British Army is actually the Royal Army

Susano

Banned
In theory yes, though as Thande points out, the unelected House of Lords has blocked several unpopular motions in recent times.

Of course the best solution for that is not to hope that some unelected guys by chance happen be on the same side as the people but to put the leash on government by more direct democracy...
 
Partially unwritten, at least, surely. I don't think there's anything written down to say, for example, that the Queen can't refuse assent to bills passed by Parliament at her whim, dismiss Gordon Brown tomorrow and replace him with Noel Edmonds, or order the naval bombardment of La Rochelle next week.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Bill of Rghts a 'conventional law'? I'm not aware of there being anything more preventing the Bill of Rights being repealed by a straight majority vote of Parliament than there is in repealing the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1953 - which is at odds with what most people consider a constitution.
What most people consider a constitution really doesn't matter. A constitution, at its root, is surely just the laws providing the framework for governance and legal rights within a state. Nothing about it has to be protected in any specific way, whether it be by two-thirds vote or anything else.

It's also worth noting that despite the lack of such a safeguard, the British constitution has survived longer and certainly more stably than almost any other.
 
Of course the best solution for that is not to hope that some unelected guys by chance happen be on the same side as the people but to put the leash on government by more direct democracy...

But don't you see now the priveledged classes realise that they only keep those priveledges by doing what the people want. Hence when the Commons decide to go against public opinion then the Lords can seize the opportunity to be relevent and remind the public way they need them. At least thats my POV.
 

Susano

Banned
But don't you see now the priveledged classes realise that they only keep those priveledges by doing what the people want. Hence when the Commons decide to go against public opinion then the Lords can seize the opportunity to be relevent and remind the public way they need them. At least thats my POV.

But that only works as long as the House of Lords IS actually under threat, and hence HAS to care for public support, which means all the proposals of reform are good and productive in that regard, one could say - because it puts the Lord under stress.
 
Of course the best solution for that is not to hope that some unelected guys by chance happen be on the same side as the people but to put the leash on government by more direct democracy...
This assumes that such direct democracy will always function in a positive manner. As California shows this isn't always the case. Often democracy must be tempered by pragmitism and dedication to liberty.
 
This assumes that such direct democracy will always function in a positive manner. As California shows this isn't always the case. Often democracy must be tempered by pragmitism and dedication to liberty.

The problem with California is not direct democracy, it is requiring 2/3 majority for tax increases AND to pass a budget. The combination of those two requirements is a recipe for deadlock in the legislature which is why there's a problem.
 
It's also worth noting that despite the lack of such a safeguard, the British constitution has survived longer and certainly more stably than almost any other.

As the constitution is what Parliament says it is, then it's kind of difficult for it not to survive. The great strength of course.

Actually it happened under Victoria as well.

Nope. The last monarch to refuse royal assent was Queen Anne.

Also, it 'swung back' during Victoria early reign? Uh? Care to put some flesh on that one?

I do love, btw, this romantic idea you have that the Windsors are the slumbering guardians of the constitution. In reality, the Windsors will do (and have done) anything to survive politically, and are as likely to involve themselves in anything particularly controversial as a daytime TV presenter is.
 
Last edited:

67th Tigers

Banned
Nope. The last monarch to refuse royal assent was Queen Anne.

Also, it 'swung back' during Victoria early reign? Uh? Care to put some flesh on that one?

Depends, the Monarch must also consent to Bills being heard. The last time a monarch quashed such a bill was 1999 (at the request of the government). Anne was the last to refuse an Act of Parliament (although KGV came close in 1914, and was told in no uncertain terms it would end his tenure as King-Emperor).

The "swing back" is really late Georgian (under the Prince Regent/ KGIV), and it went badly. Power swung back to Parliament when Victoria removed herself from political life in 1862. The late Victorian era had Britain as a de facto, but not de jure republic.
 
Depends, the Monarch must also consent to Bills being heard.

Only on bills which affect the royal prerogative. The 1999 bill was IIRC a backbench one concering Kosovo, which would have modified the ability to declare war; which is a royal prerogative. The government of the day would have wanted no truck with that.

The "swing back" is really late Georgian (under the Prince Regent/ KGIV), and it went badly.

My dispute would be a) that there was a swing back in the first place (there was no recession) and that b) it ended with mid-Victoria. It was in the main ended before then - c.f William IV's abortive attempt to remove Melbourne etc.
 
Last edited:
Top