Fixed terms and 55% to remove a government...

[Mario149]

I'm just curious, it seems that there is going to be a move to fixed terms of 5 years where the government requires a 55% vote of no confidence to be ousted AIUI. Hypothetically, what is there to stop them voting on a change (and passing it) such that the fixed term will be 20 years, and a vote of 99% of MPs is required to get them out? i.e. turn it into a virtual dicatorship?

[john_p]

Mario149 said:

I'm just curious, it seems that there is going to be a move to fixed terms of 5 years where the government requires a 55% vote of no confidence to be ousted AIUI. Hypothetically, what is there to stop them voting on a change (and passing it) such that the fixed term will be 20 years, and a vote of 99% of MPs is required to get them out? i.e. turn it into a virtual dicatorship?

Lords would probably chuck it out

And finally, the Queen could refuse to give Royal Assent and effectively veto it

[Mario149]

john_p said:

Lords would probably chuck it out

And finally, the Queen could refuse to give Royal Assent and effectively veto it

Couldn't they use the Parliament act to force it through? Doesn't the Queen HAVE to say yes? i.e. her role is totally ceremonial? Presumably if she was still in the way they could abolish the Monarchy if need be....

[Uhura_Fighter]

Mario149 said:

john_p said:

Lords would probably chuck it out

And finally, the Queen could refuse to give Royal Assent and effectively veto it

Couldn't they use the Parliament act to force it through? Doesn't the Queen HAVE to say yes? i.e. her role is totally ceremonial? Presumably if she was still in the way they could abolish the Monarchy if need be....

Eh?

Civil war....

[john_p]

Mario149 said:

Couldn't they use the Parliament act to force it through? Doesn't the Queen HAVE to say yes? i.e. her role is totally ceremonial? Presumably if she was still in the way they could abolish the Monarchy if need be....

The Parliament Acts only force it through the Lords - legally, the Queen still needs to grant assent. It is long established that she will not interfere with parliament - the last time was in 1708 - but faced with public pressure and a despotic government, who knows? We get into overthrow-of-the-monarchy revolution territory.. and the armed forces have all sworn allegiance to the Queen..

[Dracoro]

john_p said:

legally, the Queen still needs to grant assent. It is long established that she will not interfere with parliament - the last time was in 1708

I didn't realise she was that old

Edited by Dracoro on Wednesday 12th May 13:44

[SystemParanoia]

john_p said:

Mario149 said:

Couldn't they use the Parliament act to force it through? Doesn't the Queen HAVE to say yes? i.e. her role is totally ceremonial? Presumably if she was still in the way they could abolish the Monarchy if need be....

The Parliament Acts only force it through the Lords - legally, the Queen still needs to grant assent. It is long established that she will not interfere with parliament - the last time was in 1708 - but faced with public pressure and a despotic government, who knows? We get into overthrow-of-the-monarchy revolution territory.. and the armed forces have all sworn allegiance to the Queen..

if she couldent be arsed to kick brown and his cronies out, i doubt she'll ever interfere unfortunately

[Jasandjules]

Mario149 said:

Couldn't they use the Parliament act to force it through? Doesn't the Queen HAVE to say yes? i.e. her role is totally ceremonial? Presumably if she was still in the way they could abolish the Monarchy if need be....

Have to? No. Legally, she has the final word. Whilst by convention she grants assent to any bill which comes through the Parliamentary process, she still has, in law, the choice to refuse.

Even the Army serve the queen, they are only instructed by the PM by convention.

[Engineer1]

The fixed term Parliament is to prevent Gordon's false start election, and probably to prevent an election being called before any ill effects of anything show up, that and Clegg won't want to be helping Cameron until he feels confident enough to call an election that will give him the majority he needs.

[Tangent Police]

Dracoro said:

john_p said:

legally, the Queen still needs to grant assent. It is long established that she will not interfere with parliament - the last time was in 1708

I didn't realise she was that old

Edited by Dracoro on Wednesday 12th May 13:44

She nearly did with the Ozzies in '76, or did she?

Edited by Tangent Police on Wednesday 12th May 13:54

[Mario149]

Okay, so the Queen can refuse. But like I said, couldn't the government abolish the Monarchy at which point there would be no stopping them? i.e. technically, it wouldn't be too difficult to start a dictatorship!

I'm just asking hypothetically as we don't have a constitution and all that

[john_p]

Mario149 said:

Okay, so the Queen can refuse. But like I said, couldn't the government abolish the Monarchy at which point there would be no stopping them? i.e. technically, it wouldn't be too difficult to start a dictatorship!

I'm just asking hypothetically as we don't have a constitution and all that

Parliament would have to pass an act banning the monarchy which would only come into law once the Queen had given Royal Assent .. so it could only happen if the Queen agreed to it!

In the existing system they could not do it without the Queen agreeing.

[SystemParanoia]

rohypnol?

[Mario149]

john_p said:

Mario149 said:

Okay, so the Queen can refuse. But like I said, couldn't the government abolish the Monarchy at which point there would be no stopping them? i.e. technically, it wouldn't be too difficult to start a dictatorship!

I'm just asking hypothetically as we don't have a constitution and all that

Parliament would have to pass an act banning the monarchy which would only come into law once the Queen had given Royal Assent .. so it could only happen if the Queen agreed to it!

In the existing system they could not do it without the Queen agreeing.

Aha! So the queen IS still technically in charge of everything!!

[rs1952]

Mario149 said:

Aha! So the queen IS still technically in charge of everything!!

Yup. The lot.

For example if you own your own house, in law it still belongs to the Queen. You have a tenancy.

[SystemParanoia]

Mario149 said:

john_p said:

Mario149 said:

Okay, so the Queen can refuse. But like I said, couldn't the government abolish the Monarchy at which point there would be no stopping them? i.e. technically, it wouldn't be too difficult to start a dictatorship!

I'm just asking hypothetically as we don't have a constitution and all that

Parliament would have to pass an act banning the monarchy which would only come into law once the Queen had given Royal Assent .. so it could only happen if the Queen agreed to it!

In the existing system they could not do it without the Queen agreeing.

Aha! So the queen IS still technically in charge of everything!!

she should get off the throne and give the crown to william...

better yet, give it to harry, he seems to like a laugh

[john_p]

It is a bit more complicated than that, look up the Bill of Rights 1689 for example