|
|
|
|
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/22/2009 9:51:20 PM | Here's a thought from an average American...
You want the same people that voted Bush in office twice, to make the major decisions?
Here is where I see the problem with " our " form of Democracy and why it is failing.
The rich control everything. In fact, in order to get elected to President you need major financial backing. If you somehow fail to raise enough funds, you can kiss the candidacy goodbye.
Its either one or the other. You are rest assured that you are either going to pick the democrat or the republican. There is no in between, or a viable option for a third party. There is, but all major news networks don't cover the third person any more than they cover a cat being in a tree. It states that anyone can run for office, so long as they fit a certain criteria. Whats worse, they have republican and democratic primaries, to choose the candidate for each party. And I don't remember choosing McCain or Obama. In fact, I don't know anyone who did for their respective parties.
If we are in a society that supports and says we run a democratic system, then I must say this isn't one. Whatever it is, it more closely resembles a republic that ran itself into the groud back in Roman times, than it does a democracy.
Our founding fathers intended that the people always have a say and a voice. But somehow through history, we have lost our voice. Its possible that we lost when we didn't have a say when FDR went beyond his legal term limit. Thats when we ceased to be a democracy and more of a republic. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/23/2009 3:02:10 PM | "Doesn't really make a difference. You saw what happened with my thread on adapting representational democracy. If you read carefully, I was just suggesting it needed to evolve. But nearly everyone except you simply said "no, that's crazy, leave things the way they are". Even the smarter people here said to leave the status quo unchanged. That's just how deeply people have been propagandised by the government." -Scorpion (regarding this thread)
I think that you mis-interpreted the majority of the responses in this thread. Of the 25 responses, I see maybe 2 that are close to 'no, that's crazy, leave things the way they are'.
I would even be willing to wager that those posters would agree wholeheartedly that the current systems are far from perfect.
Of the rest of the posts, many are in agreement that a change would be for the best, but point out some of the possible changes towards a more direct democracy that have had negative results in the past. These people are NOT disagreeing with you. They are pointing out areas that might be improved upon, but doing so indirectly (through criticism of a possible idea, and assuming that the goal could be determined by the reader without it being stated outright).
I'll use my post as an example: I am 100% in favor of off-site electronic voting. If we had a way to implement a reasonably safe way to have people vote from home/their office/wherever......I would be the very first person to jump on board. My argument against it's use right now is not based on an opposition to the goal, but on my opposition to implementing a system that is currently very flawed (well, at least more flawed than our current system).
Now, assuming that we got over the technological hurdle, I would be IN FAVOR of using such a system to allow the general population to vote on an increased number of government actions. The problem would then become......how far do we go?
"Now, I would agree that handing every decision over to the people in its entirety might be worse."- Scorpion, post#1
Which I also, 100% agree with. Although, by saying so, both you and I seem to agree that Representational Democracy HAS NOT come to its natural end. The thing that we (and probably everyone else in our respective countries) will probably not agree on, is where to set the dial between 'Direct' and 'Representative'.....or whether to go in a completely new direction altogether.
I should also point out that at least in the U.S., we are NOT operating under a purely Representative system. The number of things that we directly vote on may be small, but that number is not zero. And unless I am mis-interpreting your statements, you appear to agree that some level of representation will always be necessary. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/25/2009 12:53:56 AM | q[You want the same people that voted Bush in office twice, to make the major decisions?]q
Bush wasn't voted in twice. The first time he was appointed, by his brothers judges when they denied a recount - which undisputably shows that Gore won.
And while he did win more votes the second time around there were still massive - meaning, unprecedented in America's history - voting irregularities in both elections. So it's well known, and proven that the first election was stolen, and there are still plenty of questions regarding the second.
The fact that the American people didn't impeach Bush on general incompetence, nevermind all the other illegal, and questionably legal BS he and his crew engaged in only goes to show the apathy of the average American when it comes to politics these days.
Obama, has started to change that. In a way it was good that Bush was here. Now most everyone realizes just how bad it can get when you're apathetic about politics. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/25/2009 4:52:17 AM | RE Msg: 28 by LeCutter:
Bush wasn't voted in twice. The first time he was appointed, by his brothers judges when they denied a recount - which undisputably shows that Gore won.
