NeantHumain
Phoenix
![]()
Joined: Jun 25, 2004
Posts: 5119
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visagrunt wrote: | Of 38 monarchies in the world (I exclude Andorra and Vatican City, since their monarchies are not hereditary), 13 are too small to meaningfully measure their democracies. But 10 of them (Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Grenada, St.Kitt's & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) are Commonwealth realms with governments responsible to their Parliaments. The other three mini-monarchies are Liechtenstein, Monaco and Tonga--none of them hotbeds of repression.
Of the other 25, 12 are full democracies (listed above), 5 are flawed democracies (Jamaica, Lesotho, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and Thailand), 2 are hybrid states (Cambobia and Bhutan), and 6 are authoritarian regimes (Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Swaziland and the UAE).
If we include North Korea among the monarchies--and why shouldn't we?--then we have the curious notion that the most democratic nation on Earth (Norway) and the least (North Korea) are both hereditary monarchies. All of which should lead us to the conclusion that its not about the form that your constitution takes, but rather the degree to which your constitution translates into real political freedom. |
Well, if we use a classical Greek definition of monarchy, the United Kingdom really isn't. In a proper monarchy, power is vested in one person and perhaps delegated to ministers and trusted advisers from there. Many dictatorships are closer to this than a constitutional "monarchy" like the United Kingdom. Civil war has settled in the United Kingdom that Parliament is sovereign, reducing the king or queen to ceremonial figurehead. In a democracy, the people at large hold sovereignty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeantHumain wrote: | | Well, if we use a classical Greek definition of monarchy, the United Kingdom really isn't. In a proper monarchy, power is vested in one person and perhaps delegated to ministers and trusted advisers from there. Many dictatorships are closer to this than a constitutional "monarchy" like the United Kingdom. Civil war has settled in the United Kingdom that Parliament is sovereign, reducing the king or queen to ceremonial figurehead. In a democracy, the people at large hold sovereignty. |
True enough, at least to some extent. However, the question is not why the British people don't change their constitutional structure. So even if the United Kingdom isn't a monarchy (or a collection of monarchies in personal union), the British Constitutions are still the basis for discussion.
I disagree, however, that the English Civil War settled questions as you suggest. While it certainly allowed Parliament to impose its will on Charles I, Charles II was restored to largely the same powers that his father held.
The Crown continued to hold a real and effective veto over the other two components of Parliament at least until the reign of Queen Anne.(Remember, the Queen is one of the three components of Parliament, to this day.) That veto power has clearly fallen away, but it has done so through desuetude, not through any statutory action on the part of Parliament. As recently as 1957, the Queen has exercised a direct, personal choice about her Prime Minister (when she selected Harold MacMillan over Rab Butler after the resignation of Eden). While the Conservative Party clearly could have taken control of the decision (as they did when Butler was again passed over in favour of Douglas-Home in 1963), they did not and the matter was definitively in the hands of the monarch. While such a scenario is unthinkable today, it is within the lifetime of some people on this board that real constitutional change was still taking place concerning the Sovereign's relationship with the Houses of Parliament.
I would suggest that the real change in the relationship between the Crown and the Houses of Parliament occurred not in 1642-1651, but in 1721-1730, with the development of the primacy of the First Lord of Treasury. This marks the separation of the Head of Government from the Head of State and the creation of Cabinet led, rather than Crown led government.
Finally, if the defintion of democracy relies upon a theory of sovereignty held by the people at large, then no such beast exists anywhere in the world. Certainly the United States' theory of government places sovereignty in the hands of the people--but that is no less theoretical than the sovereignty of the British monarch.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mummy_of_Peanut
Countess de Noir
Joined: Feb 21, 2011
Age: 40
Posts: 3475
Location: Bonnie Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | peebo wrote: | | david starkey has exposed himself on numerous occasions as being a stupid racist buffoon. so i wouldn't worry too much about what he says. |
Why is he a racist? Has he just said things that the politically correct coterie don't like? Couldn't be that could it?
|
If you were at the receiving end of his verbal diarrhoea, I'm sure you'd agree that he was racist. I've found some of his outbursts to be highly offensive, although I have the intelligence to know he's not as smart as he and others think he is. You don't have to be involved in acts of violence to be racist.
