Next recession, trade wars, up to 50% portfolio losses

1101113151622

Comments

  • IanManc
    IanManc Posts: 2,069
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper
    Forumite
    eskbanker wrote: »
    When did the head of state last exercise a power of veto over anything?

    When Queen Anne refused Royal Assent to the Scottish Militia Bill on 11 March 1708. :)
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 30,396
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    IanManc wrote: »
    When Queen Anne refused Royal Assent to the Scottish Militia Bill on 11 March 1708. :)
    ....but was that accurately reported on that evening's News at Ten? ;)
  • Malthusian
    Malthusian Posts: 10,898
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Glen_Clark wrote: »
    An unbiased media would give at least equal coverage to the campaign for an elected Head of State, as it gives to Royal Births and Weddings etc.

    Ooh, that's a tough one. Do we broadcast footage of a royal wedding with parades, flags, pomp, circumstance and a celebration of national unity and shared history, or do we broadcast interviews with tedious shrivelled-up pub bores who spend their free time smugly correcting anyone who refers to 'British citizens' ("don't you know you're a subject?") while wearing "Blair for President" T-shirts.
  • Reaper
    Reaper Posts: 7,277
    First Anniversary First Post Photogenic
    Forumite
    Glen_Clark wrote: »
    Democracy?
    When did we elect the Head of State and Hangers On, or the absurdly over-populated House of Lords? (bigger than the whole of the EU Parliament for 27 countries)
    - both of which have power of veto over the 'democratically elected' who are held up by bribes to buy DUP votes.
    I have a soft spot for the House of Lords. Its members don't have to pander to public opinion and party whips have limited control over the members because they tend not to have any political ambitions that can be manipulated. As a result they can look objectively at daft legislation pushed through the Commons and point out the flaws.

    Although you say they have a power of veto they do not. They can only delay bills for between 1 month and 1 year, and some types not at all.

    Personally I would like to see it have more power to act as a break on stupid, ill thought out measures governments push though to jump on the latest band wagon, but sadly there is no prospect of that happening.
  • IanManc
    IanManc Posts: 2,069
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker Name Dropper
    Forumite
    Malthusian wrote: »
    Ooh, that's a tough one. Do we broadcast footage of a royal wedding with parades, flags, pomp, circumstance and a celebration of national unity and shared history, or do we broadcast interviews with tedious shrivelled-up pub bores who spend their free time smugly correcting anyone who refers to 'British citizens' ("don't you know you're a subject?") while wearing "Blair for President" T-shirts.

    Excellent! :)

    I love it when people roll out this argument when they're in the middle of a rant about the UK not being a democracy but being a feudal monarchy.

    In fact we are British Citizens. To check that you just need to look at your passport, on the page with the photograph on, and underneath your name it says "Nationality - British Citizen".

    British Subjects are a dwindling group of people who had British nationality and lived in Empire countries but did not take the nationality of that country when it became independent. They do not have a right of abode in the UK and can not pass on their nationality to their offspring, so the group is declining in number and is reckoned to be about thirty thousand.
  • Glen_Clark
    Glen_Clark Posts: 4,397 Forumite
    eskbanker wrote: »
    When did the head of state last exercise a power of veto over anything?

    The fact Her Unelected Majesty & Hangers On, and her staff are always exempted from inconvenient legislation like the, Employment Protection Act etc suggest she does use it But we don't really know much about they because they are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act too, and refuse to give interviews or answer unscripted questions. We only know what gets past her spin doctors.
    We have not one page of written constitution, they make it up to suit themselves as they go along.
    All we have is an unwritten understanding she won't use her power as long as everything keeps going her way.
    This is what they call Democracy.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
  • ValiantSon
    ValiantSon Posts: 2,586 Forumite
    Glen_Clark wrote: »
    The fact Her Unelected Majesty & Hangers On, and her staff are always exempted from inconvenient legislation like the, Employment Protection Act etc suggest she does use it But we don't really know much about they because they are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act too, and refuse to give interviews or answer unscripted questions. We only know what gets past her spin doctors.
    We have not one page of written constitution, they make it up to suit themselves as they go along.
    All we have is an unwritten understanding she won't use her power as long as everything keeps going her way.
    This is what they call Democracy.

    I'm no fan of our existing constitution, and certainly don't believe that our country can meaningfully be considered a functioning democracy, but it is not correct to say that there is no written constitution. Our constitution is written, but it isn't codified. There are four sources of the constitution: statutes; common law; conventions; works of authority (Walter Bagehot; A.V. Dicey; Erskine May).

    For those arguing that the monarch does not exercise executive power, you are missing the fact that her power is delegated, through royal prerogative, to officers of the crown. The use of royal prerogative circumvents parliament in many situations (including, for example, declarations of war). Furthermore the current monarch has exercised direct royal prerogative during her reign. She most recently did this in 1974 when she appointed Harold Wilson as prime minister. You could, also, reasonably argue, that she directly exercised the royal prerogative in 2017 when she allowed Theresa May to remain as prime minister despite her being unable to command a majority in the House of Commons (a supply and confidence agreement, such as exists with the DUP, does not create a majority).
  • Glen_Clark
    Glen_Clark Posts: 4,397 Forumite
    ValiantSon wrote: »
    . She most recently did this in 1974 when she appointed Harold Wilson as prime minister.

    I thought she failed to appoint Harold Wilson as Prime Minister despite his winning the election - the Unelected Head of State kept the elected Prime Minister out of office for 2 days whilst Heath tried and failed to cut a deal with the Liberals?
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
  • Glen_Clark
    Glen_Clark Posts: 4,397 Forumite
    ValiantSon wrote: »
    I'm no fan of our existing constitution, and certainly don't believe that our country can meaningfully be considered a functioning democracy, but it is not correct to say that there is no written constitution. Our constitution is written, but it isn't codified. There are four sources of the constitution: statutes; common law; conventions; works of authority (Walter Bagehot; A.V. Dicey; Erskine May).
    .
    They still make it up to suit themselves as they go along. For instance we aren't allowed to see her paintings in Windsor Castle unless she lets them out on loan to museums. But when they caught fire in her care they were ours because we had to pay for their restoration. And now we have paid for them they are hers again.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
  • ValiantSon
    ValiantSon Posts: 2,586 Forumite
    Glen_Clark wrote: »
    I thought she failed to appoint Harold Wilson as Prime Minister despite his winning the election - the Unelected Head of State kept the elected Prime Minister out of office for 2 days whilst Heath tried and failed to cut a deal with the Liberals?

    Labour were the largest party, but with no majority. The correct constitutional procedure is for the existing prime minister to remain in office until a new government can be formed. This can involve the existing PM trying to reach a coalition or supply and confidence agreement. The same thing happened in 2010 when Gordon Brown remained in office, but in this instance, David Cameron was able to demonstrate that he could command a majority after having agreed a coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats.
    Glen_Clark wrote: »
    They still make it up to suit themselves as they go along. For instance we aren't allowed to see her paintings in Windsor Castle unless she lets them out on loan to museums. But when they caught fire in her care they were ours because we had to pay for their restoration. And now we have paid for them they are hers again.

    That has nothing to do with the constitution, however. That is simply because we are, collectively, very stupid.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards