Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
UK Constitutional Change UK Constitutional Change

09-29-2014 , 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
No idea where I first read it, but wiki to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...United_Kingdom
Support for the Royals shortly before the Diamond Jubilee hardly surprising
Im amazed it was only 75% considering the amount of feel good drivel the media subjected us too surrounding the Jubilee and Olympics

Anyway interesting debate going on
09-29-2014 , 03:05 PM
Diego is right, not only about the royals but also about the upper house. Both are antiquated notions whose time is either passed or rapidly passing. The notion that someone who's done nothing in his life other than be born to the right parents should have that much power and prestige is laughable in modern times, and the idea that the 'common' folk need to have their laws approved by the nobility is even worse.

Get rid of the whole thing now and everyone would be better off.
09-29-2014 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoArmando
After watching Question Time from the other night, it appeared to me that independence for all the nations of the UK is forthcoming. When they were arguing through their points, it was clear that the conclusion is separation of powers and more autonomy for each region, with the unanswered question remaining: why exactly are we in a union?
Because you and people like you cant argue against the economics being on the side of the union.
09-29-2014 , 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Diego is right, not only about the royals but also about the upper house. Both are antiquated notions whose time is either passed or rapidly passing. The notion that someone who's done nothing in his life other than be born to the right parents should have that much power and prestige is laughable in modern times, and the idea that the 'common' folk need to have their laws approved by the nobility is even worse.

Get rid of the whole thing now and everyone would be better off.
Actually the Royal Family have prestige...but no Power - they cannot make decisions as to the government of the UK (other than the Queen could refuse to sign bills passed by her government, though this never happens).

The influence they have (real or imagined) comes solely from the way they are treated by ordinary citizens (and I include other people of influence in that description). Prince Charles had even been criticised for making his views known to government ministers and some MPs believe that he should not be allowed to do even this. I can contact ministers about anything I like - but not the heir to the throne.

They still exist because of the agreements made in the 1660s, which led to the overall power of the monarchy being abolished and given to Parliament. Basically they have to do what Parliament requires them to do. Whether they are value for money is a matter of opinion - I am not a Royalist but I strongly suspect that their influence worldwide greatly benefits the UK. For instance it's known that a foreign tour by the Queen can persuade some heads of state to give Britain certain contracts.


I deprecate that but accept that it's human nature to be influenced by Kings and Queens or people with money (or perceived to have money). Or Jennifer Aniston!
09-29-2014 , 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
Diego is right, not only about the royals but also about the upper house. Both are antiquated notions whose time is either passed or rapidly passing. The notion that someone who's done nothing in his life other than be born to the right parents should have that much power and prestige is laughable in modern times, and the idea that the 'common' folk need to have their laws approved by the nobility is even worse.

Get rid of the whole thing now and everyone would be better off.
Hereditary peers were abolished by Blair. The only way to get into the Lords now is by appointment. Whilst the notion of inheriting a seat is certainly antiquated, I don't see political appointment as an improvement. It may even be worse. Now the Lords is simply loaded with partisan cronies and over the hill MPs.
09-30-2014 , 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private_Snowball
Hereditary peers were abolished by Blair. The only way to get into the Lords now is by appointment. Whilst the notion of inheriting a seat is certainly antiquated, I don't see political appointment as an improvement. It may even be worse. Now the Lords is simply loaded with partisan cronies and over the hill MPs.
There are 93 remaining hereditary peers.
09-30-2014 , 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private_Snowball
The UK doesn't have a constitution.
It does by way of a series of "accepted norms".
09-30-2014 , 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
Because you and people like you cant argue against the economics being on the side of the union.
No. You say this because you have a fixed and strong view that individualism for the masses and neoliberalism are the only ways to organise a society.

I disagree. I've given you many reasons in the referendum debate, but you habitually ignore them and go on trolling.
09-30-2014 , 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacaroonUK
Actually the Royal Family have prestige...but no Power - they cannot make decisions as to the government of the UK (other than the Queen could refuse to sign bills passed by her government, though this never happens).
Apparently it does, although the extent to which it does is rather difficult to define.

Quote:

They still exist because of the agreements made in the 1660s, which led to the overall power of the monarchy being abolished and given to Parliament. Basically they have to do what Parliament requires them to do.
The important part of that is not necessarily an argument against the existence of the royals, but that the executive branch is sovereign through the Royal Prerogative. That needs to change.

