|
Post by CtraK on Mar 4, 2009 18:38:35 GMT -5
This is essentially why I'm a republican, because quite simply, the monarchy is pointless, and if it ever started to have a point, there'd be a public outcry. They're basically like nuclear weapons, but you can't even threaten people with them. Might have to start my own party; the Super Awesome Totally Sweet Uber Party. I can't see too much support for SATSUP, especially when the TraKian Centrist Party has far better policies. You watch - general election after next, everyone will want TCP.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 5, 2009 16:20:53 GMT -5
She needs to give royal assent to any bill that passes through both houses. I don't think she has ever used her power to refuse to sign antything since she was crowned but the power is there if she needs it Well she has the de jure abilityto dismiss the governments of Australia, Canada and the UK and appoint new leaders for the countries. But much like if she refused to sign a bill that had passed both houses the resposne would be "Shut up you silly bitch or we'll get the fuck rid of you." Remind me again, who does any member of the armed forces have to swear allegiance to? The whole bunch of hannoverian bloodsuckers are a spineless anachronism, but if it eventually came down to it and the government told her to GTFO there could be another civil war. Funny that the queen's descendants have a record of military service where Tony "the great and mighty Oz"'s dont
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Mar 5, 2009 17:45:50 GMT -5
Might have to start my own party; the Super Awesome Totally Sweet Uber Party. Try changing "Super" to "Completely". You'll get yourself over incredibly well with the lower and middle classes that way.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Mar 5, 2009 17:49:32 GMT -5
She needs to give royal assent to any bill that passes through both houses. I don't think she has ever used her power to refuse to sign antything since she was crowned but the power is there if she needs it Well she has the de jure abilityto dismiss the governments of Australia, Canada and the UK and appoint new leaders for the countries. But much like if she refused to sign a bill that had passed both houses the resposne would be "Shut up you silly bitch or we'll get the fuck rid of you." Actually, in Canada, she cannot directly do that anymore. That privilege resides in the Governor-General, whose appointment is independent of the Queen, and whose decisions are independent of Royal assent. That changed in 1980 when Canada patriated the BNA act, as the Canadian constitution. We are officially independent, although still loyal to her Majesty's title.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 6, 2009 16:54:01 GMT -5
I support the monarchy actually, for the simple reason that if we lose them we lose billions of pounds in tourism income. People don't come here for the weather you know.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on Mar 7, 2009 9:13:02 GMT -5
I support the monarchy actually, for the simple reason that if we lose them we lose billions of pounds in tourism income. People don't come here for the weather you know. And apparently the Queen actually does stuff, important stuff. I can't remember what exactly and I'm too lazy to go look lol. Most of the rest of the lesser Royals do seem to be uselss wastes of space though.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 7, 2009 9:18:36 GMT -5
I support the monarchy actually, for the simple reason that if we lose them we lose billions of pounds in tourism income. People don't come here for the weather you know. And apparently the Queen actually does stuff, important stuff. I can't remember what exactly and I'm too lazy to go look lol. Most of the rest of the lesser Royals do seem to be uselss wastes of space though. One day Charles is going to be in a situation where he can overturn a government bill he doesn't like, and I'm not sure he has the tact to leave it alone. God, if parliament ever passed a bill to shrink the green belt, don't want to think about the kind of stupid things charles woudl do.
|
|
|
Post by faintpraise on Mar 7, 2009 16:11:03 GMT -5
IMO there's no party in the UK worth voting for currently and I can't see that changing before the next election. The only thing to do is vote for the party you hate least, rather than vote for who you like most the way the system really should work. What's even worse is it's been like this for the better half of a decade. Might have to start my own party; the Super Awesome Totally Sweet Uber Party. So far the only promises on my manifesto are to introduce public floggings for anyone who says "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less" and forced sterilisation for anyone who says every single sentence as if it's a question (known officially as the High Rising Terminal). Not sure those will popular though. (Applause) Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
|
|
|
Post by faintpraise on Mar 7, 2009 16:16:54 GMT -5
I support the monarchy actually, for the simple reason that if we lose them we lose billions of pounds in tourism income. People don't come here for the weather you know. I've never been convinced by this argument personally. The bit about the Queen, not the bit about the weather, which is clearly self-evident. The monarchy just seems like a big pointless waste of time to me. And I know life isn't fair, but institutionalising giving random people vast amounts of wealth and privilege at random according to the family they're born into just seems like taking the piss.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on Mar 8, 2009 12:51:38 GMT -5
I support the monarchy actually, for the simple reason that if we lose them we lose billions of pounds in tourism income. People don't come here for the weather you know. I've never been convinced by this argument personally. The bit about the Queen, not the bit about the weather, which is clearly self-evident. The monarchy just seems like a big pointless waste of time to me. And I know life isn't fair, but institutionalising giving random people vast amounts of wealth and privilege at random according to the family they're born into just seems like taking the piss. Actually yeah, all the important stuff the Queen does could probably be done just as well by an elected official. Although, unless reports are exaggerated, the Queen does get up stupidly early in order to get everything done that she has to do. Busy lady according to the telly, and the telly wouldn't lie to me! Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Oh god, I have to start writting a newsetter? I think I need another member in my party lol.
