This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

£ vs. $ — Brooklynian

£ vs. $

Comments

  • boygabriel
    boygabriel
    lolol.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    Australia. Just way out there.

    image

    Mary Gilmore "followed William Lane and other socialist idealists to Paraguay in 1896, where they had established a communal settlement called New Australia..."
  • rtraindweller
    rtraindweller
    haha. loves it.
  • sprite
    sprite
    Clever. Of course, the UK's head of state is also head of the state church, but that's irrelevant, because they don't really mean that religious mumbo jumbo. It's just tradition! ;)
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    sprite wrote: Clever. Of course, the UK's head of state is also head of the state church, but that's irrelevant, because they don't really mean that religious mumbo jumbo. It's just tradition! ;)
    Back in the day that may have been true, but now the real head of state is the PM, and s/he isn't the head of the state church.
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    Carnivore wrote: [quote=sprite]Clever. Of course, the UK's head of state is also head of the state church, but that's irrelevant, because they don't really mean that religious mumbo jumbo. It's just tradition! ;)
    Back in the day that may have been true, but now the real head of state is the PM, and s/he isn't the head of the state church.

    Huh?? Since when?? The UK is a constitutional monarchy, the Church of England is the established church, with Elizabeth its head. Ok, this is mostly ceremonial and formalities, she generally doesn't actually exercise her ecclesiastical or political powers beyond a very fancy rubber stamp, but as far as I know nothing has changed in a legal sense in a very long time. Why else does she open parliament and give a speech outlining the government's agenda for the term? Why else does the liturgy of the Anglican church around the world include a prayer for her each week? Plus, there have been times in other Commonwealth Realms with the same arrangement as the UK where in recent decades the Queen's local representative has actually exercised those reserve political powers.
  • drano
    drano
    doctorj wrote: Huh?? Since when?? The UK is a constitutional monarchy, the Church of England is the established church, with Elizabeth its head. Ok, this is mostly ceremonial and formalities, she generally doesn't actually exercise her ecclesiastical or political powers beyond a very fancy rubber stamp, but as far as I know nothing has changed in a legal sense in a very long time. Why else does she open parliament and give a speech outlining the government's agenda for the term? Why else does the liturgy of the Anglican church around the world include a prayer for her each week? Plus, there have been times in other Commonwealth Realms with the same arrangement as the UK where in recent decades the Queen's local representative has actually exercised those reserve political powers.
    There's no reason to take such a Cavalier attitude.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    doctorj wrote: [quote=Carnivore][quote=sprite]Clever. Of course, the UK's head of state is also head of the state church, but that's irrelevant, because they don't really mean that religious mumbo jumbo. It's just tradition! ;)
    Back in the day that may have been true, but now the real head of state is the PM, and s/he isn't the head of the state church.

    Huh?? Since when?? The UK is a constitutional monarchy, the Church of England is the established church, with Elizabeth its head. Ok, this is mostly ceremonial and formalities, she generally doesn't actually exercise her ecclesiastical or political powers beyond a very fancy rubber stamp, but as far as I know nothing has changed in a legal sense in a very long time. Why else does she open parliament and give a speech outlining the government's agenda for the term? Why else does the liturgy of the Anglican church around the world include a prayer for her each week? Plus, there have been times in other Commonwealth Realms with the same arrangement as the UK where in recent decades the Queen's local representative has actually exercised those reserve political powers.

