Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace

711 said:
If we had no monarchy then a completely non-political president would be my preference. As you say 'really no different'. At least with Queenie and Charles (who learned eventually) we can be pretty sure they will be non-political, with anyone else there could be a doubt.

I would be a republican rather than a monarchist in theory but the thing is, it's working, so I don't see any reason to change in the near future.
Click to expand...

Is it working? The PM breaks the ministerial code, lies to Parliament about it, refuses to resign, eventually admits he broke the code, still refuses to resign, changes the code so that breaking it isn't a resigning matter...and what can the queen do to stop this? Seemingly absolutely nothing.

When the PM can be almost entirely unaccountable despite having won only about 40% of the vote even when he was popular, then I don't think that can be considered a system that's working. Except from the viewpoint of the PM of course.
 
TwoSheds said:
Is it working? The PM breaks the ministerial code, lies to Parliament about it, refuses to resign, eventually admits he broke the code, still refuses to resign, changes the code so that breaking it isn't a resigning matter...and what can the queen do to stop this? Seemingly absolutely nothing.

When the PM can be almost entirely unaccountable despite having won only about 40% of the vote even when he was popular, then I don't think that can be considered a system that's working. Except from the viewpoint of the PM of course.
Click to expand...
What's the story there in short?

Johnson having a party while in lockdown or something else?
 
A ceremonial head of state duty bound to stay out of political life is preferable to some fame-hungry media whore looking to exert pressure and leverage to help him or her get bigger book sales or viewing figures for their upcoming reality TV show.

Changing the entire system to a presidential one and electing the head of state is another conversation. But if we’re having a ceremonial head of state I think this one takes some beating
 
TwoSheds said:
Is it working? The PM breaks the ministerial code, lies to Parliament about it, refuses to resign, eventually admits he broke the code, still refuses to resign, changes the code so that breaking it isn't a resigning matter...and what can the queen do to stop this? Seemingly absolutely nothing.

When the PM can be almost entirely unaccountable despite having won only about 40% of the vote even when he was popular, then I don't think that can be considered a system that's working. Except from the viewpoint of the PM of course.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in that do you mention the role of the Queen or other potential head of state.

Johnson could be removed at next the general election. He could be removed by his own party, he very nearly has been.

Imagine a situation where Corbyn had been elected PM and two years later Johnson was elected president, with power over the PM, would you be happy with that?

I prefer a non-political head of state personally.
 
TwoSheds said:
Is it working? The PM breaks the ministerial code, lies to Parliament about it, refuses to resign, eventually admits he broke the code, still refuses to resign, changes the code so that breaking it isn't a resigning matter...and what can the queen do to stop this? Seemingly absolutely nothing.

When the PM can be almost entirely unaccountable despite having won only about 40% of the vote even when he was popular, then I don't think that can be considered a system that's working. Except from the viewpoint of the PM of course.
Click to expand...
Lying to Parliament is still a resigning matter, even after the changes.
 
711 said:
Nowhere in that do you mention the role of the Queen or other potential head of state.

Johnson could be removed at next the general election. He could be removed by his own party, he very nearly has been.

Imagine a situation where Corbyn had been elected PM and two years later Johnson was elected president, with power over the PM, would you be happy with that?

I prefer a non-political head of state personally.
Click to expand...

Ok suppose we talk about lying to the queen to prorogue parliament. And seemingly she can't or won't do anything about it. It's a ludicrous situation.

And I can only speak from my understanding of the Portuguese and Italian presidents - they actually elect grown ups to the position with gravitas. They only interfere in very serious constitutional situations (such as the dozens of situations Johnson and his gang of thieves have created). You could even codify what the president is and isn't allowed to do in a written constitution, crazy idea I know.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Lying to Parliament is still a resigning matter, even after the changes.
Click to expand...

Only if the parliament vote for it. Which they won't because the Tories will never side with Labour over their own leader no matter how much of a bastard. As long as they have a big majority he's basically untouchable.
 
TwoSheds said:
Ok suppose we talk about lying to the queen to prorogue parliament. And seemingly she can't or won't do anything about it. It's a ludicrous situation.

And I can only speak from my understanding of the Portuguese and Italian presidents - they actually elect grown ups to the position with gravitas. They only interfere in very serious constitutional situations (such as the dozens of situations Johnson and his gang of thieves have created). You could even codify what the president is and isn't allowed to do in a written constitution, crazy idea I know.
Click to expand...
If the electorate believe a PM has lied to the Queen they can vote him out. Or his own party can, and quite likely has done if the next few weeks pan out as expected.
 
stw2022 said:
A ceremonial head of state duty bound to stay out of political life is preferable to some fame-hungry media whore looking to exert pressure and leverage to help him or her get bigger book sales or viewing figures for their upcoming reality TV show.

Changing the entire system to a presidential one and electing the head of state is another conversation. But if we’re having a ceremonial head of state I think this one takes some beating
Click to expand...

You can have neither. You don't have to have a President just because you removed the monarchy.
 
711 said:
Nowhere in that do you mention the role of the Queen or other potential head of state.

Johnson could be removed at next the general election. He could be removed by his own party, he very nearly has been.

Imagine a situation where Corbyn had been elected PM and two years later Johnson was elected president, with power over the PM, would you be happy with that?

I prefer a non-political head of state personally.
Click to expand...

I just don't think it makes sense to have a person who thinks they have a god-given right to be King/Queen ruling over a society that proclaims to be equal. How on earth can we have that person be signing legislation like the Equality Act. It's entirely symbolic of the ongoing wealth inequality in this country.
 
sparx99 said:
You can have neither. You don't have to have a President just because you removed the monarchy.
Click to expand...

Are there any countries using that as a model? I can't think of any, although I guess you could call non-democratic one party states a government with no head of state.

All of the democratic countries with a single level structure are presidential that I can think of.
 
Wibble said:
If not sooner :)

Except what would Australia do? We plainly don't feel mature enough to govern ourselves yet and need some posh foreigner to do it for us.
Click to expand...

I really dont understand how such a brash and cocky country, quite capable of looking after itself, still cant cut mummy's apron strings and still has the butchers apron on its flag.
 
711 said:
If the electorate believe a PM has lied to the Queen they can vote him out. Or his own party can, and quite likely has done if the next few weeks pan out as expected.
Click to expand...

Actually the electorate can't until the government decides to call an election. 2024 for reference so they can get away with almost any shitty behaviour they like between now and then as long as they're all agreed on their direction of bastardousness. And even then, they're borrowing voter suppression tactics from the States such as requiring ID to vote, so what was already a very poor winner takes all electoral system is now going to be even less democratic.
 
TwoSheds said:
Ok suppose we talk about lying to the queen to prorogue parliament. And seemingly she can't or won't do anything about it. It's a ludicrous situation.

And I can only speak from my understanding of the Portuguese and Italian presidents - they actually elect grown ups to the position with gravitas. They only interfere in very serious constitutional situations (such as the dozens of situations Johnson and his gang of thieves have created). You could even codify what the president is and isn't allowed to do in a written constitution, crazy idea I know.
Click to expand...

Italy, seriously? Have you forgotten Berlusconi already?

Or do you mean like in the US, oh wait :wenger:
 
Sassy Colin said:
Italy, seriously? Have you forgotten Berlusconi already?

Or do you mean like in the US, oh wait :wenger:
Click to expand...

Berlusconi wasn't the president, he was the prime minister. Sergio Mattarella is the president and is a pretty dignified, well respected politician as I understand it. It's a very limited role, he just has to attend some events and sort out the mess the toddlers below him make from time to time. Exactly what we would want right now for example.
 
TwoSheds said:
Actually the electorate can't until the government decides to call an election. 2024 for reference so they can get away with almost any shitty behaviour they like between now and then as long as they're all agreed on their direction of bastardousness. And even then, they're borrowing voter suppression tactics from the States such as requiring ID to vote, so what was already a very poor winner takes all electoral system is now going to be even less democratic.
Click to expand...
The electorate only get to vote at an election? Thanks for that. And an elected president would be completely different I suppose.
 
711 said:
The electorate only get to vote at an election? Thanks for that. And an elected president would be completely different I suppose.
Click to expand...

If there are no standards in parliament that can cause the prime minister to have to resign then he can do whatever he likes as long as he doesn't get sent to jail. Which is bad. Is this a difficult concept for you?

If you committed gross misconduct at work do you think you ought to get another 2-3 years' free pass to commit a bit more gross misconduct before anyone got a chance to sack you?
 
TwoSheds said:
If there are no standards in parliament that can cause the prime minister to have to resign then he can do whatever he likes as long as he doesn't get sent to jail. Which is bad. Is this a difficult concept for you?

If you committed gross misconduct at work do you think you ought to get another 2-3 years' free pass to commit a bit more gross misconduct before anyone got a chance to sack you?
Click to expand...
Why should it be? Why so condescending?

You seem to be making an argument for a written constitution and have jumped to the conclusion that I oppose one. Not so, I could quite easily vote for one, depending what it was of course.
 