And while he did win more votes the second time around there were still massive - meaning, unprecedented in America's history - voting irregularities in both elections. So it's well known, and proven that the first election was stolen, and there are still plenty of questions regarding the second. I think you are making my point for me, that the average American is educated enough to make some direction towards competent decisions.
I wouldn't want them making EVERY decision. I don't think most people could tell the difference between a bone fracture, and a break. The same is true of politics. But things have changed. Most people are educated enough to know some of the arguments about the issues that are made known to the public, and many have really genuine points.
I still think there is room enough to have 50% of any decision left to experts, and that there is a value in taking expert opinion in being more important than a thousand average men (or women). But there is room to develop a system where the people's opinions count in many decisions, for 50% of the vote.
If not, these forums wouldn't even exist, or would be full of such nonsense, that no-one intelligent would bother with them.
The fact that the American people didn't impeach Bush on general incompetence, nevermind all the other illegal, and questionably legal BS he and his crew engaged in only goes to show the apathy of the average American when it comes to politics these days.
Obama, has started to change that. In a way it was good that Bush was here. Now most everyone realizes just how bad it can get when you're apathetic about politics. That apathy exists in the UK. But the main reason why it exists, is that people have believed since I was a kid, that almost all politicians were corrupt, and those that weren't, would be outvoted by the majority that are, and so it really didn't matter who you voted for, because the politicians would just enact whatever bills would suit them.
Often it's even against common sense. For instance, the UK has spent billions of pounds on IT systems on the NHS, that were found to be unintelligible by half the doctors and nurses, and the other half found they took longer to use than pen and paper. I know from personal experience of developing IT systems, that if you want an IT system that everyone is happy with, that the people to talk to about what goes into it, and how it should work, are the people who use it, because at the end of the day, the system is just there to make their work more efficient, and to allow managers to simply generate reports on what they've already entered into the system. The users drive the system, not the managers. But 9 times out of 10, the managers are telling you what they want, and they honestly have almost no idea of what the users need. These systems were obviously designed according to the instructions of NHS managers, not the needs of doctors and nurses.
If we had a more open system, that allowed contributions from the general public, both in terms of arguments put forwards, and in terms of voting, then you'd see more comprehensive ranges of arguments that cover most of the problems, from the people who know the problems best, and if people were allowed to decide based on reading a short synopsis of those arguments, then we'd get people voting with common sense, not with trusting that someone they've never met, or met once, will decide in their best interests, when he's really only voting with his party.
It's even been suggested by some in the UK, that Clinton knew the Democrats were going to lose the next election, and deliberately repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, so that the economy would fail, so that the Republicans would be blamed for the resulting banking collapse.
We need a way forwards to ensure that this sort of game-playing cannot happen. I cannot see that happening as long as a small group of elitists hold all the purse strings, and control all the decisions.
Something needs to change. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/25/2009 7:10:36 AM | The ignorance on this thread is killing me.
WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC!!! Not a democracy.
Remember the pledge you always say with a hand on your heart? "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."
A democracy is based on rule of the majority. The minority has no rights that are granted by the majority. Sadly, we have become a fake democracy. I say fake because it isn't even a majority making the rules. The media has fooled the public into believing this false rule of the majority though that indoctrinates us that truth is relative and what is lawful today can be made sinful tomorrow through a "vote".
Our country was set up as a REPUBLIC. Which means the INDIVIDUAL is the authority over his own life and he gets his rights from the creator - not government. In a REPUBLIC, government only exists to protect those rights - not to impede them. The individual has the final say as long as he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Are we a republic anymore? Hardly. We're now one of the most FASCIST countries on the planet after Italy. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/26/2009 5:07:22 AM |
WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC!!! Not a democracy.
and
We're now one of the most FASCIST countries on the planet after Italy.
I give up, and I'm not even going to try any more.
Every history, civics, and political science teacher in the US needs to be taken out and shot for sheer incompetence .... because it's becoming very clear that they've not taught anybody a damned thing | |
|
| |
| |
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/26/2009 8:59:50 PM | Given the recent turmoil of the British Parliament (along with a whole plethora of countless own goals and inadequacies), I sure hope that one day, Representational Democracy will come to an end.
Given the rise of networked technologies (such as the Internet), I can't see why, in years to come, we cannot secure an effective means of voting online, where each and every "mentally able" man, woman and (dependant upon age and subject matter) child gets to have his or her say.
Of course details like, what constitutes "mentally able", how such a system could be made "100% fraud proof" and when and how often such an online nationwide (or indeed local) vote takes place etc, will have to be worked out, but these issues don't seem insurmountable to me. Difficult sure, but not impossible (save perhaps at the moment, online security).
Anyway regardless, it is quite clear that the days of Representational Democracy are numbered... And about time too! Power needs to go back firmly to the People and that hunger is there... You only have to look at the myriad of different ways people are expressing their views directly, especially here online. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/26/2009 11:58:27 PM | ''WE LIVE IN A REPUBLIC!!! Not a democracy.''
This statement depends on your defitnition of republic.Because you swear allegiance to a Republic does not mean your political system does not aspire to be a democracy.
The terms republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive.The usage of the term Republic is not so cut and dry and has different meanings to different peolple.
from the great scource of wikipedia(LOL)
"A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public thing".
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch,[6] In republics such as the US and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy[7], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".[8] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[9"
note from above "In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy"
So the claim that Democracy and Republic do not co-exist is very ambiguous.
To me the Western world has failed in achieving representational democracy.
My ideal political representative hopefully would go to congress,senate,parliament to represent my constituentsy.Thier decision making process should be guided by the will of the constituents and common sense of the representative.
The party system interferes with this relationship as representatives vote in lines with thier party,often ignoring the will of constituents. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 12:24:58 AM | Representational democracy has failed because the representatives don't represent the will of the people who elect them. Republicanism has failed because in spite of all the checks & balances put in to preserve the rights of individuals, there were (and still are) sufficient loopholes to allow a tyranny (with interests inimical to the original intent) to form and rule. Direct democracy, while flawed by it's assumptions that the will of the majority is the correct one and that the majority of the people are competent to govern themselves (collectively), is still (as I see it) the only viable alternative until such time as a "tyranny-proof" republic can be formed.
Maybe it's time to try a "society of cooperative anarchists." By it's very nature, the rights of the individual would be paramount, and they could (for the practical reasons of productive efficiency and common defense) form a nation under a direct democracy that would by its very nature not subject its members to a tyranny of the majority. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 3:10:55 AM |
from the great scource of wikipedia(LOL)
"A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public thing". That's a bit confusing, because I live in a country that IS led by a monarch, and in which its people have an impact on its government. If a republic is a state or country in which the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government, then the UK is a monarchy AND a republic, and has been both for hundreds of years. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 3:34:39 AM | @ Scorp
A monarchy (constitutional or not) is not a republic by definition. A Monarchy is led by a monarch; a republic is led (in theory at least) by the public. Check the definition of "republic" | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 3:52:28 AM |
A monarchy (constitutional or not) is not a republic by definition. A Monarchy is led by a monarch; a republic is led (in theory at least) by the public. Check the definition of "republic" Then the UK has been a republic for hundreds of years, because for hundreds of years, the UK was led by the government. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 4:05:08 AM | for hundreds of years, the UK was led by the government.
And who leads the government? -- The Queen
I shouldn't have to say this to a citizen of the UK; you should know this.
Is it not so that the Prime Minister is appointed to his office by the Monarch? {I know elections are held and that the man who gets the most votes by the public becomes the Prime minister, but he is the Queen's Prime minister and she gives Royal assent to his appointment (presumably to keep the people happy by concurring with their vote).} The Prime Minister (and his cabinet and the Commons itself) only has the power that the Queen has delegated. Note that I said delegated (not abdicated); in other words, the power of government lies with the Queen, not her subjects (better known as the public). I believe the queen has the power (if she chooses to exercise it) to hire & fire Prime ministers at will, without regard to elections.
The queen is the head of state, not the Prime minister. The Prime minister is her servant; he takes an oath of allegiance to the queen, not to the public. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 5:20:16 AM | RE Msg: 40 by JustDukky:
for hundreds of years, the UK was led by the government. And who leads the government? -- The Queen
Ever since the Magna Carta, the monarch's power was not absolute, and had to be subject to that of the nobles. By the English Civil War, the monarch's power had been seriously diminished, and nearly all of the monarch's decisions had to be approved by the government before they could have any effect. In practice, all decisions of the country have been made by Parliament for hundreds of years. The Queen merely signs them.
