It's only a matter of time...

[carmanmemoranda]

I am no longer a supporter of any party and no longer vote.

So what do you think the answer is ?

 

[Dork Lard]

So what do you think the answer is ?

I've often thought that we could replace the House of Lords with a Jury. A group of people randomly selected from a qualified pool. It works & we trust it for enforcing our laws, so why not trust it for making them???

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I've often thought that we could replace the House of Lords with a Jury. A group of people randomly selected from a qualified pool. It works & we trust it for enforcing our laws, so why not trust it for making them???

And whilst we are at it, we could have a democratically elected head of state. It won't be perfect, but better than being born into position.

Monarchy belongs to history.

 

[Dork Lard]

And whilst we are at it, we could have a democratically elected head of state. It won't be perfect, but better than being born into position.

Monarchy belongs to history.

A good friend & P/T member of the 'Rogues, Vagabonds & Ne'er Do Well'rs MCC' happens to be a barrister who specialises in contract law. I don't get to chat with him nearly as much as I'd like but the RVNDW MCC did have a recent & very humorous talking to about his recent change to Kings Council.

We cannot possibly comprehend the legal difficulties involved in removing the King as head of state. Theoretically, it might be possible that he could instigate the matter himself, but generally speaking, the only other option is violent revolution.

Did you know this . . . . A crown court judge sits as the representative of the monarch. If the monarch visits the place where the crown court is held then the court must adjourn until the monarch has left. Why? Because the monarch cannot be in the same place twice !

They say that all modern law is based upon English law & it is not a defence to not understand the law. Whatever you do do NOT sit down with someone who knows the law & is hell bent on making you wish you never asked for something to be clarified.

 

[Brigadier]

we could have a democratically elected head of state.

You're acting as though the monarch has any real power (that they use, anyway).
Which they don't have, and don't.

And, as I asked of ellal when they were recently extolling the virtues of "democratically" electing a president, why would this be preferable to what we already have? As,

Brexit was a democratic vote
The current shower were democratically elected

Democracy is only as good as the candidates and the electorate. Neither of which has been worth a wet w##k for years.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You're acting as though the monarch has any real power (that they use, anyway).
Which they don't have, and don't.

And, as I asked of ellal when they were recently extolling the virtues of "democratically" electing a president, why would this be preferable to what we already have? As,

Brexit was a democratic vote
The current shower were democratically elected

Democracy is only as good as the candidates and the electorate. Neither of which has been worth a wet w##k for years.

So it's better to be born into the position, of no (real) power, but immense wealth ? Plus we have no chance to be able to select somebody different.

Show me a royal family I could respect and I might be ok with the monarchy. I can't respect this bunch.

 

[Brigadier]

So it's better to be born into the position, of no (real) power, but immense wealth ? Plus we have no chance to be able to select somebody different.

Brooklyn Beckham?
Tamara Ecclestone?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Brooklyn Beckham?
Tamara Ecclestone?

Are they on the election list to replace this lot? Or what's your point?

 

[Brigadier]

Powerless, and immensely wealthy through accident of birth.
And have little effect on your life.
Do you want to get rid of them as well?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Powerless, and immensely wealthy through accident of birth.
And have little effect on your life.
Do you want to get rid of them as well?

Irrelevant then.

Not a publically supported family, and no part of the monarchy. Didn't think there was a point.

 

[Brigadier]

Not a publically supported

Already addressed this, monarchy is net benefit to UK plc.
Just because you can't accept that, doesn't make it not so.

part of the monarchy

Ideological objection then, so stop trying to dress it up any other way.

You object to the monarchy "because" : that's your prerogative.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Would be interesting to see your figures explained.

Most info on the web seems unable to give any real cost versus benefit analysis because of so much hidden financial info. security costs come into it too.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you want to believe. But that's your choice too.

 

[Mottie]

I've often thought that we could replace the House of Lords with a Jury. A group of people randomly selected from a qualified pool. It works & we trust it for enforcing our laws, so why not trust it for making them???

So, you'd have the Police make the laws as well as enforcing them?

 

[ellal]

You're acting as though the monarch has any real power (that they use, anyway).
Which they don't have, and don't.

You obviously have never heard of the king's consent (formally the queens consent) then?

"Details of this and other examples of secret lobbying by Buckingham Palace are contained in documents unearthed by the Guardian in the National Archives. They reveal how the monarch has used an arcane parliamentary process known as Queen’s consent to secretly press ministers to amend legislation."

Linky Linky

"Unlike the better-known procedure of royal assent, a formality that marks the moment when a bill becomes law, Queen’s consent must be sought before the relevant legislation can be approved by parliament."

No real power?
And never used?

"A Guardian investigation last year revealed the Queen’s consent procedure had been used by the monarch in recent decades to privately lobby for changes to proposed UK legislation. In Scotland, where the procedure is known as crown consent, research by the Guardian identified at least 67 instances in which Scottish bills were vetted by the Queen."

"It also confirms that the Queen’s lawyers may discuss the substance of bills with the Scottish government and admits “it is almost certain some bills were changed before introduction to address concerns about crown consent”, meaning even MSPs in Holyrood would not be aware that legislation had been amended for this purpose."

 

[noseall]

You obviously have never heard of the king's consent (formally the queens consent) then?

"Details of this and other examples of secret lobbying by Buckingham Palace are contained in documents unearthed by the Guardian in the National Archives. They reveal how the monarch has used an arcane parliamentary process known as Queen’s consent to secretly press ministers to amend legislation."

Linky Linky

"Unlike the better-known procedure of royal assent, a formality that marks the moment when a bill becomes law, Queen’s consent must be sought before the relevant legislation can be approved by parliament."

No real power?
And never used?

"A Guardian investigation last year revealed the Queen’s consent procedure had been used by the monarch in recent decades to privately lobby for changes to proposed UK legislation. In Scotland, where the procedure is known as crown consent, research by the Guardian identified at least 67 instances in which Scottish bills were vetted by the Queen."

"It also confirms that the Queen’s lawyers may discuss the substance of bills with the Scottish government and admits “it is almost certain some bills were changed before introduction to address concerns about crown consent”, meaning even MSPs in Holyrood would not be aware that legislation had been amended for this purpose."

Ceremonial, is all.