Originally posted by inimalist
she shut down the canadian parliment at the behest of the Conservative party to prevent them being voted out in non-confidence
Yeah, but she did that because it is her ceremonial responsibility. The right to dissolve lay with the Canadian Prime Minister- the shocking thing would have been if she had BLOCKED the dissolution, as that would have been trying to take control of Canadian politics.
So nothing happened that would not have happened had she not been there.
Originally posted by jaden101
And most of those countries are shining examples of freedoms and liberties for their citizens aren't they?All of them stable democracies so they are.
Or maybe they're rife with poverty, torture, ethnic cleansing, genocide, religious fanaticism, terrorism, corruption and generally all round good stuff for their people.
Originally posted by inimalist
the same way Gunatanamo doesn't make America any less of a democracy.I'm not saying they don't have terrible human rights abuses, and I would definatly say human rights are much more important than is the ability to elect the people who are your abusers. There is a really interesting, if depressing, trend in many of these nations, especially in north africa, where voter turn out is like 35% for exactly the reasons you outlined, people have lost faith in the system, though of course, they still have the ability to elect people
Simply for the sake of the non-Commonwealthers here, I'd just like to point out that the prorogation of parliament is undertaken by the Governor General or lieutenant governors acting as the Monarch's representative at the behst of the Prime Minister or premier, respectively. The Queen's position and office is doing it, but she herself is not literally doing it.
Originally posted by inimalist
and I said:the opposite of saying you were wrong
Not really, in context.
The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.
Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.
-
Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions- but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really, in context.The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.
Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.
-
Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions- but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.
Well if Saudi Arabia and the royal family crumbles, all of us recently laid off Americans with writing skills are going to have lots of new job opportunities considering how many grant writers Al Qaida's going to need.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really, in context.The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.
Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.
I didn't disagree with you. I don't know. I don't necessarily take your word as authoritative regarding Canadian parlimentary procedures, but it, quote, "sounds good". I'll be sure to look it up for sure the next time I go on an anti-monarchist rant, which are more common than you might expect. The main point being, I'm not arguing with you because I don't know. I'm sure its one of those things I've forgotten since highschool, and tbh, I'm far too alienated from and disinterested in my nations politics for it to be hugely relevant to me. (Not that I'm special, Canada has had major problems with voter turn out recently)
That being said, even if symbolic, "the Queen shut down parliment to protect the conservative PM" irks me on a patriotic level.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions
and I think Kuwait (iirc) just kicked out a group of Egyptians trying to spread the protests there. Its amazing, imho. Now, full disclosure, the monarchies I listed have far more control over politics than does the British monarchy. It will be interesting to see what happens in places like Jordan which are run by heredity rather than theocracy, if the revolutions spread there, whether the people would accept a monarch with reduced power as opposed to disposing of a king altogether.
Sort of like how England became a democracy through slow progressive change, and France chopped the royals' heads off.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.
that is a huge question. SA's population does have some of the same qualities as those in these other states (unemployment, young male populations, etc), but the Mosque is also far more powerful there than it is in Jordan or Egypt or Tunisia (where autocratic leaders have to compete with the power of the mosque, the same way Stalin had to compete with the orthodox church). In SA, the state and the mosque are tied much closer, and this provides, at least imho (and I'm no expert on SA [shocking I know]), more cover for their leaders, because the people are very pious.
SA is also far more important for America's long term interests in the region, so international pressures would be very much against the revolt. Additionally, there are members of the royal family who are known as reformers and who do speak about opening the political system. It would probably be much easier for the royal family to placate to the masses by empowering one of these individuals, while still holding onto the reigns of power, than it is for the Egyptian leaders to hold power by appointing other military leaders.
ya, I think that would be my prediction. If anything, we might see a small opening of local or regional politics and democratization under the rule of a more progressive wing of the royal family, namely because I don't think the SA population is as anti-state as are the Egyptians or Tunisians, but this would be following a military crackdown against the protesters unlike what we have seen in Egypt or Tunisia.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not really, in context.The situation is simple. The PM has the right to dissolve parliament. To do so, he obviously has to sign certain papers and what not. Part of that procedure- purely ceremonial- is that he asks the Queen, and the Queen automatically says yes and the process carries on.
Take the Queen out of that, and all that happens is that you shorten one piece of paperwork. The PM wants to dissolve; it still happens, Queen or no Queen. The power is with the PM, not the Queen.
-
Talking of monarchies- you will note the monarchies in the Middle East can see the writing on the wall. Jordan is already making concessions- but what might happen with Saudi Arabia? That's the big one.
Off topic...Warning for you, boss.
Originally posted by inimalist
YouTube video
👆 They only give a crap about democracy when its convinient. Such hypocracy.
Originally posted by Darth Jellohas that ever actually happened?
As I've mentioned before, the Queen does have one power which is useful and that a system like America doesn't have. Basically, the Queen and the monarchy is there and independently wealthy and actually is traditionally ingrained with a certain sense of social responsibility so you know, they aren't necessarily swayed by bankers and corporatists. The Queen also has the right to dissolve parliament and force new elections. So basically, if America had an institution similar to a monarchy, whenever government became as bought and corrupt as it is now, the queen or whatever royal would have the right to go up to any state legislature or the US congress and say "uh, uh. Not gonna work. You're all ****ing fired. New candidates, new elections, you have 60 days." So basically, I've been surprisingly turned around on the concept of monarchy when realizing it could act as a check on corporate power.