Posted on 05/11/2010 11:41:31 AM PDT by wolf78
Gordon Brown has announced he is resigning as UK prime minister.
Mr Brown is on his way to officially tender his resignation to the Queen, and recommend that Conservative leader David Cameron should succeed him.
Speaking alongside his wife Sarah outside No 10 Downing Street, he said the job had been "a privilege" and wished his successor well.
His decision comes as the Tories and Liberal Democrats are poised to agree a deal to form a government.
Labour's attempts to negotiate a deal of their own with the Lib Dems, after last week's inconclusive election result, ended in failure on Tuesday.
Mr Brown succeeded Tony Blair as prime minister in June 2007 after spending ten years as chancellor of the exchequer.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
that would go over big in 'Frisco
The problem with republics is that they all too easily become "dictatorships of the concerned", and from that on to autocracies. Its something you have to watch out for.
I did not mean to post:
Looks like your point of view is popular, in a negative way.
To quote Judge Smails: “...The world needs ditch diggers, too!”
to you, but rather to: DesertRhino.
I made a mistake, and I openly apologize for my mistake.
Looks like your point of view is popular, in a negative way.
To quote Judge Smails: “...The world needs ditch diggers, too!”
Keep up the ( ) work.
Maybe that's why Reagan's landslide was as big as it was, with all of us clamoring to go back there.
I guess we have to be embarrassed for the guy, since I don't think he's quite up to being embarrassed for himself. :)
It's not in my American Heritage dictionary. ;)
(No one will ever figure it out. :)
Isn’t this also the 70th anniversary of Neville Chamberlain’s resignation?
No offence taken.
You write “Only England voted Conservative.”
I’m afraid even that is only half-true. About 39.5% of English voters voted Conservative. This is higher than the 36% of UK voters who voted Conservative or the 37% of Great Britain voters who did so, but it’s still clearly a minority.
For the full England scoreboard, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/48.stm
Creepy and weird,,, why not just say to the queen here’s how the transition will be? Whats this “recommend” BS?
As has as been pointed out to you, that's the way the British system works. Why does it work that way? Because of constitutional conventions that have evolved and been developed over a period of more than 1000 years. This is the British constitution. I would make the assumption, as an obviously patriotic American, that you believe that constitutional law should be respected and taken seriously and that a government should always function within the precepts of its constitution. Well, this is how the British constitution says these matters are handled.
I'd also, point out, that your own nation's government is largely based on British constitutional convention as it existed in the mid 1700s - the United States rebelled against the United Kingdom because American's rights as guaranteed under British law and constitutional convention were not being respected. 'No taxation without representation' was a principle enshrined in British consitutional law - it was not being respected in its colonies as it should have been. And so America's founding fathers found it necessary to rise in rebellion to secure the rights they should have already had, and having succeeded created a new form of government that to a great extent copied that they were replacing.
Yeah i know,, thats the part thats creepy and weird. How in hell does she claim such power? England really cannot claim to be a free nation. “Royalty” for parades, tourism and such, i get,,, but actual governing by a monarch is *insane* for a modern western nation.
The Queen is actually subservient to Parliament in most cases. It is only in rare situations that Her Majesty actually excercises real power, and those situations are ones in which a dangerous power vacuum would develop in nobody was the final arbiter. And in all those situations, there are centuries of precedent and policy and constitutional law that the Queen must consider in exercising her powers.
What if the old bat refuses to invite Cameron or something? What if she goes senile? (happened before)
In the final analysis, Parliament has the absolute power to remove the Queen from office, or abolish the Monarchy altogether - it would simply take a normal Act of Parliament. Nothing complicated at all. A vote by a majority of the House of Commons would accomplish either aim.
The Council of State (made up of certain senior members of the Royal Family - currently her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, and the first four people in line to the throne - The Prince of Wales, his two sons, and Prince Andrew, Duke of York) also have the power to act in the event of the Queen's incapacitation for any reason, but precisely how that would work has never been tested.
The fact remains,,,England is not to be taken seriously as long as that type of government exists.
Well, if your objection is to the fundamental idea of monarchy, that's a valid position and to be respected. But a nation should not lightly abandon a stable system of government that has worked for centuries unless it is certain that it can replace it with something at least as stable - do you think the current British Parliament could design such a system? Can you see any Jeffersons or Washingtons, people with the ability and moral authority, to create and present such a replacement among current British leaders?
LOL,, funny title. And “divine right”,, even funnier! Ok,,, i can’t win this if you believe that the lord himself appointed the queen! Snicker,,,
Divine right doesn't actually mean that anymore - it's largely a relic title among the Queen's titles, a matter of tradition. Parliament is now what decides the Monarchy, ultimately.
But more than Divine Right, the reason the Queen is the Queen is a matter of lineage. Her Majesty is descended from virtually every single English King back to Alfred the Great (849-899). While there are problems with hereditary rule, this lineage does mean that most British Kings and Queens have been incredibly loyal to their country - because it is their country. There's no guarantees, but nearly all monarchs have been patriots utterly committed to the welfare of their nation - and that's not a bad thing when it comes to the person with the ultimate authority in an emergency.
And i love when people claim she is there by divine right,,, and then also say her political power is nil in reality. Well which is it? Did God put here there? If so, it follows that she should be free to exercise power.
No - Parliament has asserted its right as the representatives of the people to exercise the Queen's powers. They remain her powers, but the day to day use of them is in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. She will only intervene in an emergency.
Such an emergency has not arisen in Britain in recent years - but the best example of how these powers can and should be used comes from Australia in 1975. A Prime Minister refused to resign or call an election as constitutional convention required (he could not get Parliament to pass a budget), and eventually the Governor General, as the Queen's representative, was forced to exercise the reserve powers of the Crown, to dismiss him from office, and appoint a replacement (who he also required to immediately call for an election, ensuring a 'return to normal service' as quickly as possible). The Queen should never have to exercise her powers, because a legitimate government and Prime Minister will never allow a situation to develop where they are required. But they are the safeguard that exists if an illegitimate government arises, and a Prime Minister attempts to remain in office after he should go.
Gordon Brown resigned before matters in this current case, reached this stage - as a Prime Minister properly should. But consider a situation in which David Cameron and Nick Clegg had announced a formal coalition and Gordon Brown refused to resign. At that point the Queen would have had to dismiss him from office. It didn't arise, because he treated the conventions with respect - but what if he hadn't? And that's when the powers do exist and are real.
But the Queen would never use them unless necessary to resolve a crisis.
Cromwell?? Really they need a Washington. Cromwell was more like a despot. Our founders are the answer,,, not a different form of tyranny.
What America's founding fathers achieved was incredible, but they were incredible men - can you see men to match them in positions of power currently in the United Kingdom? For that matter can you see them in the United States?
On his way to the Queen?
Why is Barnie Frank involved?
That's an excellent summary of the nature of the British constitution overall, but I'm not sure that this particular bit would play out the way you scripted it.
If Brown had refused to leave office, then it would be up to Parliament to resolve the crisis. They would have voted to strip him of his post of Prime Minister, and then ordered law enforcement to take him into custody if he still refused to go quietly. The Queen would almost certainly not have done anything (except perhaps for privately advising the PM to observe the will of the people) while this all played out.
While the Queen may theoretically have the power to remove a Prime Minister, in reality, the Prime Minister serves at the will of Parliament. Only if the entire democratic process breaks down -- as was happening in Spain under Juan Carlos when he made his public appeal -- would the Queen dare to intervene in a crisis. All other legal and parliamentary avenues would have had to have been exhausted first.
