| Author |
@scotsboyuk vs @bobafett - where brave knights meet politic, cultures and traditions |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
I didn't realise the queen could block legislation!  I don't think she (or any monarch) has for a while - I don't think they even blocked the legislation meaning they had to pay tax a few years ago. I belive the UK is known as a 'constitutional monarchy'.
I think both the US, UK, and other democracies are being threatened though by this litigious culture that has suddenly mushroomed recently. People will soon be afraid to say what they want or do what they want for fear of some stupid moron sueing them just to line their own pockets. Laws in the UK were changed in 1999 to allow all these 'no win no fee' companies to take root, and every other commercial break is for one of these companies urging people to sue someone for tripping over an uneven paving stone, having a slight car accident, breathing in the wrong direction, etc.
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
| |
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@boba
You have answered in a very vague manner all throughout this discussion, merely stating that you disagree with most types of government and that you believe governments are all the same. This isn't what I have been asking you, however, from your last post I will presume that you would prefer to see a monarchy. If I may extrapolate from your last post further I would hazard a guess that you wouldn't mind seeing a resurrection of the Austro-Hungarian Empire under the Hapsburgs.
@Patrick-in-CA
Whilst your post was very interesting, I must take up your offer and disagree with you. Your initial comment that the best form of government is an elected republic is quite flatly untrue; the best form of government is whichever government receives the support of the majority of the people, this isn't always democracy.
Personally I favour a constitutional monarchy, which we have here in the U.K. and which serves us very well indeed. European republics differ a great deal from that of the U.S. in that Europe has a much stronger socialist element, and are subject to much stronger internal rivalries e.g. France By far the most stable nation in Europe is the U.K., which has had the same type of governemnt with gradual democratic changes for over a thousand years, with only one brief period of republicanism.
Her Majesty the Queen can block legislation, although it hasn't been done in three hundred years. I would imagine that it would be dependent upon the legislation beling blocked in determing the level of public support for such an action. The House of Lords has had its power steadily eroded over the last century and it doesn't provide a genuine balance to the Commons at the moment. In effect the U.K. is a democratically elected dictatorship with any government with a sufficient majority being bale to pass nay law it chooses to. The chief advantage of the monarchy is that the Soveriegn remains above politics and doe senter into any political dispute, a role which the Queen has performed in exemplary fashion for over fifty years.
I would imagine that Europeans detest violence even more than Americans do in light of the fact that there are still many alive who remember World War Two along with the more recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. European democracy is older than American democracy, it was invented in Europe after all, and people have defended democracy by protesting throughout history.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-25 14:14:00, scotsboyuk wrote:
@Patrick-in-CA
Whilst your post was very interesting, I must take up your offer and disagree with you. Your initial comment that the best form of government is an elected republic is quite flatly untrue; the best form of government is whichever government receives the support of the majority of the people, this isn't always democracy.
Personally I favour a constitutional monarchy, which we have here in the U.K. and which serves us very well indeed. European republics differ a great deal from that of the U.S. in that Europe has a much stronger socialist element, and are subject to much stronger internal rivalries e.g. France By far the most stable nation in Europe is the U.K., which has had the same type of governemnt with gradual democratic changes for over a thousand years, with only one brief period of republicanism.
Her Majesty the Queen can block legislation, although it hasn't been done in three hundred years. I would imagine that it would be dependent upon the legislation beling blocked in determing the level of public support for such an action. The House of Lords has had its power steadily eroded over the last century and it doesn't provide a genuine balance to the Commons at the moment. In effect the U.K. is a democratically elected dictatorship with any government with a sufficient majority being bale to pass nay law it chooses to. The chief advantage of the monarchy is that the Soveriegn remains above politics and doe senter into any political dispute, a role which the Queen has performed in exemplary fashion for over fifty years.
I would imagine that Europeans detest violence even more than Americans do in light of the fact that there are still many alive who remember World War Two along with the more recent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. European democracy is older than American democracy, it was invented in Europe after all, and people have defended democracy by protesting throughout history. |
|
Ahhhhhhhh - a breath of fresh air. First let me take a quick moment to simply say Thank You.
Now - As for the thought that any form of government that receives the support of the majority of the people is best form of government is like saying the best cellular phone is the one people use the most at any given time. Is the most popular really always the best? And I once again assert, the majority seems to change quite frequently.
I still believe the best form of government is a democratically elected republic. And even though the government of GB is technically a "Constitutional Monarchy" - because there is a Monarch peripherally involved - I happen to think, much like your economy, GB's functional government isn't so very different from the US.
I know many think "Americans" are smug and arrogant. Well - I can't argue with truth - we are. But putting that aside - I know our system of governance is based largely on the principles and systems governing GB. But please don't mistake my asserting that the Democratic Republic is the best form of government is just me being an arrogant American. Maybe - especially if I'm wrong - one can chalk up my assertion to me preferring what I'm most accustomed to and knowledgeable about. Maybe that is why you assert the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government?
Now - as for the Constitutional Monarchy... I agree that the Queen has performed her role in as exemplary a fashion as I believe is humanly possible. The world, not only GB, is blessed to have her. However, if the monarch truly does have a real check on the balance of power in the structure of your government, then one person - not democratically elected - can have a major influence on your country. Although I know it isn't polite to talk of the death of the Queen - when it does happen, who's to say the next monarch will be as responsible with their position? This is part of the danger the US sought to avoid when forming its government.
Further - "sufficient majority" is a key phrase. In the US the process to change the Constitution requires "more" than a "super-majority". 2/3 of the states must agree to amend the Constitution OR 2/3 of both houses of the US Congress must adopt a proposed amendment and 3/4 of the states must ratify it. This means that it is extremely hard to change the ultimate law of the land and protects the minority/individual from the tyranny of the majority. Yet - with the will of a "sufficient majority" in favor of a change - fundamental changes to our supreme law can be enacted. This seems fair to me. How does GB's Constitutional Monarchy protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority?
You mentioned that the House of Lords has had its powers gradually eroded and doesn't really pose a serious check on the power of the House of Commons. Where does the monarchy stand as a check to the power of the House of Commons as compared to the House of Lords? What I'm really curious to learn is what serious checks exist to the power of the House of Commons? (Don't take me wrong - I really want to learn this one)
You assert that Europeans are more abhorrent to violent expression of political frustration (that is the kind of violence I was talking about - not war in general) than Americans ... because the memory of WWII is still fresh in the memory of so many Europeans. By a percentage of citizens in each ... I'm not sure that Europe has more people who remember WWII than the US. Would we be able to agree that both the US and Europe are equally opposed to violence as a way to voice political ideas/frustrations?
I'm not sure what you meant by saying Democracy is older in Europe. As far as I'm concerned the United States is just a colonial offshoot of Europe. The basis of our culture and societal philosophies are one and the same. We can both look back to Greece (if I'm not mistaken) for the roots to our common democratic philosophy. And John Locke (1632-1704), the father of American Political Philosophy, was British, was he not? I'm just curious ... you're not trying to assert that the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government because it has been around longer, are you?
Once again ... Thank You for your intelligent and detailed post. I'm learning quite a bit. I look forward to reading more.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
I'm so sorry @Sammy_boy, I didn't mean to skip responding to your post.
I agree - The litigious nature of our societies does seem to be a factor in the weakening of the faith in our government and the belief that people can look to government to help solve our problems equitably. Tort reform is in order!
But it is a balancing act:
Make a plaintiff pay when they fail to win their case?
+ pro: Less frivolous lawsuits. Less harassment - more just compensation for real issues.
- con: People with limited means would be heavily discouraged from pursuing even legitimate cases against big, well funded entities (read big business).
Cap or Limit the awards to litigants in Tort cases?
+ pro: Industries like medical (one of the most costly line items in any societies budget) breath a sigh of relief as they don't have to worry as much about being put out of business for even a simple mistake. Costs of these kinds of services go down, making them more accessible to low income people.
-con: The ability for society to effectively use punitive damages or receive appropriate settlements against larger corporations and more egregious offenders is limited. Business and Industry is primarily about making a profit - and the only real incentive a business has to make real changes is when it will make a real/significant difference on the bottom line. It also prevents judges from deciding the best remedies on a case by case basis.
I'd like to hear other tort reform proposals - as well as any further thoughts. Although this is a problem in just about any form of government - hence it might be a good subject for another thread - I'm very interested in discussing it.
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-25 16:31 ] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
What happened to this poor thread. Did I squash yet another discussion? 
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
I'm awfully sorry I haven't replied earlier, but I was summerring and I didn't get the chance to.
Britain has no written constitution, instead we have an unwritten constitution, which has been passed down for centuries, based upon Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Norse, and Norman tradition and laws as well as English commom-law and Scots law. There is nothing therefore to prevent a government from passing a law setting up a dicatorship, nothing except for two very important factors. The first is that the armed forces, although paid by parliament, swear allegiance to the Soveriegn, thus assuring, in theory at least, that neither can use the armed forces against the other. The other factor is no less important; governments call elections and hand over power because of a sense of fairplay and sportsmanship, as I said there is nothing to stop them from hanging on to power, save for their sense of fairplay.
