by George V.
Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Wrong again. How many times do you need telling? A parliament act cannot override the Sovereigns powers. It takes a constitutional crisis and a new settlement to do that.Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Shuvi said:
s2art said:
Shuvi said:
From your source: But Edward VII insisted on a dissolution in 1910 before he would agree to act on certain policies preferred by the Prime Minister of the day (Asquith). A full constitutional crisis was prevented only by the King's death and his replacement by George V.
Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Wrong again. How many times do you need telling? A parliament act cannot override the Sovereigns powers. It takes a constitutional crisis and a new settlement to do that.Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Take look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power
Edited by s2art on Saturday 28th March 00:24
s2art said:
Shuvi said:
s2art said:
Shuvi said:
From your source: But Edward VII insisted on a dissolution in 1910 before he would agree to act on certain policies preferred by the Prime Minister of the day (Asquith). A full constitutional crisis was prevented only by the King's death and his replacement by George V.
Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Wrong again. How many times do you need telling? A parliament act cannot override the Sovereigns powers. It takes a constitutional crisis and a new settlement to do that.Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Take look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power
Edited by s2art on Saturday 28th March 00:24
She cannot wake up on Monday and dissolve Parliament.
Yes she has Prerogative (note the spelling) power, but it is meaningless.
From another Wiki:
Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign, and is known as the Royal Prerogative. The monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, only exercising prerogative on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament, often through a body called the Privy Council.[13] In practice, prerogative powers are only exercised on the Prime Minister's advice—the Prime Minister, and not the Sovereign, exercises control. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet."
What about this is so hard to understand?
Shuvi said:
s2art said:
Shuvi said:
s2art said:
Shuvi said:
From your source: But Edward VII insisted on a dissolution in 1910 before he would agree to act on certain policies preferred by the Prime Minister of the day (Asquith). A full constitutional crisis was prevented only by the King's death and his replacement by George V.
Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Wrong again. How many times do you need telling? A parliament act cannot override the Sovereigns powers. It takes a constitutional crisis and a new settlement to do that.Hence the Parliament act of 1911. Which goes unmentioned but is very real and means she CANNOT on a whim dissolve Parliament.
Take look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_power
Edited by s2art on Saturday 28th March 00:24
She cannot wake up on Monday and dissolve Parliament.
Yes she has Prerogative (note the spelling) power, but it is meaningless.
From another Wiki:
Some of the government's executive authority is theoretically and nominally vested in the Sovereign, and is known as the Royal Prerogative. The monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, only exercising prerogative on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament, often through a body called the Privy Council.[13] In practice, prerogative powers are only exercised on the Prime Minister's advice—the Prime Minister, and not the Sovereign, exercises control. The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the decisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet."
What about this is so hard to understand?
See also, as a matter of interest;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/feb/06/uk....
And read and inwardly digest;
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/...
Edited by s2art on Saturday 28th March 00:54
TVR Moneypit said:
RE; Future GE's.....
Perhaps you chaps might wish to take a closer look at The Civil Contingances Act.
Maybe I should be donning my tin foil hat, or maybe I have just become too used to labours underhand and down right sneaky methods, but i have a suspicion that sometime early next year there will be some kind of large scale 'terrorist' thing allowing them to use the Civil Contingances Act, (which I believe allows them), to delay a GE for as long as they see fit.
I also believe that we are now starting to see the build up to this with that useless b
h Harmen bleating on about 'dirty bombs', and all these Starlinist posters about spying on your neighbors rubbish bins.
In fact, I'd even go so far as to have a £100 wager that there wont be a GE next May / June, so long as the odds were 4-1 in my favour or higher.
The point is HM can dissolve parliament when she likes, only some people don't seem to think that is the case.Perhaps you chaps might wish to take a closer look at The Civil Contingances Act.
Maybe I should be donning my tin foil hat, or maybe I have just become too used to labours underhand and down right sneaky methods, but i have a suspicion that sometime early next year there will be some kind of large scale 'terrorist' thing allowing them to use the Civil Contingances Act, (which I believe allows them), to delay a GE for as long as they see fit.
I also believe that we are now starting to see the build up to this with that useless b
h Harmen bleating on about 'dirty bombs', and all these Starlinist posters about spying on your neighbors rubbish bins.In fact, I'd even go so far as to have a £100 wager that there wont be a GE next May / June, so long as the odds were 4-1 in my favour or higher.
So if she does that, it's bye bye to Gordon, one assumes.
From your link:
"...to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts ministerial advice whether she personally agrees with it or not."
You are just playing semantics. She is the only one that dissolves Parliament, but only when asked.
"...to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts ministerial advice whether she personally agrees with it or not."
You are just playing semantics. She is the only one that dissolves Parliament, but only when asked.
TVR Moneypit said:
RE; Future GE's.....
Perhaps you chaps might wish to take a closer look at The Civil Contingances Act.
Maybe I should be donning my tin foil hat, or maybe I have just become too used to labours underhand and down right sneaky methods, but i have a suspicion that sometime early next year there will be some kind of large scale 'terrorist' thing allowing them to use the Civil Contingances Act, (which I believe allows them), to delay a GE for as long as they see fit.
I also believe that we are now starting to see the build up to this with that useless bh Harmen bleating on about 'dirty bombs', and all these Starlinist posters about spying on your neighbors rubbish bins.
In fact, I'd even go so far as to have a £100 wager that there wont be a GE next May / June, so long as the odds were 4-1 in my favour or higher.
You really need to go here. They'll love you.Perhaps you chaps might wish to take a closer look at The Civil Contingances Act.
Maybe I should be donning my tin foil hat, or maybe I have just become too used to labours underhand and down right sneaky methods, but i have a suspicion that sometime early next year there will be some kind of large scale 'terrorist' thing allowing them to use the Civil Contingances Act, (which I believe allows them), to delay a GE for as long as they see fit.
I also believe that we are now starting to see the build up to this with that useless b
h Harmen bleating on about 'dirty bombs', and all these Starlinist posters about spying on your neighbors rubbish bins.In fact, I'd even go so far as to have a £100 wager that there wont be a GE next May / June, so long as the odds were 4-1 in my favour or higher.
Edited by Shuvi on Saturday 28th March 01:24
Shuvi said:
From your link:
"...to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts ministerial advice whether she personally agrees with it or not."
You are just playing semantics. She is the only one that dissolves Parliament, but only when asked.
You are just being thick. The Queen has exercised her powers in Australia, and if it was required she would exercise them here. She wouldnt need to be asked, and she wouldnt take advice from the PM if the circumstances were such that removing a particular government was necessary for the good of the country. "...to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts ministerial advice whether she personally agrees with it or not."
You are just playing semantics. She is the only one that dissolves Parliament, but only when asked.
s2art said:
Shuvi said:
From your link:
"...to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts ministerial advice whether she personally agrees with it or not."
You are just playing semantics. She is the only one that dissolves Parliament, but only when asked.
You are just being thick. The Queen has exercised her powers in Australia, and if it was required she would exercise them here. She wouldnt need to be asked, and she wouldnt take advice from the PM if the circumstances were such that removing a particular government was necessary for the good of the country. "...to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without ministerial advice. In ordinary circumstances the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, accepts ministerial advice whether she personally agrees with it or not."
You are just playing semantics. She is the only one that dissolves Parliament, but only when asked.
This is important; "The royal prerogative is the collective name for a collection of powers belonging to the Sovereign which have no statutory basis".
For further reading you might try; 'Constitutional & administrative law' By Hilaire Barnett. It's dense as these things tend to be.
The British Parliament, long ago, declared and asserted its sovereignty. There have been one or two events that have happened since which can be used to suggest otherwise, but context is all important in said events. Each of these events has lead to further dilution of what little power the monarch might retain.
If you can't discuss without resort to name calling, I'd rather not bother.
I think the question isn't if the Queen has these power. It seems clear that she does (which I find amazing I thought all the royal stuff was just pomp and ceremony).
The real question is what are the consequences to the Queen should she do something that hasn't been done in early 200 hundred years....