The bottom line is that the monarchy is in a "use them *and* lose them" situation when it comes to its constitutional powers. To all intents and purposes it is a ceremonial monarchy with no real power because if they try to interfere in any way with the democratic process, they will be slapped down, possibly to the point of annihilation. (And that's as it should be.)
The best explanation I've heard for wanting to keep the Queen around as the titular head of state is that it means that we (Brits) don't need a president to do that job instead, given the trouble other countries sometimes have with certain individuals in that post!
In reality, of course, it's likely that any presidental system that replaced the monarchy would have very limited powers anyway since most Brits are quite happy with the current form of government.
PG? Doofus.
Thanks. Now THAT I understand. :)
If Brown had refused to leave office, then it would be up to Parliament to resolve the crisis. They would have voted to strip him of his post of Prime Minister, and then ordered law enforcement to take him into custody if he still refused to go quietly. The Queen would almost certainly not have done anything (except perhaps for privately advising the PM to observe the will of the people) while this all played out.
This is certainly a possibility - to allow the Prime Minister to continue in office until the House of Commons convenes and then allow the Commons the opportunity to pass a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister.
But the problem with that solution is that in response to such a motion, a recalcitrant Prime Minister could choose to advise another general election, rather than resign.
Britain cannot afford such a situation to develop, and I do not believe Her Majesty would allow it to develop.
Instead I believe she would take a somewhat similar approach to that taken by her Australian Governor General Sir John Kerr in 1975, where he spoke to the Leader of the Opposition and after obtaining reassurances from him needed to resolve the crisis, dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and commissioned Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister. There would be one important difference - having just fought an election that gave them a majority in the House, Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Clegg would not be obliged to ask for an immediate general election, a necessity in Australia in 1975.
The only impediment to this would be if the Liberal Democrats refused to serve in such a coalition, and I could certainly see that happening. In that case, I still believe Her Majesty would be likely to commission David Cameron as caretaker Prime Minister on condition he immediately advise an election - this would create fundamentally the same circumstance as allowing a recalcitrant Gordon Brown to advise on in the wake of a no-confidence motion, but without the time and expense waste of an aborted Parliamentary session.
While the Queen may theoretically have the power to remove a Prime Minister, in reality, the Prime Minister serves at the will of Parliament. Only if the entire democratic process breaks down -- as was happening in Spain under Juan Carlos when he made his public appeal -- would the Queen dare to intervene in a crisis. All other legal and parliamentary avenues would have had to have been exhausted first.
I believe the best current precedent on this is the Australian constitutional crisis of 1975, and that therefore sets the current 'limit' on how severe a crisis would need to be before the Head of State intervenes. And that crisis was not as serious as a Prime Minister who had lost an election refusing to resign - Whitlam merely couldn't pass a budget.
The bottom line is that the monarchy is in a "use them *and* lose them" situation when it comes to its constitutional powers. To all intents and purposes it is a ceremonial monarchy with no real power because if they try to interfere in any way with the democratic process, they will be slapped down, possibly to the point of annihilation. (And that's as it should be.)
This type of circumstance would only develop if a Prime Minister was acting completely unreasonably and dangerously.
In such a circumstance I believe Her Majesty would risk both her own role and the Monarchy itself. It is her duty to protect her nation and she would risk all to do that.
Fortunately it does not arise as Gordon Brown has acted within convention, and has not even come close to allowing such a crisis to develop - as I would hope any Prime Minister would. He pushed things a bit, perhaps, but he didn't push them to anywhere near their limit, and certainly not to breaking point.
It would be an extreme situation where the Queen had to intervene - but if it reached that stage, she would, in my view, do so decisively.
Is it up to you to decide, or up to the British people? She’s not your sovereign anymore, so what’s your problem? Until most British people are ready to give up their monarchy, it will stay that way! Can’t you respect that? Besides, most governments in the world now are ‘constitutional monarchies’ anymore. There are a very few that are absolute.
Or whatever the government is in Iran! (shiver)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.