I am not suggesting that our system is better than the U.S. system because it is older, I am suggesting that our system is better for us because it is older. Great Britain has been governed under our present system in one form or another for more than a millenium with one brief interruption, the people have not seen fit in all that time to swap the system for another e.g. an elected republic. British democracy has evolved over the past thousand or so years and will continue to evolve at the same slow pace.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2004-08-04 00:52 ] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
How is the Monarchy involved in the running of the military in GB?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
The military swear allegiance to the Soveriegn, the armed forces are the monarch's armed forces, not the government's. In theory the government uses the armed forces on behalf of the Soveriegn, but in reality it is the government who make the decisions. The armed forces are paid by parliament through general taxation, but the oath of allegiance to the Soveriegn makes them the Soveriegn's armed forces. In theory military property is owned by the Queen in her role as the Crown, which translates as parliament having control over said military assets.
Various members of the Royal Family are Colonel-in-Chief of one or more regiments, thus giving them symbolic roles within the military, the Soveriegn being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. It is quite common for members of the Royal Family to join the military e.g. HM the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, etc. Both the Duke of Edinburgh an Prince Andrew have seen active service, during WWII and the Falkland's War, respectively. HM the Queen served in the military during WWII, although she did not see active service owing to the fact that women were not allowed to take part in front line fighting in those days.
The Soveriegn acts in a similar role to that, which I have outlined above, in th various other nations that have the British Monarch as Head of State e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc
Interestingly enough the Duke of Argyll was the only man in Britain to have an army besides HM the Queen up until his death a few years ago.
Anohe rinteresting fact, which I have just remembered, is that King George II, in the eighteenth century, was the last British King to lead troops into battle.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
So, what stops the Queen from just saying she's sick of helping the US in Iraq and bringing the British troops home right now?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
HM the Queen acts on the advice of her ministers, that is to say that she signs legislation that has been agreed upon by parliament and decisions taken taken by Ministers. In theory HM the Queen does not have to take this advice, but in practice this never happens. Military decisions are made by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister, the Queen has no real say in how the army is run, although the Prime Minister would take advice from HM the Queen at his weekly meeting with her. The Queen could recommend that the Prime Minister recall British troops, but he wouldn't be obliged to do so, although the Queen would never make such a demand. There is a rule that members of the Royal Family do not become involved in politics, so HM the Queen is unable to act in any political capacity outside of her official powers.
HM the Queen's role in the armed forces is largely ceremonial, the actual decsions are made by government Ministers, although it would be a foolish Minister who didn't at least listen to advice given by HM the Queen.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
She has the power to block legislation and the Military is sworn to her, but there are rules she doesn't act in a political way? Ceremonial, tradition, history - I can see how these things have become so very important in the governance of GB/UK. However, so far I'm still under the impression that under a Constitutional Monarchy, the sovereign may not exercise their power and just let their "advisers" do as they see fit - yet at any time this could change. And it appears that Ceremony, tradition, history are the things standing in the way of a would be tyrant - not a legitimate legal structure? Can you point me in the right direction here if I'm wrong?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
You have essentially 'hit the nail on the head', it is very much a case of tradition; as I said there is no written constitution for the U.K. This system has served us very well for centuries and I see absolutely no need to change it now. I should also point out that your use of the term G.B (meaning 'Great Britain') is not the correct terminology to use when speaking in a political sense as it only refers to the island of Great Britain and excludes Northern Ireland, which is also a part of the U.K.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Thank you for the correction ... that is why I included UK there because I wasn't sure. So you then agree that the only thing keeping the monarch from being a tyrant is tradition?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-in-CA
I feel you have missed the point somewhat; it isn't so much the case that the monarch may become a tyrant, rather it is parliament that may become tyrannical. In this regard it really is very little more than tradition and fair play that keeps this from happening.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Yes, I see your point. It is the commons that seems to be the center of power for the UK. Yet, although there doesn't seem to be a reason to change it now - it still tends to concern me that the checks on the power of the commons are not very strong.
The President of the US is rather powerful, but congress and the courts can put him in his place rather easily. Example: Bush wanted detainees in Guantanamo Bay to not have a day in court ... but the Supreme Court recently handed Bush a paddling, telling him he must allow them the opportunity to go to court.
It gets confusing and frequently frustrating ironing out all the posturing and movement in the US Government but through deliberate process, lots of pushing and shoving, and protracted contesting - we frequently arrive at a reasonably good position.
And the process is written law, not unwritten tradition, so that we rely less on history, tradition, and a sense of "fair-play" to grant legitimacy to the functions of government. I like it that way.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-07-25 11:51