711 said:
Why should it be? Why so condescending?

You seem to be making an argument for a written constitution and have jumped to the conclusion that I oppose one. Not so, I could quite easily vote for one, depending what it was of course.
Click to expand...

Ok se we're not arguing then, marvellous.
 
Balljy said:
Are there any countries using that as a model? I can't think of any, although I guess you could call non-democratic one party states a government with no head of state.

All of the democratic countries with a single level structure are presidential that I can think of.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you mainly have ceremonial Presidencies operating in a similar manner to the Queen. It's a largely redundant role though and is mainly used for wining and dining foreign dignatories. Canada & Australia technically have the Queen as Head of State but she doesn't sign their laws like she does ours. They certainly wouldn't see any change if she was removed. Ireland technically have a President but the role has no power.
 
If Britain had a constitution, effectively a law passed by parliament, I think I would prefer it to be upheld and arbitrated by the supreme court rather than a president or queen. There could be a role for one of them in referring a matter to the court, or better having a trigger number of MPs to do so. Just a thought, happy to be shot down. :)
 
711 said:
If Britain had a constitution, effectively a law passed by parliament, I think I would prefer it to be upheld and arbitrated by the supreme court rather than a president or queen. There could be a role for one of them in referring a matter to the court, or better having a trigger number of MPs to do so. Just a thought, happy to be shot down. :)
Click to expand...

I agree I think. Although a lot of people want a constitution that method has fundamental flaws as much as our system of precedence. They're good for a while, but need to change with the times (see the US for when that doesn't happen), but it can't be too easily changed as to make it an issue for corrupt governments to twist it into keeping in power.

Having something elected and non-political makes it a good option for the courts to be able to decide on new laws. The problem is, who chooses the supreme court. See the US again for how that can be manipulated to favour a party.
 
Balljy said:
I agree I think. Although a lot of people want a constitution that method has fundamental flaws as much as our system of precedence. They're good for a while, but need to change with the times (see the US for when that doesn't happen), but it can't be too easily changed as to make it an issue for corrupt governments to twist it into keeping in power.

Having something elected and non-political makes it a good option for the courts to be able to decide on new laws. The problem is, who chooses the supreme court. See the US again for how that can be manipulated to favour a party.
Click to expand...
I was ahead of the last point but it was starting to get too much to think about all at once
 
711 said:
The electorate only get to vote at an election? Thanks for that. And an elected president would be completely different I suppose.
Click to expand...

Why are you advocating for a president? We don’t need one. Or a Queen. We should take most of their shit, leave them with a few million each. We don’t need to replace them.
 
stw2022 said:
A ceremonial head of state duty bound to stay out of political life is preferable to some fame-hungry media whore looking to exert pressure and leverage to help him or her get bigger book sales or viewing figures for their upcoming reality TV show.

Changing the entire system to a presidential one and electing the head of state is another conversation. But if we’re having a ceremonial head of state I think this one takes some beating
Click to expand...

I didn’t know we had a Daily Mail columnist in our ranks!
 
I see that the Queen wouldn't allow Harry and Meghan to have a picture taken of her with their daughter. I expect she thought they'd go back to the States and flog it to National Enquirer.
 
Penna said:
I see that the Queen wouldn't allow Harry and Meghan to have a picture taken of her with their daughter. I expect she thought they'd go back to the States and flog it to National Enquirer.
Click to expand...

Says a lot about all of them if she wouldn't allow a picture with her great granddaughter. Both Harry and Meghan's standing in the family, and the Queens own attitude.
 
Penna said:
I see that the Queen wouldn't allow Harry and Meghan to have a picture taken of her with their daughter. I expect she thought they'd go back to the States and flog it to National Enquirer.
Click to expand...

They also couldn't bring their Netflix cameras to film footage from the weekend for their documentary.
 
I reckon her majesty will stand down fully within 18 months and maybe has a life span upto 3 at most.

The rate she is cancelling events lately is a concern.

Even the Queen mother was going stronger at this stage.

I believe losing Philip has really had a huge impact on her health.

I think the Royal Family are going to be hit hard once she goes.

Charles just won't be accepted I feel as a king, William & Kate would fair better, however, I see Harry & Megan causing them a lot of headaches.
 
choccy77 said:
I reckon her majesty will stand down fully within 18 months and maybe has a life span upto 3 at most.

The rate she is cancelling events lately is a concern.

Even the Queen mother was going stronger at this stage.

I believe losing Philip has really had a huge impact on her health.
Click to expand...

ITK?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.