    The monarch is a figurehead only. The PM has the real power.
  • daver
    daver
    Carnivore wrote: The monarch is a figurehead only. The PM has the real power.
    Today, the monarch's role is constitutional, and limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours. Despite this, the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still, by and through, the monarch's royal prerogative. Such powers include the dissolution of parliament, and the making of the rules for the government and regulation of the civil service and the armed forces.
    The Royal Prerogative includes many powers, such as the powers to dissolve Parliament, regulate the civil service, issue passports, make treaties or send ambassadors, and duties such as the duties to defend the realm and to maintain the Queen's peace. As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch acts within the constraints of convention and precedent, exercising the Royal Prerogative on the advice of ministers. Parliamentary approval is not required for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; the Consent of the Crown must be obtained before either House may even debate a bill affecting the Sovereign's prerogatives or interests.
    The Royal Prerogative with respect to domestic affairs is extensive. The Crown is responsible for the appointment and dismissal of ministers, Privy Counsellors, members of various executive agencies and other officials.
    The Royal Prerogative extends to foreign affairs. The Sovereign may negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements; no parliamentary approval is required.
    The Sovereign is deemed the "fount of justice", and is responsible for rendering justice for all subjects.
    The Sovereign is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the officially established church in England, with the power to appoint archbishops and bishops.
    But yah, the PM effectively does many of these things. The final power rests with the Crown though. I wonder what would happen if the Crown began taking a more active role again. ?
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    daver wrote: But yah, the PM effectively does many of these things. The final power rests with the Crown though. I wonder what would happen if the Crown began taking a more active role again. ?
    Oven revolt. :wink:
  • drano
    drano
    Anybody? "Cavalier"? Anybody? Is that crickets I hear? Dammit, foiled again...
  • doctorj
    doctorj
    Carnivore wrote: [quote=daver]But yah, the PM effectively does many of these things. The final power rests with the Crown though. I wonder what would happen if the Crown began taking a more active role again. ?
    Oven revolt. :wink:

    This actually happened in 1975, not in the UK, but in Australia which has the same system, same Queen. There was no open revolt as a result. The reserve powers of the crown were used to resolve a parliamentary crisis (deadlock between the two houses, blocking the supply of money). Faced with the shutdown of government, what happened was that the crown stepped in on the sole initiative of the Queen's representative who'd read the rule-book and fired the prime minister, picking instead the leader of the opposition as the new prime minister of a minority government in exchange for a guarantee that this would resolve the short-term deadlock, then scheduling an election ASAP to return to democracy. The same thing would probably happen if a similar situation arose in the UK (parliamentary deadlock between the two houses). When necessary, the Queen can and would fire the UK Prime Minister and pick someone else to resolve a crisis. Same situation in DK, SE, NO, etc. where the monarch is head of state (and in some cases still head of state church) though they're less prone to a standoff due to a unicameral parliament.

    There is no equivalent in the US because the president combines both head of state and executive while the legislature is separate, whereas in a parliamentary system the head of state is separate and the legislature and executive are combined in the office of PM. The opposite situation arises in the US, which is impeachment, where the legislature can fire the president.

    This is not a bad system, having the reserve powers residing with a monarch. In most countries what happens in a crisis of government is that it's the military that take control, and the US is closer to that than most constitutional monarchies (Thailand notwithstanding). Nixon could have gone that route in '74.

    What amuses me though, is that Anglicans worldwide have been involved in a bitter struggle the last 30 years over whether women were fit to be A) deacons, then B) priests, then C) bishops. This argument is not over, and is part of what is splitting the church in two. While all the time, the highest-ranking supreme governor of the church was a woman.
  • sprite
    sprite
    Drano wrote: Anybody? "Cavalier"? Anybody? Is that crickets I hear? Dammit, foiled again...
    Not so! I just haven't been online lately. Once I read it, I laughed out loud. :)
  • sprite
    sprite
    "Carnivore" wrote: [quote=daver]This is not a bad system, having the reserve powers residing with a monarch. In most countries what happens in a crisis of government is that it's the military that take control, and the US is closer to that than most constitutional monarchies (Thailand notwithstanding). Nixon could have gone that route in '74.
    I read somewhere that he actually talked about it, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff wouldn't let him. It's a good thing our soldiers take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the president.

    Also, thanks for that explanation of the monarch's role, doctorj. I've never understood how parliamentary systems functioned during a stalemate without a separate executive branch to handle emergencies. (Not that we've had a lot of luck with our own these last 8 years.)
  • daver
    daver
    sprite wrote: [quote=doctorj][quote=Carnivore][quote=daver wrote, but really it was doctorj]This is not a bad system, having the reserve powers residing with a monarch. In most countries what happens in a crisis of government is that it's the military that take control, and the US is closer to that than most constitutional monarchies (Thailand notwithstanding). Nixon could have gone that route in '74.
    Just for the record, the quote attributed to me above by sprite is actually doctorj. :D
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories