End of Parliament?

[Idaho]

What do you make of this?

Ministers to be able to make the law without Parliament

[Crazed Rabbit]

They say its to clear away red tape without having to go through parliment...but when have they tried to clear away red tape through parliment? Or shown an interest in doing so?

Anyways, It was nice knowing you guys while you were still a democracy.

Crazed Rabbit

[Idaho]

A former minister referred to the British system of government as an elected dictatorship. A judgement that stands well.

Deferred powers have always been a feature of our political system - and as I haven't heard much about this I really don't know how legit the website is. For all we know it could only affect the fisheries ministry or some such.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Well if this anything like what rabbit is thinking. Get the heck outa' there while you can.

But chances are it probably won't change much IMO but what do I know?




And if rabbit's prediction does happen all the pro gun Americans will be able to say "I told you so" J/k

[Crazed Rabbit]

Meh, weapons only count for as much as people are willing to use them. No offense, but I get the sense that there would be no British uprising where this to pass.

Crazed Rabbit

[Marcellus]

I hope that one of the following happens:

1) The Government withdraws the bill (good)
2) The Government continues with the bill but suffers a massive defeat that leads to Tony Blair's resignation (even better).

[Kanamori]

Your Executive and Legislature have always been difficult to tell apart, but this seems to be too broad. I would like to read an article that doesn't sound as excited as all of the ones I've read, so I would feel more comfortable trusting it. It seems like quite a complex bill, and that makes me even more wary of all the passionate comments that seem to deal only in generalities. Of course, after attempting to read the bill, I am left feeling that I would need many explanations in order to truly understand it. The fact that Parliament can be very productive, unlike our own system, seems problematic here, as the controversy surrounding this government should definitely have reduced it to a lame duck. Yet, Blair is stubbornly pushing on.

[InsaneApache]

AHEM!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61580

[Redleg]

AHEM!

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61580

Well I was going to try a bad attempt at humor, but my attention span was just to short. Kind of like attempting to remember that a thread was started on this subject over a month ago.

[Divinus Arma]

Hmmm.

[lars573]

Your Executive and Legislature have always been difficult to tell apart,

That's because they are the same, effectively. The head of the executive and the legislature is the same man, Tony Blair.

[Kanamori]

Yep, I took a 400 level course during my first semester on their government; in the next I met him, and interned with the Deputy Leader of the Commons. It was a bit of an understatement and a poor attempt at British humor.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Meh, weapons only count for as much as people are willing to use them. No offense, but I get the sense that there would be no British uprising where this to pass.

Crazed Rabbit

Well, you have got quite a few orgahs in England, haven't you? Plus reinforcements from Isle of Man, if you grant Isle of Man independence in return for their assistance . How could anyone stop an army of orgahs well supplied with ammunition?

---
UK ARMY --- ORGAH ARMY

[Kralizec]

Deferred powers have always been a feature of our political system - and as I haven't heard much about this I really don't know how legit the website is. For all we know it could only affect the fisheries ministry or some such.

Our parliament has also deferred quite a lot of -technicly- legislature power to the executive, but only of a lesser kind, and of course our parliament can take it back at any time. The benefit is off course that minstries are much better equiped to asses information and make precise (read: minor) regulation.

The problem with this bill seems to be that it has a theoreticly unlimited scope.

[Duke Malcolm]

Well, you have got quite a few orgahs in England, haven't you? Plus reinforcements from Isle of Man, if you grant Isle of Man independence in return for their assistance . How could anyone stop an army of orgahs well supplied with ammunition?

---
UK ARMY --- ORGAH ARMY

Ahem, the Bill also proposes to affect Scotland...

Nevertheless, isn't there a convention of Parliament whereby no Parliament my limit the powers of any succeeding Parliaments, so this Bill could hypothetically be overturned by a court because it prevents succeeding Parliaments from voting on laws?

[Haudegen]

I have some materials on English law. As far as I understand this, there is a rule called "continuing legislative supremacy". The rule says that parliament can enact anything but it can not bind itself for the future.

But I don´t think that English courts have the power to repeal a parliamentary statute just because it seems incompatible with the rule above. Only parliament itself can repeal it.

[drone]

IIRC, doesn't the Queen have to sign off on bills that pass Parliament? My understanding was that this was just a formality these days, but the forms must be obeyed. Is this the case? Could she stop a bill such as this?