_________________
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, when all we need to make us really happy is something to be enthusiatic about." Charles Kingsley |
|
| Back to top |
|
91
Forgot the Candlesticks
Joined: Oct 31, 2010
Posts: 2502
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | | While it certainly allowed Parliament to impose its will on Charles I, Charles II was restored to largely the same powers that his father held. |
I would argue the change really happened with the 'Glorious Revolution', the parliament pretty much deposed the monarch at its will. The restablishment of absolute royal power by Charles II was very short lived. As to the original point, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They certainly have major issues, their parliament is not really one of them.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 91 wrote: | | visagrunt wrote: | | While it certainly allowed Parliament to impose its will on Charles I, Charles II was restored to largely the same powers that his father held. |
I would argue the change really happened with the 'Glorious Revolution', the parliament pretty much deposed the monarch at its will. The restablishment of absolute royal power by Charles II was very short lived. As to the original point, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. They certainly have major issues, their parliament is not really one of them. |
Let's be clear, Parliament would have been powerless to do so, had James II not abandoned the kingdoms at the end of December. Parliament did not invite William and Mary to take the throne until 1689, after James' departure. Meanwhile, James' motivation for departure was not simply Parliament's action, but William's landing at Torbay with an invading force, and popular unrest about his (and his newly born son's) Roman Catholicism.
The Glorious Revolution was only "Glorious" because James II was too feckless to exercise resistance. We like to paint it as the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown, but really it's the supremacy of Parliament over a vacant throne.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mummy_of_Peanut wrote: | | Tequila wrote: | | peebo wrote: | | david starkey has exposed himself on numerous occasions as being a stupid racist buffoon. so i wouldn't worry too much about what he says. |
Why is he a racist? Has he just said things that the politically correct coterie don't like? Couldn't be that could it?
|
If you were at the receiving end of his verbal diarrhoea, I'm sure you'd agree that he was racist. I've found some of his outbursts to be highly offensive, although I have the intelligence to know he's not as smart as he and others think he is. You don't have to be involved in acts of violence to be racist. |
unfortunately it is unlikely that tequila will reply to this, just as he neglected to respond to my comment on his ill conceived questions. i, however, am completely in agreement with you on mr. starkey.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
Almighty_CRJ
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: 60
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm surprised no person mentioned: The British really don't like politicians. Seriously the person in 10 Downing street is considered the second least competent man in the UK.
Besides, with our current system, a (or another) dictator couldn't happen. All politicians have to swear an oath to the queen. The Queen is the highest rank in the army - The prime minister has none, they're a civilian. The Queen signs law proposed by parliament. She owns the BBC & has compulsory purchase on all land outside embassy use.
Sounds like a dictator, true but 1 catch - The Queen didn't want this power. No vengeance, no societal hatred & no enemies. Absolute power with political apathy. A strong moral fail safe against parliament. That's a system the British would like to keep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26045
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Almighty_CRJ wrote: | | Besides, with our current system, a (or another) dictator couldn't happen. All politicians have to swear an oath to the queen. The Queen is the highest rank in the army - The prime minister has none, they're a civilian. The Queen signs law proposed by parliament. She owns the BBC & has compulsory purchase on all land outside embassy use. |
It's all theoretical. The Prime Minister and the Government have all the real power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
91
Forgot the Candlesticks
Joined: Oct 31, 2010
Posts: 2502
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visagrunt wrote: | Let's be clear, Parliament would have been powerless to do so, had James II not abandoned the kingdoms at the end of December. Parliament did not invite William and Mary to take the throne until 1689, after James' departure. Meanwhile, James' motivation for departure was not simply Parliament's action, but William's landing at Torbay with an invading force, and popular unrest about his (and his newly born son's) Roman Catholicism.
