What's the monarchy for?

[morqthana]

Yes, it really is the monarch who dissolves Parliament as the United Kingdom is still a constitutional monarchy

And therefore a PM struggling with a Parliament which will not do his bidding can shut Parliament down, and there are no protections against that. Or a PM who does not want Parliament to debate something can block it, and there are no protections against that.

The King remains at the head of a triumverate of monarchy, Lords and Commoners which works well enough, for the most part.

How many amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill has the HoL proposed, in order to scupper the whole thing?

If you want to address the disparity in wealth, perhaps you should consider those corporations acting outside the law, circumventing His Majesties tax collectors who keep their profits offshore for themselves.

I've not mentioned their wealth at all. That will be you, that will

Alright; what would happen to that wealth if the monarchy was overthrown by a band of reform zealots in the New Year?

The net worth of the Royal family was estimated at £21bn, at the time of King Charles' coronation two years ago. He also inherited a personal fortune of almost £400mn, substantially boosting his wealth fund to £2bn. The Crown Estate, which manages the monarchy’s property holdings, is valued at £15.6 bn and generated an estimated £312.7 million.

What people complain about is the inherited wealth.

 

[Odds]

And therefore a PM struggling with a Parliament which will not do his bidding can shut Parliament down, and there are no protections against that. Or a PM who does not want Parliament to debate something can block it, and there are no protections against that.

Just because he can do so doesn't necessarily mean he would.
The King understands power comes with responsibility and i'd trust him to exercise that power more responsibly than someone like Farage. Wouldn't you?

How many amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill has the HoL proposed, in order to scupper the whole thing?

I don't know, perhaps you can tell me.
The AD bill is one that will undergo months/years or close scrutiny to ensure it's fit for purpose. I think it's a good thing to allow people to decide for themselves without becoming criminalised.

I've not mentioned their wealth at all. That will be you, that will

I've touched on that in the 'Who owns Britain?' thread and i'd rather our monarchy had a say in that than a foreign power such as the House of Saud.

 

[Notch7]

Yes, it really is the monarch who dissolves Parliament as the United Kingdom is still a constitutional monarchy - it remains His Majesties government, HM Armed Forces, HM tax...The King remains at the head of a triumverate of monarchy, Lords and Commoners which works well enough, for the most part. If you want to address the disparity in wealth, perhaps you should consider those corporations acting outside the law, circumventing His Majesties tax collectors who keep their profits offshore for themselves.

Nowadays Amazon has more power than a Prime Minister.

 

[Notch7]

And therefore a PM struggling with a Parliament which will not do his bidding can shut Parliament down, and there are no protections against that.

The law still has power above the executive, so yes there are protections.

What you mean is direct constitutional protection, well that needs writing into the constitution.

I don't see how that has any bearing on having a monarchy.

 

[Notch7]

How many amendments to the Assisted Dying Bill has the HoL proposed, in order to scupper the whole thing?

Are they trying to scupper it?

Personally I think it needs long debate

 

[morqthana]

Just because he can do so doesn't necessarily mean he would.

Err - what? It's already happened.

Boris Johnson tried it in 2019, but failed thanks to legal action.

John Major successfully did it in 1997 to prevent Parliament debating the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair.

In 1999 the government got The Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill killed by refusing to allow Parliament to debate it.

The King understands power comes with responsibility and i'd trust him to exercise that power more responsibly than someone like Farage. Wouldn't you?

You really think he'd "tear up" our unwritten constitution? If Farage becomes PM the King will do everything which Farage "advises" him to do. Absolutely everything.

 

[morqthana]

Are they trying to scupper it?

They are giving every appearance...

 

[Odds]

Err - what? It's already happened.

Boris Johnson tried it in 2019, but failed thanks to legal action.

John Major successfully did it in 1997 to prevent Parliament debating the Parliamentary Commissioner's report on the cash-for-questions affair.

In 1999 the government got The Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill killed by refusing to allow Parliament to debate it.




You really think he'd "tear up" our unwritten constitution? If Farage becomes PM the King will do everything which Farage "advises" him to do. Absolutely everything.

Yeah, i meant the King, not the pm, and i don't think he do anything against the interests of the UK regardless of who the p.minister is. Farage still has a long way to go, despite sitting high in the polls.
I still think the monarchy has a role to play in the modern world and is making every effort to adapt to the changing demands. Projections for its demise in the latter half of the 21st century may be premature, as attitudes in youth change with age.

 

[morqthana]

Yeah, i meant the King, not the pm,

You really do seem to be missing the point.

It is the monarch who dissolves Parliament. Nobody else can.

It is the monarch who prorogues Parliament. Nobody else can.

It is the monarch who refuses to allow Parliament to debate bills. Nobody else can.

It is the monarch who gives assent to Bills thus turning them into Acts. Nobody else can.

In practice they do all those things only at the behest of the PM, and when they do there is precious little to stand in their way. Which means that when the PM decides to dissolve, or suspend Parliament, or decides not to allow MPs to debate something, there is precious little to stand in their way.

and i don't think he do anything against the interests of the UK regardless of who the p.minister is.

It would be a brave/foolhardy/foolish monarch who declined to do what his/her Prime Minister "advised", or refused to give assent to a bill which had been passed by Parliament, on the grounds that he/she didn't think it was "in the interests of the UK".