Or maybe I just had too much beer when I lived there and have it all wrong...

[English assassin]

Well I really hope this bill goes through.

This is a terrible bill, sure, but fear not, chums, fearless public lawyers like, err, me are at hand to save you.

Seriously, there's no way on Gods earth any controversial legislation passed this way would survive a challenge. Lets not forget the government just lost its controls on illegal immigrants marrying to stay in the country, which any fule could see was always going to be illegal (do you think they actually read the Human Rights Act before they passed it?)

If they had brains they would be dangerous, but as it is...chi-chiiing, its champagne all round at the George (the pub across the road from the Royal Courts of Justice)

[Haudegen]

@drone: You are right, but there seems to be an unwritten constitutional rule that says: "The Royal Assent is always given".

I guess if the Queen refuses, then Britain will be a republic by tomorrow

[The_Doctor]

I guess if the Queen refuses, then Britain will be a republic by tomorrow

Ruled by Blair, Brown and Prescott.

The monarchy gets on my nerves sometimes, but it is better than a country ruled by Blair with dictatorial powers.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ruled by Blair, Brown and Prescott.

The monarchy gets on my nerves sometimes, but it is better than a country ruled by Blair with dictatorial powers.

That is your country right now. The Prime Minister already holds powers equivalent to a monarch's, particularly through use of the Royal Prerogative.

If you think the Queen has any powers to stop a Prime Minister with a docile and large majority, you are sadly mistaken. You need to be more worried about the sidelining of Parliament through this Act and many others that the British people have allowed to be imposed on them by this government.

The monarchy is utterly irrelevant. Panic about your democratic rights.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A short digest from Link: Royal Prerogative is the term given to the formal powers of the Crown within the executive process of British politics. The Royal Prerogative are the powers of the Crown and are part of common law.

The UK has a constitutional monarchy – not an absolute monarchy. This means that the monarchy is apolitical and impartial. The work that it does in politics is largely symbolic. The work of the monarch within the remit of the royal prerogative is seen as being on behalf of elected ministers.

In the C19th Walter Bagehot described the monarchy as being “symbolic and ceremonial” but with little actual power. In the C21st this is even more true.

“The Queen reigns but does not rule”.

What are the royal prerogatives:

Ø The Queen has the right to appoint and dismiss a Prime Minister. However, in the C21st this is convention as opposed to reality. In fact, after an election, the Queen chooses the leader of the majority party to lead the Commons. However, what happens if the Prime Minister refuses to quit after losing a vote of no confidence is unclear – as it has never happened in recent political history. Theoretically, the monarch can exercise powers of appointment and dismissal. How this would fit in with a democracy is difficult to decide.

Ø The monarch has other powers of appointment (ministers, peers, senior C of E officials, head of BBC, senior civil servants etc) In reality these are chosen by the Prime Minister; only the Order of the Garter and the Order of Merit are at the personal disposal of the Queen. Therefore, a vast amount of power with regards to senior appointments rests with the Prime Minister.

Ø The Queen opens and dissolves Parliament. She also approves all statutes of law. In reality, the date of a general election is set by the Prime Minister and the Queen, in the State Opening of Parliament, simply reads out the proposed bills for the next 5 years of a government and plays no part in deciding them. No monarch has refused to give the Royal Assent to a government bill (passed at this stage by both the Commons and Lords) since 1707. Now it would appear to be completely untenable that the Queen would refuse to sign a government bill that had passed the Commons, select committees, the Lords etc. It would spark off a major (the major?) constitutional crisis.

Ø In theory, the monarch has the right to grant pardons and input some sentences. In reality this power is exercised by the Home Secretary; a classic example was when Jack Straw stated that Myra Hindley’s life term meant life.

Ø The monarch, via proclamations or Orders in Council, may declare war or treaties, without the input of the Commons/Lords. In reality, the declaration of war and the signing of treaties is done by the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Crown. The 2003 declaration of war against Iraq was done by a Prime Minister and not by the monarch. One is a democratically elected politician accountable to the electorate via an election; the other is in the position by a quirk of birth.