The Queen technically has the right to refuse to sign a bill. But the last time a monarch vetoed a bill, was in 1708. If the Queen refused to authorise any single decision of Parliament, then Parliament would simply refuse to give her any money, and then she'd be a pauper before too long, as the monarchs have always lived off the people. If the Queen refused to authorise any decisions of Parliament, then she would be trying to act as if she refuses to recognise the right of the people, which is basically what Charles I did, when he refused to accept Parliament's decisions. That resulted in his execution. Today, there would be a call to simply remove her from office forcibly and replace her with someone else in the Royal family, or to disband the monarchy altogether. There are a lot of anti-monarchists already. So it would not be hard to get the people behind disbanding the monarchy.
In reality, the Queen is a figurehead of the country, and holds no real power. All power has rested with Parliment for hundreds of years, and
I shouldn't have to say this to a citizen of the UK; you should know this. I do. That's why I am writing this.
Is it not so that the Prime Minister is appointed to his office by the Monarch? {I know elections are held and that the man who gets the most votes by the public becomes the Prime minister, but he is the Queen's Prime minister and she gives Royal assent to his appointment (presumably to keep the people happy by concurring with their vote).} The Prime Minister (and his cabinet and the Commons itself) only has the power that the Queen has delegated. Note that I said delegated (not abdicated); in other words, the power of government lies with the Queen, not her subjects (better known as the public). I believe the queen has the power (if she chooses to exercise it) to hire & fire Prime ministers at will, without regard to elections.
The queen is the head of state, not the Prime minister. The Prime minister is her servant; he takes an oath of allegiance to the queen, not to the public. That's just for tradition's sake, and out of respect. In reality, Parliament has ruled the UK for hundreds of years.
So, the question comes back, if the monarch is really just a figurehead, as the monarch now is in most countries in Europe that still have one, why would those countries not be a republic?
Also, another question results. If the country's decisions are basically at the whim of a particular leader, such as Iran, or Libya, then surely those countries are run almost exactly as if the country was run by a monarchy. So why would they be republics? | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 9:58:53 AM |
if the monarch is really just a figurehead, as the monarch now is in most countries in Europe that still have one, why would those countries not be a republic?
Because by definition a republic is not ruled by a monarch (even a titular head of state).
I would point out that the Queen's status still leaves her with all the traditional power of the monarch. She simply delegates it. That power was never abdicated by Charles I, so only the Magna Carta and Declaration of Breda are binding on the monarch. I see nothing in the Declaration of Breda that removes any Royal prerogatives, except to allow religious tolerance and "a free parliament, by which, upon word of a king, we will be advised." Make of that what you will, but I interpret it to mean the Monarch promises to be advised by parliament, not necessarily to accept that advice. If my interpretation is in error, please let me know.
If the Queen is a titular head of state, it is because she holds the title, not because she has no power as head of state.
If the country's decisions are basically at the whim of a particular leader, such as Iran, or Libya, then surely those countries are run almost exactly as if the country was run by a monarchy. So why would they be republics?
I don't know that they are republics. To the best of my knowledge Iran is a theocracy and Libya is a dictatorship. If either of those counties calls itself a republic, it is only for PR reasons to keep the people quiet, I'm sure. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 11:09:02 AM | Yeah...
Here in the UK there are a lot of old, quaint, perhaps bizarre even, traditions which seem to throw a lot of people, outside the UK, off.
But scorpiomover is right.
The Queen has virtually no power and is merely a figure head. But she does have some aces up her sleeve in the form of "reserve powers"... And some of them seem pretty mind blowing... Like having the ability to dismiss a Prime Minister.
But such acts of reserve power can only be exercised in a "constitutional crisis"... This basically means there’s a good chance that she won’t have the authority to act.
Last time she did was during the hung parliament of 1974. Not a crisis as such, but she requested that Harold Wilson (leader of the Labour Party which had more seats at the time) to attempt to form a government. She also agreed to the dissolution of Parliament to allow this to happen.
So... I'm not completely sure just what the heck I'm living in. A Monarchy or a Republic. In fact Wikipedia suggests that the UK is an "ambiguity". | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 2:47:59 PM | The Queen has virtually no power and is merely a figure head.
If you believe that I have a suspension bridge in Indiana I'm trying to sell.
If she's just like the rest of us, stop calling her queen and paying for her stupid butt to get carried around in solid gold carriages.
Sure, she has no power, she just owns giant castles and land all over the world because we like her so much, right?
Brits sure are brainwashed... | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 3:05:27 PM | RE Msg: 42 by JustDukky:
Because by definition a republic is not ruled by a monarch (even a titular head of state). Then it's an irrelevant word, because a titular monarch is just a leader who can expect one of his children to be the leader, and a titular monarchy allows for the full gamut of every type of government there is. One might as well say a republic means "not a monarchy, whatever a monarchy is". I seriously doubt that Plato just meant that.
I would point out that the Queen's status still leaves her with all the traditional power of the monarch. She simply delegates it. That power was never abdicated by Charles I, so only the Magna Carta and Declaration of Breda are binding on the monarch. I see nothing in the Declaration of Breda that removes any Royal prerogatives, except to allow religious tolerance and "a free parliament, by which, upon word of a king, we will be advised." Make of that what you will, but I interpret it to mean the Monarch promises to be advised by parliament, not necessarily to accept that advice. If my interpretation is in error, please let me know. French law is Civil law, which is based on what is wrriten in the law books. In France, if it's not written in the law books, you can do it.
English law is Common law. It is built on custom. Law books are supposed to contain those customs. But they don't contain all the customs. If accepted custom goes against whatever is written in the law books, then the law must side with the accepted custom.
It really doesn't matter what the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Breda says. What matters is the "law of the land", the accepted custom. The accepted custom of the UK is that the monarch holds no real power, and cannot override the law of Parliament. So the monarch cannot override the law of Parliament. The only things that the monarch can do, are those things that monarchs have been doing for the last few generations, that is accepted custom as the law of the land.
If the country's decisions are basically at the whim of a particular leader, such as Iran, or Libya, then surely those countries are run almost exactly as if the country was run by a monarchy. So why would they be republics? I don't know that they are republics. To the best of my knowledge Iran is a theocracy and Libya is a dictatorship. If either of those counties calls itself a republic, it is only for PR reasons to keep the people quiet, I'm sure.
RE Msg: 43 by KinkyBastard:
The Queen has virtually no power and is merely a figure head. But she does have some aces up her sleeve in the form of "reserve powers"... And some of them seem pretty mind blowing... Like having the ability to dismiss a Prime Minister.
But such acts of reserve power can only be exercised in a "constitutional crisis"... This basically means there’s a good chance that she won’t have the authority to act.
Last time she did was during the hung parliament of 1974. Not a crisis as such, but she requested that Harold Wilson (leader of the Labour Party which had more seats at the time) to attempt to form a government. She also agreed to the dissolution of Parliament to allow this to happen. That's more a case of when no-one has any idea what to do, or when no majority can agree on what to do, so no-one knows what to do. Those decisions revert to her by default, just so that someone makes a decision. Even then, her decisions are only upheld, when the majority agree to abide by them. If most MPs had refused to accept her decision, and had another solution, that would have been the one we would have followed.
RE Msg: 44 by tbuddha:
If she's just like the rest of us, stop calling her queen and paying for her stupid butt to get carried around in solid gold carriages. It's common custom to have a monarch in the UK, and to pay for her. So it's the law of the land. Before you can get rid of her, the country has to agree to.
Sure, she has no power, she just owns giant castles and land all over the world because we like her so much, right? They are her private property. She's still a citizen of the UK. So she's entitled to own property of her own. AFAIK, she pays taxes on them, just like any other citizen.
Brits sure are brainwashed... Just people who don't know the common law of the UK. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 3:30:23 PM |
I seriously doubt that Plato just meant that.
What was Plato's "philosopher king" if not a dictator? Plato advocated fascism as a form of government. If you want a proper definition of republican government, look at the work of Kant.
French law is Civil law, which is based on what is wrriten in the law books. In France, if it's not written in the law books, you can do it.
Non sequitur; what has French civil law got to do with England, the UK, or the Queen?