The Glorious Revolution was only "Glorious" because James II was too feckless to exercise resistance. We like to paint it as the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown, but really it's the supremacy of Parliament over a vacant throne. |
Well firstly, let's agree that the term 'Glorious Revolution' is a ridiculous, as a Catholic, I am hardly a supporter of it's intention. You are correct about when parliament invited William to take the throne, but you have to gloss over the fact that William refused to invade without the support of the powerful men in parliament. Any cursory reading of their correspondence will get you to the obvious conclusion that it was when lords and bishops united against James, that his fate was sealed, unless he radically compromised. He did not, he could have, but the primacy of the objection over the divine right would still have been a reality. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the monarchy lost significant power through the predcedent set by the revolution.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26045
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 91 wrote: | | Well firstly, let's agree that the term 'Glorious Revolution' is a ridiculous, as a Catholic, I am hardly a supporter of it's intention. You are correct about when parliament invited William to take the throne, but you have to gloss over the fact that William refused to invade without the support of the powerful men in parliament. Any cursory reading of their correspondence will get you to the obvious conclusion that it was when lords and bishops united against James, that his fate was sealed, unless he radically compromised. He did not, he could have, but the primacy of the objection over the divine right would still have been a reality. This leads us to the inevitable conclusion that the monarchy lost significant power through the predcedent set by the revolution. |
Frankly, I thought it was brilliant. The people didn't want an autocratic Catholic on the throne so they booted him out and installed King William instead. A very thoughtful and liberal man, King William. If only people listened to him a bit more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | Almighty_CRJ wrote: | | Besides, with our current system, a (or another) dictator couldn't happen. All politicians have to swear an oath to the queen. The Queen is the highest rank in the army - The prime minister has none, they're a civilian. The Queen signs law proposed by parliament. She owns the BBC & has compulsory purchase on all land outside embassy use. |
It's all theoretical. The Prime Minister and the Government have all the real power. |
out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power?
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
Tequila
Trust the people!
Joined: Feb 26, 2006
Posts: 26045
Location: Lancashire, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power? |
If it was a serious use of power, it would be very complex and dependent on a lot of things. You can imagine that any politicians afterwards would be doing their best to have her deposed or completely neutered though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29316
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tequila wrote: | | peebo wrote: | | out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power? |
If it was a serious use of power, it would be very complex and dependent on a lot of things. You can imagine that any politicians afterwards would be doing their best to have her deposed or completely neutered though. |
Think of what happened to Charles I.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
visagrunt
Polymath
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Age: 45
Posts: 5754
Location: Vancouver, BC
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | out of interest, what do you think the outcome would be of a situation where queenie took a notion to exercise her power? |
The Courts wouldn't wear it.
More importantly, she couldn't afford it. It is well established that the Crown cannot appropriate money through taxation nor spend money from the Treasury without the advice and consent of Parliament. That was the law at the time of Charles I, when he attempted to finance government by avoiding Parliament's power over taxation.
But, if one her Prime Ministers attempted to act unconstitutionally, she has the ability to dismiss that Prime Minister in an instant. We last saw that power brought to bear by the Crown (in this case the Governor General) in Australia in 1975. While it cause a constitutional uproar at the time, Australia, her government and the Crown all survived.
_________________
--James |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peebo wrote: | | Tequila wrote: | | peebo wrote: | | david starkey has exposed himself on numerous occasions as being a stupid racist buffoon. so i wouldn't worry too much about what he says. |
Why is he a racist? Has he just said things that the politically correct coterie don't like? Couldn't be that could it? |
perhaps the fact that his opinion as stated on newsnight was that the recent riots occurred because "the whites have become black"?
the fact that he believes that to be an archetypically successful black man involves adopting mannerisms of speech that, were we to hear and not see the person, we would "think he was white"? i.e. for a black person to become respectable and "civilised" he or she should be adopt the cultural trappings of a white person?
he equates white culture with good, and black culture with bad. this is blatantly clear if you watch the recent newsnight appearance.
so overall, he is indeed a stupid racist buffoon.
| Quote: |
Big difference between that and hurling abuse at people in the street but, then again, a lot of people have stopped listening altogether when people start hurling accusations of 'racism' about the place. Yup, Starkers is definitely self-important and pompous but racist? I doubt it; I really do. Tell me how many bricks he's thrown through the window of the local Chinky? |
racism, i'm afraid, doesn't simply consist of violence and threatening language towards those of a different race. starkey is quite clearly racist. he believes that for a black person to be successful, indeed, in his own words, an "archetypically successful black man" need adopt the mannerisms and characteristics of speech of a white man. this is quite clearly racist, i'd say.
also, "chinky" is quite a racist term. were afro-caribbean food popular in this country, would you be comfortable making reference in casual conversation to nipping out to pick up a "nigger"? i think perhaps not. |
hi tequila, feel inclined to replying to this yet?
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