|
|
|
Post by alwimo on Mar 8, 2009 19:47:43 GMT -5
Well she has the de jure abilityto dismiss the governments of Australia, Canada and the UK and appoint new leaders for the countries. But much like if she refused to sign a bill that had passed both houses the resposne would be "Shut up you silly bitch or we'll get the fuck rid of you." Actually, in Canada, she cannot directly do that anymore. That privilege resides in the Governor-General, whose appointment is independent of the Queen, and whose decisions are independent of Royal assent. Australia's Governor-General in 1975 (John Kerr) fired our (Australia's) Prime Minister of the time (Gough Whitlam). www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkT78bEDuBI Here's one of the best lines in a speech in Australia's history. The person speaking is Gough Whitlam, very soon after the announcement.
|
|
|
Post by somnium on Mar 9, 2009 1:33:22 GMT -5
classic speech and an intriguing man - I especially like his proposed eduction reforms.
I like the Australian constitution and political system, it factors in a number of checks and balances. I think it would have been interesting to see what the Whitlam government could have achieved but ultimately the public was given a choice, they could have voted him back in but they didn't. After the public outcry over the governor-general having this power it has never been used again.
The question of forming a republic pops up from time to time but until they come up with a better system for electing a head of state the conservative aussie electorate will not even seriously consider it. For the time being the Queen does not bother us or attempt to influence our political system so why replace her with some one who would? Although if the G.-G. ever tried that shit again, I would be at the front of the queue to vote for a republic.
oh, Sandafluffoid i want to visit the england for the crumpets
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 9, 2009 5:15:15 GMT -5
I like the Australian constitution and political system, it factors in a number of checks and balances. And it doesn't include freedom of speech, religion or assembly. Or freedom from discrimination. In fact, the only rights it gives are for states (particularly galling as no governments have the absolute right to exist). Our constitution is crappy.
|
|
|
Post by somnium on Mar 9, 2009 5:56:06 GMT -5
I was more referring the power that the Queen holds in Australia and to the general "chain of command". I don't know much about the constitution law but as far as constitutions go I think we could have done much worse.
True our constitution does not have a formalised bill of rights, the few rights that is does give are very limited and although some implies rights have been applied by the High Court they are few and far between. But last time I checked the American Bill of Rights is not ideal either? (I may be way of base with this - so feel free to correct me, but be gentle I am the first to admit I know little to nothing about the American system). Constitutional rights, appear to me to be very black and white, unfortunately society is not, it is a constantly evolving shade of grey and requires that the rights and how they are applied are evolving too so that it best serves society as a whole. This to me seems to be better served by a combination of legislation and court based law.
Perhaps some with knowledge of the British system could comment as our system, when it comes to rights, was modeled on that system. From memory Britain doesn't even have a formal constitution? Yet Britain and Australia are functioning democratic countries whose people enjoy, to a large degree, the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and discrimination. Yes its not perfect, there are still cases where these rights are not upheld but then rights are not always upheld in America either and they have a bill of rights.
I think it is perhaps a little rough to say we have a crap constitution just because it doesn't have a bill of rights, it is only part of a larger system and that system does protect the rights of individuals.
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 9, 2009 6:18:34 GMT -5
Perhaps some with knowledge of the British system could comment as our system, when it comes to rights, was modeled on that system. From memory Britain doesn't even have a formal constitution? Yet Britain and Australia are functioning democratic countries whose people enjoy, to a large degree, the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly and discrimination. Yes its not perfect, there are still cases where these rights are not upheld but then rights are not always upheld in America either and they have a bill of rights. I think it is perhaps a little rough to say we have a crap constitution just because it doesn't have a bill of rights, it is only part of a larger system and that system does protect the rights of individuals. Actually we do have a Bill of rights, two if you count the Magna Carta. In fairness there is as much in those documents designed to define and limit the authority of the monarch as there is guaranteeing things like the right to trial by jury (rather than the more amusing methods we used to have). Im pretty sure, though, most of our current legislation is based off the universal declaration of human rights, as it was ratified by most european countries after the UN was formed.
|
|