The accepted custom of the UK is that the monarch holds no real power, and cannot override the law of Parliament
Parliament's legislation doesn't become law without ROYAL ASSENT. Why would the queen override her own statutes?
But according to your definition of a republic, they are countries without a monarch, and so they qualify for being called a republic.
You don't know how I define a republic because I never gave you my definition. In fact I didn't give you any definition. All I gave you was the true information that (by a condition required to be consistent with the definition of a republic) a monarchy can't be a republic (well, maybe in Sweden, where the king can be "de-throned" in an election). I never said anything other than that. To further clarify, I never said that a monarchy couldn't ACT, or organize itself like a republic, only that a (feudal) Monarchy is inconsistent with the definition of the word. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 3:51:48 PM | RE Msg: 46 by JustDukky:
I seriously doubt that Plato just meant that. What was Plato's "philosopher king" if not a dictator? Plato advocated fascism as a form of government. If you want a proper definition of republican government, look at the work of Kant.
Otherwise, you really could just say that a country doesn't have a monarch, and other than that, it's exactly the same. Much clearer for everyone.
In reality, the only countries where a monarchy represents a political system of government, are countries where the monarch wields incredible power, and the government is subject to his approval, like Saudi Arabia.
Non sequitur; what has French civil law got to do with England, the UK, or the Queen? There are 2 systems of law used in Western countries. Civil law is one, as exemplified by French law. Common law is the other, as exemplified by English law. Both Canada and America were most heavily influenced by France and the UK in their inception, and so both were influenced by Common Law and Civil Law. It was just my way of explaining where you might have got the idea that the UK might be required to run according to rules of Civil Law, and that the UK doesn't run that way.
The accepted custom of the UK is that the monarch holds no real power, and cannot override the law of Parliament Parliament's legislation doesn't become law without ROYAL ASSENT. Why would the queen override her own statutes?
But according to your definition of a republic, they are countries without a monarch, and so they qualify for being called a republic. You don't know how I define a republic because I never gave you my definition. In fact I didn't give you any definition. All I gave you was the true information that (by a condition required to be consistent with the definition of a republic) a monarchy can't be a republic (well, maybe in Sweden, where the king can be "de-throned" in an election). I never said anything other than that.
To further clarify, I never said that a monarchy couldn't ACT, or organize itself like a republic, only that a (feudal) Monarchy is inconsistent with the definition of the word. The UK has not been a feudal monarchy for centuries. It's already organised like a republic. | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 4:25:14 PM | so Parliament has to decide what to do if the monarch doesn't sign
If parliament acted against the Queen, it would be high treason and an act of rebellion equivalent to Cromwell's takeover, deposing Charles I. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, it could and the country would no longer be a monarchy . It (obviously) has been done before.
If the Queen chooses not to exercise her power, it is probably because doing so could result in another Cromwell type de-throning. She may not exercise it out of fear of the consequences, but that doesn't mean that she doesn't have that lawful power.
To the best of my knowledge, only once in all its history has England been without a monarch, so I dare say that the common law custom is to have one and to not commit an act of treason against him/her. So, while the common law would still exist if she were deposed, it does not mean that she could be deposed according to the custom of the common law (i.e. lawfully deposed). | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 5:17:30 PM | RE Msg: 48 by JustDukky:
If parliament acted against the Queen, it would be high treason and an act of rebellion equivalent to Cromwell's takeover, deposing Charles I. It was Charles I who was found guilty of high treason, and executed for it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England. Cromwell was just defending Parliament, the representative of the people. If the Queen refused to listen to Parliament, like Charles I, then that would be high treason.
I found it strange that the Canadian government should be a corporation. But I accepted it, because you know more about your country's basis than me. Why can you not simply accept that us Brits know more about the way Britain works than you? | |
|
| Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 5:43:44 PM |
Why can you not simply accept that us Brits know more about the way Britain works than you?
OK, Then you already know that "Her Majesty" is the "corporation sole" of Elizabeth of Windsor the woman, and you already know that "The Crown" is a corporation of "The City" of London (which is a city-state and not part of England)?
This city-state business is actually what fascinates me. Washington D.C., the Vatican and "the City" are all city-states, and all have Egyptian obelisks. Why do you suppose that is? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
