Euro Area

[Fragony]

Frag where are you reading that? Your Constitution says that the monarch should be a lawful successor to Willem I, nothing about some Orange dude 300 years past.

Constitution yes it does that's the point I am making

[Kralizec]

Then what is the other law you're talking about?

[Fragony]

Then what is the other law you're talking about?

The constitutional monarchy

[Kralizec]

That's a form of government, not a law.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a form of government, not a law.

He may be talking about "House Law" which defines succession and who the House can marry.

[Kralizec]

He may be talking about "House Law" which defines succession and who the House can marry.

Those aren't remarkable either, AFAIK. They define the succession order, and state that a member of the royal house can't marry a person without permission of parliament, otherwise they lose their royal status and associated benefits.

It would be helpful if Fragony gave us more insight into what he's talking about because I really, really have no idea.

[Conradus]

Constitution yes it does that's the point I am making

I thought your point was that all the laws signed by your monarchs were unconstitutional. That is clearly not the case. So I don't really know what point you're making except that the Dutch Royal Family isn't related to Willem De Zwijger. Which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

[Fragony]

I thought your point was that all the laws signed by your monarchs were unconstitutional. That is clearly not the case. So I don't really know what point you're making except that the Dutch Royal Family isn't related to Willem De Zwijger. Which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

Yes it really does

[Conradus]

No - no Constitution, the Parliament cannot be bound - except by the sovereign

I can see where some problems come from then. Here in Belgium we have a Constitution to which every law can be compared by any judge (and a very specific Court). EU-legislation takes on the aspect of 'constitutional laws', meaning they surpass our national laws in most cases, yet they too have to uphold certain principles.
How does that binding the Parliament by the sovereign works?

It is the Commission that originates ALL legislation, which makes the parliament a rubber stamp revising chamber. In the UK, we elect the body that originates the legislation, provides the executive, etc. and the revising chamber is appointed.

Ever since Lisbon that's not true anymore. Parliament can come up with proposals of legislation and effectively block any proposal from the EC.

Yes it really does

How then? Your article 24 clearly states the monarchs have to be related to Willem I. Now if you could prove they aren't related to him, you might state that your monarchy is unconstitutional. What does the other Willem have to do with it?

[Fragony]

Nope, the constitution of the nation-state of the Netherlands is not the same thing as the statutes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Dutch queen's position is inconstitutional because she has less royal blood than the cheese-royale at the Burger King. She knows that perfectly well and that is why she furiously refuses any DNA tests.

[Conradus]

Nope, the constitution of the nation-state of the Netherlands is not the same thing as the statutes of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Dutch queen's position is inconstitutional because she has less royal blood than the cheese-royale at the Burger King. She knows that perfectly well and that is why she furiously refuses any DNA tests.

Can you please come with any coherent explanation/sources/whatever for this? Because I really can't see what your point is. What are those statutes and why is your queen's position unconstitutional? If she is a descendent of Willem I, she is your constitutional queen. But you're saying she isn't connected to a previous Willem which doesn't matter according to your constitution.

What I get so far is this:

Beatrix is an unconstitutional queen.
She's unconstitutional because she's not related to the original Orange-Nassau family.

But your constitution does not demand she'd be related to that family, she only has to be a lawful descendant of your first king. So you have to argue that she's not. But that has never been your point?

[SoFarSoGood]

Ever since Lisbon that's not true anymore. Parliament can come up with proposals of legislation and effectively block any proposal from the EC.

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

[Conradus]

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

Yeah sorry about that I was mixing some things up. They still have veto powers in the ordinary procedure though.

[SoFarSoGood]

Yeah sorry about that I was mixing some things up. They still have veto powers in the ordinary procedure though.

The European Parliament is basicly like Ireland that if it says 'no' once, twice, even three times, continues to be presented with same basic law with minor changes to get a few more 'onside' until it passes, after which of course it does not have the power to repeal the law.

[Kralizec]

I think Frag is talking about the "Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden". The Netherlands has its own constitution, but for the entire kingdom (including those islands in the Antilles) there is the Statute.

Even so, there's nothing special in there. It defines the King/Queen as Juliana and her successors, because the Statute was created after WW2.

The Parliament cannot innitiate new legislation; only the commission can. Ask your Euro MP.

Even in national parliaments the vast majority of proposals come from the government/executive. Most of the proposals from lone MP's end in failure, at least over here - either being rejected or rendered obsolete because the government launches its own proposal to compete with it.

That said I agree it should be possible.

[Conradus]

Never heard of that Statute before but it makes sense.