question about incidents in parliament in the uk

Ah, fair enough. So you're just saying the Monarch should interfere more in the lawmaking process? Your whole system would be the Monarch trying harder? Doesn't tally with the other parts you've written, if you've just snuck a 'try' in a later post, really.

Protest in today's society? You're talking students/doctors/anti-war etc, I was talking about MPs. If democratically elected Members of Parliament are protesting that laws they have voted on are being overturned by the Monarch that's a different level of magnitude.

Each MP isn't impartial in politics if that's what your implying, that's why we have political parties. However, there is Government and The Opposition, bills have to be voted on (many times, freely, to the individual MP's conscience) and there is The Lords as well. You're proposing one single individual deciding what's legal and what's not. Maybe "impartial" was the wrong word to use, but I used "well balanced" as well. The Monarch on their own has no mechanism to discuss and debate a proposed overturning, it would simply be what they think is right.

Doesn't Parliament control the civil list, does controlling the crown's purse, I know way back when they used to threaten reductions in the civil list to push the crown toward their point of view. Furthermore, if a monarch can justify their reason for preventing a bill being passed, could Parliament, or a group of MPs not then present a motion for they think the bill should be passed, thus starting an actual conversation?

Indeed it would be, but after observations, their own views formed through research and learning, and through speaking to the people the bill could well effect, could they not make an informed decision?
 
Was running over this scenario with a friend and this is what they had to say, your thoughts on all of this would be appreciated:

Parliament is destroyed in 2015 by a Islamist terror attacked, that coupled with the migration crisis of millions of Muslims flowing into Europe will destroy the EU
Which would likely cause a global financial crash
Witch will embolden Russia
Witch will effect NATO
Witch will weaken the US
Witch China will exploit
Witch will worry India
Witch will cause Pakistan to react more irraticly

Nitpick - If the first 'Which' is correct what spell has been cast for all the rest to be wrong!?
 

Deleted member 94680

Doesn't Parliament control the civil list, does controlling the crown's purse, I know way back when they used to threaten reductions in the civil list to push the crown toward their point of view.

Well since 2011 it's been the Sovereign Support Grant rather than the Civil List, but I never remember Government threatening to reduce it to change the Monarch's (who I thought you were saying didn't have enough power?) point of view, rather maybe due to budget constraints. Then again it was the same amount for the last 10 years (£7.9m a year), so your memory must go further back than mine. Looking on Wikipedia it's been against the law since '72 to reduce the payment anyway.

Furthermore, if a monarch can justify their reason for preventing a bill being passed, could Parliament, or a group of MPs not then present a motion for they think the bill should be passed, thus starting an actual conversation?

So, parliament passes a law, then the Dictator (sorry, Monarch) says "No, I'm not happy, I'm going to prevent this passing." then parliament has to convince the Monarch to relent and pass the law? Sounds like a great system.

Indeed it would be, but after observations, their own views formed through research and learning, and through speaking to the people the bill could well effect, could they not make an informed decision?

Any one individual making a decision (no matter how informed they think it is) is not democracy. What happens if it's something they personally disagree with? Parliament could pass it with an overwhelming majority, but as it's against the Monarch's personal views, they block it from passing.
 
Well since 2011 it's been the Sovereign Support Grant rather than the Civil List, but I never remember Government threatening to reduce it to change the Monarch's (who I thought you were saying didn't have enough power?) point of view, rather maybe due to budget constraints. Then again it was the same amount for the last 10 years (£7.9m a year), so your memory must go further back than mine. Looking on Wikipedia it's been against the law since '72 to reduce the payment anyway.



So, parliament passes a law, then the Dictator (sorry, Monarch) says "No, I'm not happy, I'm going to prevent this passing." then parliament has to convince the Monarch to relent and pass the law? Sounds like a great system.



Any one individual making a decision (no matter how informed they think it is) is not democracy. What happens if it's something they personally disagree with? Parliament could pass it with an overwhelming majority, but as it's against the Monarch's personal views, they block it from passing.

A fair point, but one that raises an interesting question then, the monarch has made a call, would Parliament stand up to them, or not. If they do, then what reasons do they give, and how does the monarch either defend or concede their position. Stuff like that would be more interesting to see, than having the monarch simply rubber stamp the thing and so on and so forth.
 

Deleted member 94680

A fair point, but one that raises an interesting question then, the monarch has made a call, would Parliament stand up to them, or not. If they do, then what reasons do they give, and how does the monarch either defend or concede their position. Stuff like that would be more interesting to see, than having the monarch simply rubber stamp the thing and so on and so forth.

Why would that be interesting as opposed to another needless layer of bureaucracy on the law making process in this country? So you want an unelected President-for-life?
 

Deleted member 94680

I guess you could say that sure.

I take it you prefer a parliamentary monarchy? If so why is that?

Because it has checks and balances but doesn't require interference on a regular basis. I even think (controversially, these days) the House of Lords with Hereditary Peers is the best form of Upper House, provided no one Party has a preponderance. By having the Monarch as head of state, it avoids American-style politicisation of the role.
 
I see and do you not think the system requires a bit of a shake up? Or is apathy better than some sort of activity?
 

Deleted member 94680

I see and do you not think the system requires a bit of a shake up? Or is apathy better than some sort of activity?

I don't think the system requires a shake up, no. It's not apathy if you agree with the system that's already in place.

I certainly don't agree with appointing a dictator.
 
Top