The monarch is above the law and has crown immunity. The legal immunity conferred by the Royal Prerogative may extend to institutions and servants of the Crown. Cabinet ministers may try to use crown immunity to avoid the release of parliamentary documents as they are servants of the Crown. This remains an issue that lawyers discuss and analyse to this day – can ministers of the government use the Royal Prerogative to stop an investigation in to the work that they do on certain issues?

A more complex reading: Link

[drone]

In the interests of putting the brakes on runaway Parliamentary power, I would think it would be the Queen's duty to the people to stop a bill like this. After what the Commons did to the Lords, somebody has to step up, and what better way than to have the monarch in a constitutional monarchy defend the constitutional part. She wouldn't necessarily be acting politically, she would be preserving the proper process. Maybe you guys need a constitutional crisis, the current situation sounds untenable.

Some day, Labour will not be in charge. It will happen. And when it does, who do you think would be the first to complain about these powers? Being able to quickly force through legislation is a BAD thing, no matter what country or party we are talking about. The harder it is to get a law passed, the better.

[English assassin]

Maybe you guys need a constitutional crisis, the current situation sounds untenable.

Increasingly I agree with this, although it will no doubt be a particularly British crisis and all fairly well mannered. But it does seem to me we now need a more formal division between legislature and executive, along the American lines. The only check on the executive at present is the judges, and thank god for them, but its hardly democracy.

For once, I blame Maggie, for being a mad centraliser increasing rather than decreasing the power of the central state. Any true whig prime minister ought to aim to make their own job redundant in ten years. Personally, I'd devolve everything down to local government except criminal law, certain bits of national infrastructure planning, defence and foreign affairs, sack 3/4 of the MPs and the civil service, and then see what happens. All this unregulated power that Gordo or Tony have now would turn anyone's head.

[Haudegen]

As far as I understand the British system the unlimited power of the parliament is the key element. There seems to be no safeguard against the case that parliament is letting down its duties towards the protection of human rights for example.

An alternative would be of course a constitution that restricts the powers of legislative and government and a powerful supreme court like in most continental european nations.

[Duke Malcolm]

That's the most sense I've heard in years...

If they repealed the House of Lords Act and the Parliament Acts then Tony would hardly get a thing through without a good challenge... although that is somewhat improbable...

[The_Doctor]

Personally, I'd devolve everything down to local government except criminal law, certain bits of national infrastructure planning, defence and foreign affairs, sack 3/4 of the MPs and the civil service, and then see what happens. All this unregulated power that Gordo or Tony have now would turn anyone's head.

I had the same idea.

[Red Peasant]

In the interests of putting the brakes on runaway Parliamentary power, I would think it would be the Queen's duty to the people to stop a bill like this. After what the Commons did to the Lords, somebody has to step up, and what better way than to have the monarch in a constitutional monarchy defend the constitutional part. She wouldn't necessarily be acting politically, she would be preserving the proper process. Maybe you guys need a constitutional crisis, the current situation sounds untenable.

Some day, Labour will not be in charge. It will happen. And when it does, who do you think would be the first to complain about these powers? Being able to quickly force through legislation is a BAD thing, no matter what country or party we are talking about. The harder it is to get a law passed, the better.

The day the monarch steps back into politics is the day that I join a new New Model Army.

[drone]

The day the monarch steps back into politics is the day that I join a new New Model Army.

Would you rather replace your monarch with an unchecked dictator? I'm no fan of peerage, divine right, etc., I'm just trying to figure out what checks still exist on the PM's power. If the Queen is the absolute last chance to stop a bill like this, she should do it. Let her do something useful for a change, then she can go back to knighting musicians.

[rory_20_uk]

The monarch is the fuse in our system. Here there is a person who is relatively non-political who can step in. Most other places don't have that. We are extremely lucky.

[Red Peasant]

Would you rather replace your monarch with an unchecked dictator? I'm no fan of peerage, divine right, etc., I'm just trying to figure out what checks still exist on the PM's power. If the Queen is the absolute last chance to stop a bill like this, she should do it. Let her do something useful for a change, then she can go back to knighting musicians.

Just checking my history for these rampant British dictators and the disintegration of the British political system....mmm...can't find any, apart from a few mad kings a long, long time ago. Fact is, people who don't like the present incumbents in a government always think they have too much power. Some folk will always be crying about any govt, especially in a democratic system, being too powerful.
I'm not panicking. When the Americans have had a system that has evolved over a thousand years in place then I'll listen to them.