Almost the time to dissolve Parliament?

[Yertis]

I just looked at Shuvi's profile...

I know what I'm having for lunch

[turbobloke]

Yertis said:

I just looked at Shuvi's profile...

I know what I'm having for lunch

[s2art]

Shuvi said:

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.

No the Governor acted in Australia. The Queen signed it. Australia is not GB. Do you think that it could happen again in Australia? I'd like to see anyone try.

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.

Re Australia. You are being silly if you think the dissolution was not ordered by the Queen, the governor General is merely the Queens proxy.
Could it happen again? Of course.

Re Statutory Law. The Queen is not bound by statute. These are constitutional matters.

Get it through your thick skull. In the situations where the Queen acts to dismiss Parliament against the wishes of the incumbent government then she is hardly going to be taking the wishes of the PM into account is she.

[jimmyb]

The clue is in the Queens army. The military forces in this country swear an oath to the Queen not the government. Speak to most military staff and they will tell you they serve the Queen. If there was ever an uprising the soldiers would answer to the queen before country before politicians. Queen and country not politicians.

[s2art]

fesuvious said:

jimmyb said:

The clue is in the Queens army. The military forces in this country swear an oath to the Queen not the government. Speak to most military staff and they will tell you they serve the Queen. If there was ever an uprising the soldiers would answer to the queen before country before politicians. Queen and country not politicians.

Absolutely, with you 100%

I only wish I had confidence that Her Majesty truly believed that too

I am pretty sure that she does. Politicians are amongst the least liked professions in the country. Right down there with Estate agents and Bankers.