And
is this really the situation? Sure we have a big huge economic/financial crisis... But who cares? At the end of the day it isn't WW3. It is really just much of the 1st world getting back to reality.
In the case of the US it is about a full decade of growth just disappearing. But it isn't like we were poor back in the 90's....
The real question is what are the consequences to the Queen should she do something that hasn't been done in early 200 hundred years....
And
is this really the situation? Sure we have a big huge economic/financial crisis... But who cares? At the end of the day it isn't WW3. It is really just much of the 1st world getting back to reality.
In the case of the US it is about a full decade of growth just disappearing. But it isn't like we were poor back in the 90's....
Shuvi said:
Stuff about Thatcher ruining industries
This one always gets to me with silly little brainwashed labourites.From the NE by any chance? Sit in any pub in the labour heartlands and none of them dare complain about the beloved labour party they waited for so long to get into power to save them. No they still sit and blame Maggy, its actually embarassing.
You see after the whole coal mine episode maggy paid a trip to the NE. She was actually appauled by what greeted her. So appauled she created massive amounts of new industry in the labour heartlands, mainly a company called Nissan, don't forget Komatsu and all the other small business's that sprang up as suppliers.
Usually shuts the stupid labourites up that one but we have all seen your ignorance has no boundries....
fesuvious said:
M3333 said:
stuff I agree with....
Shuvi said:
daft Stuff about Thatcher ruining industries
ShuviSeriously, How long has it been since Mrs Thatcher was around? And yet certain factions seek to blame her for todays troubles????
What utter tosh.
Maggie took only six to eight (ish) years to turn this country right round.
This bunch of self serving muppets have been in twelve. She may have been in Power longer but the majority of the Thatcher revolution had been served upon the country within those first two terms. This bunch are into their third term and yet they seek to blame their failures on Maragret Thatcher still?
Get real.
Without Mrs Thatcher we'd now have an almost backward economy. Those that believe mining pits that were Government subsidised and losing vast quantities of taxpayers money were worth keeping are bonkers. Since the closures there has only been one pit reopened that made some money. And, not much.
When Mrs Thatcher came to power this country was a mess, it was broke.
When Mrs Thatcher came to power we had militant unions trying to run the way companies operate. Which, lets face it is kind of like asking a mentally disabled sixteen year old to develop investment strategies.
Human beings are not created equal. A fact most of those that harp back to 'how awfully Maggie treated the unions' fail to understand.
This country was given the chance to modernise and become profitable. When was the last time this country had a surplas in its accounts? Under the Tories
When was the last time it was broke, under Labour
History is repeating itself, as it always will
Labour = Tax and Spend
Tories, Thrift and save
only the Tories have the backing of people bright enough to run companies
ETA
Anyone brings up interest rates and Il point out
Base Rate peaked at 15% for a matter of hours only, The real highest point of the base rate was 11.5%. Which was still pretty damn bad. However, the next step in this economic s
t storm will quite naturally be inflation that potentially could be worse than we've seen before. So Id suggest not bringing up this particular point.And yes, The Queen should dissolve Parliament on the grounds that the public have lost faith. The Queen should live up to her title, stand up and PROVE that this country needs, wants and deserves a strong monarchy
God I wish she would
Edited by fesuvious on Saturday 28th March 07:25
Although I believe it to be unlikely and unnecessary, discussions like these make me glad that we do in fact have an impartial Monarch as Head of State, rather than another self serving, corrupt politician.
This conversation wouldn't be taking place if we had; we would be discussing our Pres. in the same sentance as El Gordo me thinks.
Sheets Tabuer said:
I swore an allegiance to the crown, I didn't swear an allegiance to the government.
If it was to kick off despite the fact I hate the monarchy I swore I would defend the queen.
I would defend her maj and I would protect this country against the elected idiots.
Bizarre as I am a republican.
Me too.If it was to kick off despite the fact I hate the monarchy I swore I would defend the queen.
I would defend her maj and I would protect this country against the elected idiots.
Bizarre as I am a republican.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff