BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Songwronger
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:38 PM

I've been studying, and I think I finally figured out how British legislation gets passed. It involves the Groom of the Stool. Boy you Brits have a complicated system of government. But as far as I can tell, the legislative process is this:

1) Your parliament fashions a bill and it's placed in a stack beside Elizabeth's throne (the porcelain one).

2) When her Majestic bowels move, the Groom of the Stool takes the bill from the stack and shows it to Elizabeth.

3) Elizabeth either shakes her head negatorily or says, "Yes, we are pleased."

At that point, the Groom of the Stool ceremoniously applies the legislation. Ass-scent received, all is well. Is that the gist of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:00 PM

I can't vouch for the 100% accuracy of the information in the link below. However, I believe the role of the Queen is accurate that the Crown's veto on Canadian government legislation no longer exists, and the crown (in a neutral role) only ceremonially legitimizes the legislation.The Crown's veto only applied in the early years of Canada's representative government.


Royal assent in Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 12:49 PM

Henry VIII allowed Sir Thomas More the privilege of beheading altho a commoner; so it would not be unprecedented.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 11:43 AM

I have myself a little list.

Up to yet, I have eight names I can give her to get them locked in the tower, and off with their heads!

Gawd Bless Her!

(Actually, as they are all commoners, they can't have the privilege of beheading. Looks like it'll have to be hung drawn and quartered after all. Sorry chaps, but that's how it is.)

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Charmion
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 10:07 AM

Sir Winston Churchill is credited with the remark that the British style of government is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. I'm not sure he actually said it, but whoever did had a point.

As I see it, any effort to do away with the role of the constitutional monarch is stymied by the prospect of problems that are even worse than the ideologically distasteful (to some) situation of being a citizen of state headed by a aristocrat who rules by right of inheritance.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 09:08 AM

"We have a monarch (complete with dozens of hangers-on) AND we have a bunch of politicos who need entourages, etc."
.,,.
Why be naif & provocative just for the sake of it, Steve? Everyone in any position of power, political, commercial, academic, or whatever, has an 'entourage'; but when did you ever see our Prime Minister, the de facto head of our government, driven anywhere in the sort of glorious ostentation of the motorcades that presidents in 'democratic republics', incl the USA, regularly allocate themselves to prove their status ~~ or even, except on certain long-entrenched special state occasions which still never really compete with those anyhow, our Queen either, for that matter?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 08:54 AM

"as long as she does not use it." That is basically the same as here. She has some kind of power to step in and appoint a govt if one can't be formed by any other means.It is the recognised duty of our leading politicians to make sure that the monarch is never put in a position where these powers are used.

The whole system is kind of dependent on stability which there has been with the present monarch. It may not always be so of course. For instance for things to change re the monarchy then it has to be agreed in all the realms. For instance the change to the line of succession which was recently agreed upon. However in the end I think the British (just my opinion) public wouldn't give a damn what people in Candad or NZ etc thought about a certain issue should opinons in these countries differ from here. Should such an issue arise then I suspect Canadians etc would finally say "why on earth do we have foreigners as Head of State?" so agin another reason why the royals as a whole keep the heads down an stay away from contention as much as possible. One good thing though about having a non-political Head of State is you don't get the stalemates in govt like the US seemed to have over the Fiscal Cliff thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Ed T
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 07:41 AM

Queen Eliz 2 has, veto power over government in Canada, as long as she does not use it. I suspect if she ever did, and went against a sitting government, it would open up a "big" can of worms in various quarters, especially so in Quebec (where the Royal connections are less firm). However, if intervention were viewed as beneficial, I suspect these powers could be useful to get everyone out of a "governing bind". That's one reason why it has never been challenged, it provides a back-up route to get out of a bind.

So, it does (kinda) work - in an odd way. And, IMO, any initiative to change it would open up far too many issues (as Canada is held together in an odd way).

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 06:03 AM

Christianity has lasted longer too, and that is a major force for evil. You ain't proving much here with your longevity argument, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:55 AM

"has outlasted any comparable system" slavery as an insitution lasted for thousands of years! Doesn't in itself make it proper!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Jan 13 - 05:52 AM

"According to the history of England Charles II was restored to the |English throne in 1671."

Never suggested that he wasn't. In fact I didn't mention him. Neither Charles II nor his brother James VII&II would be described as Constitutional Monarchs. Both believed in their divine right to rule as they wished. The British constitutional monarchy is said to commence with the coming to the throne of William and Mary though it is still way off what we'd regard constitutional monarchy as.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/TheActofSettlement.aspx


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The link above is from the Monarchy's website and states in regard to 1688 "from this time onwards the Bill Of Rights proved to be of fundamental importance to the evolution of Constitutional Monarchy".

That of course is in regard to England. James fled the English throne but in Scotland it was different. Once he lost his English power base the Scots simply held a parliament and stripped him of the Scottish throne branding him a traitor and accusing him of despotism. As per in the Claim Of Right of 1689. In between all the anti-Catholic rhetoric is the bits about kings not being able to rule without abiding by the law of the country or taking and acting upon their oaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 13 - 08:31 PM

""1689 for both Scotland and England?""

According to the history of England Charles II was restored to the |English throne in 1671.

Of course, if you know better......?

After the Roman Republic did away with Patrician rulen in 287 BC, it lasted less than 4 centuries.

Greek democracy lasted less than two centuries.

The fact is that English Monarchy, both absolute and Constitutional, has outlasted any comparable system by somewher in the region of five times.

It must be doing something right, when even the loss of an empire doesn't destroy it, because former subject nations willingly join the commonwealth of nations, which carried us through WWII, with the help of the USA, but without the price of that help.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Jan 13 - 04:27 PM

"like the 350 years of our Constitutional Monarchy, not to mention the 790 years of absolute Monarchy which preceded it" Wouldn't 350 years be a wee bit to long a period for the monarchy to be classed as a Constitutional Monarchy? Wouldn't it be more like 1689 for both Scotland and England? As for the Republics lasting as long well surely that is because on the whole modern Republics were formed more recently than the ancient kingdoms were. I can't see the US or France voluntarily reverting to monarchial govt in the next century or so. Can you? The half century prior to the Williamite Revolution was hardly a model of good govt either!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 13 - 12:04 PM

Why is it a dumb comment? We have a monarch (complete with dozens of hangers-on) AND we have a bunch of politicos who need entourages, etc. And did you see that photo in the Guardian a week or two back of the vast royal banquet in honour of the Emir/Sultan/Sheikh of Somewhere-or-Other? Bet that lot didn't arrive in a beaten-up Morris Marina guarded by a watchful London bobby! OR bring in the tourist quid!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 13 - 11:40 AM

""But we have both, Don. You don't get either/or, do you?""

Now that is an uncharacteristically dumb comment from one who usually presents moderately cogent argument. There is simply NO comparison between what we have now and what we would have in a republic.

Show me a republic that has lasted anything like the 350 years of our Constitutional Monarchy, not to mention the 790 years of absolute Monarchy which preceded it since the accession of Alfred the Great in 871.

I've always believed that if it ain't broke, one is foolish to fix it.

Now, if you can tell me of one republic in which the people at the poorest end of the scale are better off than ours...........?

That would be the only justification for change, if there were a realistic liklihood of improvement.

As far as I can see, you'll just increase the number of political pigs keeping the rest of us away from the trough.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: GUEST,999
Date: 03 Jan 13 - 10:26 AM

Would someone inform the queen that the royal veto powers are no longer secret?

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 13 - 09:24 AM

But we have both, Don. You don't get either/or, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Jan 13 - 06:51 AM

""Come along now Don with yer scaremongering. You pick out the one place where such stupidity happens and you threaten us with it! Anyway, man, where's yer principles!""

Scaremongering is it?

1. Take a look at the security entourage that accompanies foreign Presidents, and work out the cost, then look at a street walkabout by any of our Royals with their two or three security men and a couple of attendants.

2. Count the cars in a cavalcade when a president travels, and compare with our queen in one limo with four police motorcycle outriders.

3. Presidents are politicians, and they of course wouldn't spend a fortune on self aggrandisement, would they......?

4. My principles are alive and well, thank you, and I still think an apolitical head of state has many and distinct advantages.

After all Steve, who are the first to scream about our jovial Wingnut expressing opinions about anything other than the weather?......You lot, that's who!

Now, getting down to the nitty gritty, who do you fancy for the first president of the new United Republic?

Blair?
Brown?
Milliband?
Cameron?
Haig?
Clegg?
Griffen?
Farage?

Those are the most likely candidates trying to supplant the Queen.

NO THANK YOU!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 08:01 PM

I believe that nobody believes you. That do?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 07:58 PM

I was talking about the documentary of her reign, not about the celebrations.

Militaries? Well, let us start with the US military and the bombing of Libya.

And, on that note, I shall say gnightgnu. Nobody believes me and I really don't don't care if anybody does or not. BP does what it wants to do. If you don't think it that they tell the US military who to bomb and when.... baa... baa... baa

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 07:31 PM

Yer still Britannia, ain't ya? You still control the oil, most of the world's militaries and natural resources either directly or in concert with other nations and monarchies, some of the largest corporations on earth... blah, blah, blah.


And what has this got to do with having a bloody monarch! Your "jubilee show", drowned out by the pissing rain (maybe there truly is a God...), was best summed up (by Billy Bragg) as a weekend of bunting and bullshit.

And I'm not quite sure who all these militaries are that Britannia controls. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 07:21 PM

Come along now Don with yer scaremongering. You pick out the one place where such stupidity happens and you threaten us with it! Anyway, man, where's yer principles!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: gnu
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 03:05 PM

Steve Shaw... "There is no evidence that she is not wise, but there's precious little evidence either that she is."

Yer still Britannia, ain't ya? You still control the oil, most of the world's militaries and natural resources either directly or in concert with other nations and monarchies, some of the largest corporations on earth... blah, blah, blah.

Not to be rude, but there is some historical evidnce that Bee (the ROYAL WE-Bee?) does a reasonable job at what she DOES. I watched her Jubilee TV show. It supported a lot of the things I have talked to. I recommend it for everyone as it MAY be a real eye opener for some.

In any case, I am truly grateful PM Harper is not my "supreme" leader and monarch, even though he thinks he is. Why, Bee has hair better than his! >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 02:22 PM

Yeah! Right.

let's take on another pointless change and follow the USA downhill into pandering to a bunch of political wannabees who cost ten times the Civil List just to get one of them elected President, who will then spend five times the Civil list on limos and security, while poking his/her Party Political nose into every aspect of day to day government.

Bloody clever..........NOT!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 02:01 PM

Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 01:06 PM
Nah, fergeddit. Let's just have a republic.
.,,.,..,

Ooh yes! Let's! Ooh goodidgoodiedoodie!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 01:55 PM

~~~Zimbabwe officially the Republic of Zimbabwe~~~
~~~Robert Gabriel Mugabe is the President of Zimbabwe~~~

Yes, well, as I was saying

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 01:13 PM

Well, Michael, you may claim that the well-known black Yorkshireman Ebagum was "elected", but many would demur. Not one election he's been involved in since 1979 has been seen as free and fair, and most have been bedevilled by widespread intimidation of the electorate and of the opposition and by corruption. Here's a bit o' wiki on it all:

In April 1979, 64% of the black citizens of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) lined up at the polls to vote in the first democratic election in the history of that southern African nation. Two-thirds of them supported Abel Muzorewa, a bishop in the United Methodist Church. He was the first black prime minister of a country only 4% white. Muzorewa's victory put an end to the 14-year political odyssey of outgoing prime minister Ian Smith, who had infamously announced in 1976, "I do not believe in black majority rule—not in a thousand years."
Less than a year after Muzorewa's victory, however, in February 1980, another election was held in Zimbabwe. This time, Robert Mugabe, who had fought a seven-year guerrilla war against Rhodesia's white-led government, won 64% of the vote, after a campaign marked by widespread intimidation, outright violence, and Mugabe's threat to continue the civil war if he lost. Mugabe became prime minister and was toasted by the international community and media as a new sort of African leader.
Mugabe has continued to win elections, although frequently these have been criticised by outsiders for violating various electoral procedures.
Mugabe faced Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in presidential elections in March 2002. Mugabe defeated Tsvangirai by 56.2% to 41.9% amid violence and the prevention of large numbers of citizens in urban areas from voting. The conduct of the elections was widely viewed internationally as having been manipulated. Many groups, such as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, and Tsvangirai's party, assert that the result was rigged. Mugabe's ZANU-PF party won the 2005 parliamentary elections with an increased majority. The elections were said by (again) South African observers to "reflect the free will of the people of Zimbabwe", despite accusations of widespread fraud from the MDC.
On 6 February 2007, Mugabe orchestrated a cabinet reshuffle, ousting ministers including five-year veteran finance minister Herbert Murerwa.
On 11 March 2007, opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was arrested and beaten following a prayer meeting in the Harare suburb of Highfields. Another member of the Movement for Democratic Change was killed while other protesters were injured. Mugabe claimed that "Tsvangirai deserved his beating-up by police because he was not allowed to attend a banned rally" on 30 March 2007.

General elections 2008

Mugabe launched his election campaign on his birthday in Beitbridge, a small town on the border with South Africa on 23 February 2008 by denouncing both the opposition MDC and Simba Makoni's candidacy. He was quoted in the state media as saying: "Dr Makoni lacked majority support while Mr Tsvangirai was in the presidential race simply to please his Western backers in exchange for money". These are the charges he has used in the past to describe the leader of the opposition.
In the week Dr. Makoni launched his campaign for the presidency, he accused Mugabe of buying votes from the electorate. This was a few hours after Dumiso Dabengwa had come out and endorsed Dr. Makoni's candidature.

First-round defeat and the campaign of violence

The presidential elections were conducted on 29 March 2008, together with the parliamentary elections. On 2 April 2008, the Zimbabwe Election Commission confirmed that Mugabe and his party, known as ZANU-PF, had lost control of Parliament to the main opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change. This was confirmed when the results were released. Both the opposition and his party challenged the results in some constituencies. According to unofficial polling, Zanu-PF took 94 seats, and the main opposition party MDC took 96 seats. On 3 April 2008 Zimbabwean government forces began cracking down on the main opposition party and arrested at least two foreign journalists, who were covering the disputed presidential election, including a correspondent for the New York Times.
On 30 March 2008, Mugabe convened a meeting with his top security officials to discuss his defeat in the elections. According to the Washington Post, he was prepared to concede, but was advised by Zimbabwe's military chief Gen. Constantine Chiwenga to remain in the race, with the senior military officers "supervising a military-style campaign against the opposition". The first phase of the plan started a week later, involving the building of 2,000 party compounds across Zimbabwe, to serve as bases for the party militias.[89] On an 8 April 2008 meeting, the military plan was given the code name of "CIBD", which stood for: "Coercion. Intimidation. Beating. Displacement."
The official results for the presidential elections would be delayed for five weeks. When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown attempted to intervene into the election controversy, Mugabe dismissed him as "a little tiny dot on this planet".
When the official results for the presidential elections were finally published by the Zimbabwe election commission on 2 May 2008, they showed that Mr. Mugabe had lost in the first round, getting 1,079,730 votes (43.2%) against 1,195,562 (47.9%) collected by Mr. Tsvangirai. Therefore no candidate secured the final win in the first round, and a presidential run-off will be needed. The opposition called the results "scandalous daylight robbery", claiming an outright victory in the first round with 50.3% of the votes. However, closer analysis of the opposition MDC's own figures, as published on the party's website at time, showed they had secured 49.1% of the vote and not the claimed requiste of +50% to avoid a run-off election.
Mugabe's run-off campaign was managed by Emmerson Mnangagwa, a former security chief of the conflict of Gukurahundi. The Washington Post asserts that the campaign of violence was bringing results to the ruling party, by crushing the opposition party MDC and coercion of its supporters. By 20 June 2008, the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights had "recorded 85 deaths in political violence since the first round of voting". News organizations report that, by the date of the second-round election, more than 80 opposition supporters had been killed, hundreds more were missing, in addition to thousands injured, and hundreds of thousands driven from their homes.
Zimbabwean officials alleged that activists of the MDC, disguised as ZANU-PF members, had perpetrated violence against the population, mimicking the tactics of the Selous Scouts during the liberation struggle. They alleged that there was a "predominance" of Selous Scouts in the MDC. The Sunday Mail published an article which claimed that former Selous Scouts were training MDC youth activists in violent tactics, at locations near Tswane (Pretoria) and Pietermaritzburg in South Africa.
In addition, at least 100 officials and polling officers of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission were arrested after the first round election.
Tsvangirai initially agreed to a presidential run-off with Robert Mugabe, but later withdrew (on 22 June 2008), citing violence targeted at his campaign. He complained that the elections were pointless, as the outcome would be determined by Mugabe himself.

