American constitution 1
Westminster system 0
Posted on 05/07/2015 1:27:42 PM PDT by NRx
The Times and the Mirror are citing royal sources suggesting that the Queen could end up running the nation if there is no clear winner in the UK election. But does she have the power to fire or hire a prime minister?
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Charles is a moron. His kid is the best of the bunch.
Is this supposed to be an illustration of Obama’s view of the UK?
In theory, yes. In practice, the last time a King tried to do it without an extremely good reason, Parliament decapitated him. The big control on the use of these powers is that the people would have to agree their use was justified or there would be a revolution. That means they will only be used if the situation is very serious.
That’s a shocking position to articulate in this day and age.
No, it's simply British constitutional law. That's how it works. Right or wrong, it's how the system is designed.
The Manchester Guardian really transparently hates the monarchy, don’t they? Of course they’ll print garbage that tries to undermine her position, just like they post lie after lie about Israel that they have had to retract now and again.
In 1975, Gough Whitlam, the Aussie Labor PM, could not get the budget passed in the upper house of Parliament. So he was negotiating a loan from Pakistan to fund the government, which was patently illegal. That’s when the Governor General stepped in and summoned Malcom Fraser to dissolve Parliament. When he was given a vote of no confidence by the Labor Party, which was still in control the lower house, the GG summoned Black Rod to dissolve Parliament. Elections were subsequently held. The most interesting part of the whole episode was the demonstrations in front of Frasr’s party HQ, complete with Soviet flags.
the queen can barely control her bladder much less the election.... besides they are a tourist attraction vestage like an appendix.... useless at the very best and should be removed when acting up.......a proud tradition of drug dealing and now climate changers still diddling with the colonies via the likes of soros and other scumbags...... why dont they just fade into oblivion...... USELESS POMP AND BAD TEETH....... THE STENCH CROSSES THE ATLANTIC
Correct.
So he was negotiating a loan from Pakistan to fund the government, which was patently illegal.
Not quite. The loans affair (which did involve attempts to negotiate a loan from the Middle East) helped trigger the Budget Crisis of 1975 (it created the 'reprehensible' circumstances that Malcolm Fraser had said would be necessary for him to block to budget), but the loan it was after was actually intended to fund industrial development, not the general budget. Whitlam's attempt to continue governing in 1975 would have resolved around ordering the Commonwealth Bank of Australia to give the government loans and that was the illegal plan that lead to the dismissal.
We may be in for a surprise, just like when the Conservatives won in 1992 against the polls.
The first exit poll shows Tories (Cons) increasing their share of constituencies from 302 to 316 (323 needed for absolute majority).
Labour makes exceptionally bad election with 239 down from 256.
Scottish National Party up to 56
But note that Labour + SNP is still far behind the Conservatives.
This was the Ipsos MORI/GfK NOP exit poll - and we know how bad exit polls can be, so a long night to folllow....
Doesn’t sound like this is going to be an issue
Henry VIII and Bloody Elizabeth aside, the monarchy definitely lost its legitimacy in the 20th Century, as the Queen did nothing as England legalized abortion and opened England to a barbarian horde (Muslims) that is almost completely in charge.
No monarch who has sat on the throne of any country as it committed suicide should hold her head up.
A second exit poll by YouGov has it much tighter but still with the Conservatives in the lead:
Cons 284 (-18)
Lab 263 (+7)
Liberals 31 (-25)
SNP 48 (+42)
UKIP 2 (+2)
In this poll Lab + SNP is definitely larger than Conserrvatives, but well below a clear majority (323).
Ha... I have a grand appreciation for quick wit, always in abundance here at FR.
I gotta agree with you. If a monarch cannot (or will not) intervene when the long-term survival of the nation is at stake, then there is no purpose for having that monarch.
What a nasty, disgusting remark to make about an elderly woman.
Did she pick your pocket or something?
In the British system, the Monarch can only intervene in very specific circumstances. They don't apply in the cases being talked about here. Parliament had the legal right to pass abortion laws - it's not a constitutional issue and the Queen could not withhold the Royal Assent. And the idea that Muslims have taken over Britain is abject nonsense. There are enclaves in the UK where Muslims are a majority, and they have more influence than I'd like, but they are not even close to having taken over.
Were you a Lyndon LaRouch follower?
Or did you just get up on the wrong side of the bed this fine morning?
“Is this supposed to be an illustration of Obama’s view of the UK?”
Swing and a miss sport. That’s a retardedly false choice that I must either be an anglophile, or to espouse Obamas deranged viewpoints.
There is a realistic way to view England. Neither enemy, nor friend. Most of our history has had this relationship. In the 1920s as the naval treaty was being negotiated, the British wanted battleships sufficient to cover worldwide. They wanted the US held to a level that could not challenge them. We insisted on a different ratio.
Yes, in the 1920s it was not a foregone conclusion we would not fight someday.
In the civil war they intervened with the goal of spitting the union.
Today is the day the Lusitania was sunk. We were neutral at that time. The British demanded we not trade with Germany and was willing to sink our neutral shipping to enforce it.
Eisenhower refused to jump in when the Brits decided to seize the Suez from Nasser.
Sometimes as in WWII, and in the cold war, our interests converge. When our interests do not, they tend to try to involve us (Balkans war). Or they tend to follow their own goals no matter what it does to us. (London banking in the 2008 crisis,,, London oil speculation that lead to the huge price spike in 2007, setting us up for the 2008 crisis.)
They aren’t enemies, but their government no longer shares the values of the average American. The older people, traditional Brits do, but their government cant seem to regard us as anything but a colony that got out of hand.
That is just my observation.
I really don’t understand this anglophilia,,governmentally speaking. They are gun banners, totalitarian in speech codes (recently arrested the man who sang Kung Fu fighting song) they are solidly with the sodomites,,,,etc.
But I really liked Top Gear, and Shepherds Pie, and their Whiskey up north!
He really isn't. He's no genius, but he's an intelligent and educated man. The media - especially the left wing media - don't like him, and have presented a complete caricature of him to people by focusing on certain things and completely ignoring others. As somebody who knows him, I hate this, I really do. He didn't ask for his role in life - an accident of birth gave him a duty and he has always tried to do his best to meet it.
His kid is the best of the bunch.
The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry are both fine men, but they are the way they are in large part because of their father. Their mother had an influence on their social conscience, their father is where they get their sense of duty, their patriotism, and a lot of other things as well.
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.