The outcome of the run-off election

The run-off election was held on 27 June 2008, and Zimbabwe's Electoral Commission released the results two days later. The official results showed that Mugabe had managed to double his votes since the first round, to 2,150,269 votes (85.5%), while his opponent Tsvangirai obtained only 233,000 (9.3%). However Tsvangirai had pulled out previously because of widespread violence from the ZANU-PF's forces. The violence includes beating, rape and others. Many voted because if they did not they could face violence against them. Although witnesses and election monitors had reported a low turnout in many areas of the country,[101] the official tally showed that the total vote had increased, from 2,497,265 votes in the first round to 2,514,750 votes in the second round.
Two legal opinions commissioned by the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC) declared the run-off election illegal because it occurred outside the 21 day period within which it had to take place under Zimbabwean law. Under item 3(1)(b) of the Second Schedule of the Electoral Act, if no second election is held within 21 days of the first election, the candidate with the highest number of votes in the first election has been duly elected as President and must be declared as such. According to the figures released by Zimbabwe's Electoral Commission, that would mean that Morgan Tsvangirai is the de jure President.
Mugabe's inauguration to his sixth presidential term of office was a hastily arranged ceremony, convened barely an hour after the electoral commission declared his victory on 29 June 2008. None of his fellow African heads of state were present at his inauguration; there were only family members, ministers, and security chiefs in the guests' tent.

You'll be telling me next that Dubya was elected US President!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 01:02 PM

Huh? Are you going to give me all that tourist money crap? "Proved"?? That one is utterly unprovable, as well as highly improbable!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 07:24 AM

""Can we have a much cheaper one, then, at least? And just the one? Minus the hangers-on mini-industry that goes with it?""

You can't get much cheaper than putting more in than is taken out, aas haas been proved time and time again.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 02 Jan 13 - 04:06 AM

"Those hereditary peers are there because whichever party was in power at the time chose to rush through reform of the House of Lords before they had a properly worked out system to replace it with"

That is true but new hereditary peers are still entering the House not by means of replacing other hereditary peers but instead by being given new Life Peerages enabling them to take places in the House as a Life Peer which of course is denying other potential members their places. My only point is that we have a fair percentage of seats set aside for Hereditary Peers so then maybe Hereditary Peers should enter the House by qualifying on the grounds that they are the best people to sit on these pre-allocated seats!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 11:34 PM

But Robert Mugabe was elected president of a republic, you fellow you.

So

♫ - which side are you on? which side are you on - ♫

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 08:21 PM

Well, gnu, she (as I've said already) has at least had the good sense to keep her royal trap shut. But just think back to all those monarchs/dictators/emperors/despots in history past and present who, despite their "pedigree", managed to screw up their countries big-time. Tons of 'em. Even Queen Vic, not to speak of Robert Mugabe. All her "experience and service" has been obtained in a bloody great big insulated bubble of privileged bullshite that has got bugger all to do with the real world outside but plenty to do with travelling to third-world countries in the lap of luxury and waving benignly (trap kept shut) at poor black people once she arrives. There is no evidence that she is not wise, but there's precious little evidence either that she is.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: gnu
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 07:49 PM

Steve Shaw... "I wouldn't, on the grounds that 26 years as a princess and 60 years as a queen by sheer accident of birth do not necessarily make you wise..."

WTF? 86 years of experience and service is shite to you? Give yer head a shake and see if it rattles, man! You dis all that because she was an "accident of birth"? You would not make it as a Queen's Archer, even in the low ranks. You miss the mark. Rosin your bow and let fly again but with FAR better accuracy than that twaddle. And, this time, think it through.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 07:30 PM

Speaking as someone who's neither a royalist nor a republican, but who on balance feels that a hereditary figurehead Head of State is probably both politically and economically better for the country than having costly elections every x years whereby some superannuated politician gets a "go", can you tell me, Steve:

- how many people receive income from the Civil List (I believe it's recently had its name changed)?

- how the public purse cost of running the monarchy compares with the costs of running the German, French, Russian and US presidencies?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 01:06 PM

Can we have a much cheaper one, then, at least? And just the one? Minus the hangers-on mini-industry that goes with it?

Nah, fergeddit. Let's just have a republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Musket
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 12:33 PM

I dunno. Whilst people can and do have profound learning difficulties, the clinical consensus (source - Royal College of Psychiatrists Code of Ethics, updated 2010) is that most people are capable of using their logical analysis based on experience, learning and disposition.

That being the case, she was groomed to carry out that purpose. I assume, though of course have no idea, that intense intelligence is not a virtue, but the ability to listen, give comfort and quote similar positions illustrious predecessors (both sides of the coffee table) had been in before.. is worth a hell of a lot.

The Prince of Wales is often quoted, misquoted and put in a position that most be pure hell, as it is considered bad form to attack in his position. I think that on some issues he is wrong, and his trust in herbal remedies does result in some people using them instead of consulting real doctors with some times unfortunate results. (People do trust his judgement and with that comes responsibility....) That said, when he does get it right, it hits with great force. I truly admire him for stating that instead of being defender of THE faith, he will be defender of faith. It ruffles some fairly constitutional feathers whilst at the same time shows his understanding of the country now as opposed to when his mother took over.

I am not a royalist, but neither am I a staunch republican. I have, in business, been grateful of British heritage helping exports, although since selling up and busying myself in health and social care, my reliance on Brand UK is no longer part of my thoughts.

That said, in order to be part of the world club, you need a head of state. Whether executive, such as The USA President, ceremonial such as The Irish President or irrelevant such as some European Monarchs. The more I think about it, when as in our case the head of state is ceremonial but with ultimate powers in theory, I would rather have Brenda & Co than someone who wants to be head of state.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 07:38 AM

26 years as a princess, 60 years as a queen. She's got connections through family and friends, she's travelled a fair bit, she's had personal audiences and relationships with a few dignitaries, PMs, presidents, she wields the sword (don't point out to me she doesn't on accounta that is crap)... Now, if *I* was PM, I would wanna seek her advice.

I wouldn't, on the grounds that 26 years as a princess and 60 years as a queen by sheer accident of birth do not necessarily make you wise. And I'll accord this much to our Queen: she is sensible enough to open her trap at such infrequent intervals that we never actually get to know whether she's wise or not (though I suspect she isn't), unlike that idiot eldest son of hers, who betrays his lack of wisdom regularly.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Mo the caller
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 07:24 AM

Those hereditary peers are there because whichever party was in power at the time chose to rush through reform of the House of Lords before they had a properly worked out system to replace it with.

I'm not sure that the old system was democratic but it worked and all the suggested replacements had snags and the British don't like new untried systems. So we end up with a cobbled compromise (and maybe the worst features of both in some cases).

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 04:39 AM

"All but two have been elected." This is a tad misleading especially for people outside of the UK. It gives the impression that there has been some kind of election. They are called elected members but a truer term would be appointed members! A committee of just seven people decide from the people proposed who will sit in the House as elected members.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 01 Jan 13 - 04:20 AM

Whether further reform comes about or not the current situation is that there are 92 spaces specifically set aside for hereditary peers. The members sitting are elected (not by members of the public of course)only from a list of other hereditary peers. 92 hereditary members means that they are still in the here and now massively over-represented in the House. All I was pointing out is that there are other hereditary peers who have recently been given life peerages so that they can enter the house as a life peer rather than being chosen from the list of hereditary peers. This further boosts the numbers of a group who are already massively over-represented. This is no comment on the individual members rather a comment on the principle. Whether you agree or not I think it is a fair question to ask if this is fair and proper practise!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Dec 12 - 05:32 AM

Source Parliament pdf "Membership of the House of Lords"

""Elected hereditary Members
The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to sit and
vote in the House of Lords. Until then there had been about 700 hereditary
Members. While the Bill was being considered, an amendment was passed
which enabled 92 of the existing hereditary peers to remain as Members
until the next stage of reform. The 92 elected hereditary peers are made
up as follows:
● 15 'office-holders', i.e. Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen,
elected by the House;
● 75 party and Crossbench Members, elected by their own party or
group;
● two who hold royal appointments—the Lord Great Chamberlain, who
is the Queen's representative in Parliament, and the Earl Marshal, who
is responsible for ceremonies such as the State Opening of
Parliament.""

So the 92 are not only temporary until the next stage of reform, but also 75 are elected by their parties in the Commons, and two appointed by the queen (again on advice from the PM), and the other 15 are elected by the House of Lords.

As far as I can see, this means that not one single Peer sits in the House purely for reasons of heredity.

All but two have been elected.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 08:46 PM

""In your opinion!""

I believe that should have been obvious from my having used the words "I think........" Rog.

If I'd been claiming it as a fact, you might have seen the words "I know....." instead.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 06:21 PM

"That sounds very much like discrimination by inverse snobbery." The peers in question probably do deserve their place in the House as it is because of their previous political works but as there are so many spaces reserved for Hereditary Peers then it would seem fair that they should qualify by that route! Someone less deserving on the Hereditary seats should have lost out. Why should Hereditary Peers have two possibly routes into the Lords (forgetting about bishops) whilst everyone else only has the one route? That is a fair question so I think the charge of discrimination and inverted snobbery is unnecessary! It would open up further spaces for Life Peers! The most deserving (at least according to those who choose) of both Hereditary and Life would then have a chance!

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 02:51 PM

""However there are some Hereditary Peers who also hold Life Peerages and sit as Life Peers in the House of Lords.""

Providing their presence in the house came about in the way I described and not because of their heritage, what difference.

Are you suggesting that an hereditary peer who performs some signal service to the nation should be debarred, because of an accident of birth, from receiving the same recognition as anyone else?

That sounds very much like discrimination by inverse snobbery.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 07:51 AM

"Just 92 out of 775 peers in the House of Lords are hereditary." They are classed as Hereditary members due to their Hereditary peerages. However there are some Hereditary Peers who also hold Life Peerages and sit as Life Peers in the House of Lords.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Rog Peek
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 06:12 AM

In your opinion!

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 05:58 AM

Just 92 out of 775 peers in the House of Lords are hereditary.

The remainder are currently appointed by the queen (again, she has no veto, merely a formal role) on the advice of the Prime Minister, or the House of Lords Appointment Committee, on a proportional representation basis.

I think that "proportional representation" is rather more democratic than the Commons.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 05:45 AM

Royal consent, royal recommendation, royal assent, call it what you like, it is a privilege granted by birthright and while it may very well be constitutional, it is IMO certainly not democratic. While I'm on the subject neither is the appointment of Ministers in government from The House of Lords, itself lacking any vestige of democracy.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Allan Conn
Date: 30 Dec 12 - 03:59 AM

"When bills become Acts (in other words LAW), she is handed a manuscript for assent and she signs off on it."

Actually the Queen has never done that. I believe the last to do so was Queen Victoria in the 19thC. Royal Assent is basically a formality given by various means both ceremonial and the normal day to day where certain members of parliament, who have the authority to do so, simply state that assent has been given. It is in reality nothing more than a term to signify that the bill is done and dusted. Since Great Britain was created Royal Assent for UK legislation has only been witheld once. That was by Anne Stuart in 1708.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 29 Dec 12 - 08:27 AM

Somebody needs to get himself to a good library to consult the latest edition of Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. When he is done he should make sure he can distinguish between Royal Consent, royal recommendation, and Royal Assent. To start you off, SW, here is a colonially-influenced definition.