Quote:
Whether they are value for money is a matter of opinion - I am not a Royalist but I strongly suspect that their influence worldwide greatly benefits the UK. For instance it's known that a foreign tour by the Queen can persuade some heads of state to give Britain certain contracts.
I know you disagree with it, but we can't seriously debate when we use unfounded assertions such as the above. I'm sure there are plenty of suitable individuals who could "persuade some heads of state" to do many things.

What I would be more interested in is who exactly would benefit from these contracts that Britain may win?

Maybe give us some examples of said foreign tours which resulted in contracts being given to Britain - whatever that means.
09-30-2014 , 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
There are literally mountains, and I really do mean mountains, of statistical evidence that the royal family brings revenues and prestige to British brands, not just in the tourism industry.
Literally mountains?
09-30-2014 , 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
Literally mountains?
Sounds like a Hipster band.
09-30-2014 , 10:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoArmando
It does by way of a series of "accepted norms".
My stance on the old 'unwritten constitution' shtick - Formal Codified Document or GTFO.
09-30-2014 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
Literally mountains?
The paper wasted on printing studies in the monarchy's impact on UK economy can most likely form a mountain or two, some pretty big hills at least.

It's not just an academic exercise either. There is big money involved.
09-30-2014 , 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiegoArmando
There are 93 remaining hereditary peers.
The point I was making was that the remaining HP's are the last ones. Peerages are no longer bequeathed.

I rather liked the idea of having non-partisan, free thinkers scrutinising bills and disrupting the machine. Perhaps I have an idealised, unrealistic vision of barmy, eccentric hereditary peers or sanctimonious, bible-bashing Spirit Lords sticking it to the man.

I still believe a bicameral system is necessary to revise or filter out bad bills. First past the post tends to bring in single party majorities without a true democratic mandate. We don't have a separation of powers in the UK. Parliament is both the legislature and the de-facto executive. The role of the Lord's ought to be to keep the excesses of self-serving single party governments in check. For this to work, the makeup of the Lords needs to be fundamentally different to the Commons. There are multiple ways to achieve this, but turning the Lords into a carbon copy of the Commons by direct elections clearly isn't one of them.

The only way it could work would be to elect the Lords by proportional representation, but obviously no Tory or Labour government will ever allow this. They're too attached to first past the post for obvious reasons.

Last edited by Private_Snowball; 09-30-2014 at 11:23 AM.
09-30-2014 , 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private_Snowball
The point I was making was that the remaining HP's are the last ones. Peerages are no longer bequeathed.

I rather liked the idea of having non-partisan, free thinkers scrutinising bills and disrupting the machine. Perhaps I have an idealised, unrealistic vision of barmy, eccentric hereditary peers or sanctimonious, bible-bashing Spirit Lords sticking it to the man.

I still believe a bicameral system is necessary to revise or filter out bad bills. First past the post tends to bring in single party majorities without a true democratic mandate. We don't have a separation of powers in the UK. Parliament is both the legislature and the de-facto executive. The role of the Lord's ought to be to keep the excesses of self-serving single party governments in check. For this to work, the makeup of the Lords needs to be fundamentally different to the Commons. There are multiple ways to achieve this, but turning the Lords into a carbon copy of the Commons by direct elections clearly isn't one of them.

The only way it could work would be to elect the Lords by proportional representation, but obviously no Tory or Labour government will ever allow this. They're too attached to first past the post for obvious reasons.
+1
09-30-2014 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private_Snowball
My stance on the old 'unwritten constitution' shtick - Formal Codified Document or GTFO.
totally agree. it needs to be formalised and written.
09-30-2014 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Private_Snowball
The point I was making was that the remaining HP's are the last ones. Peerages are no longer bequeathed.

I rather liked the idea of having non-partisan, free thinkers scrutinising bills and disrupting the machine. Perhaps I have an idealised, unrealistic vision of barmy, eccentric hereditary peers or sanctimonious, bible-bashing Spirit Lords sticking it to the man.

I still believe a bicameral system is necessary to revise or filter out bad bills. First past the post tends to bring in single party majorities without a true democratic mandate. We don't have a separation of powers in the UK. Parliament is both the legislature and the de-facto executive. The role of the Lord's ought to be to keep the excesses of self-serving single party governments in check. For this to work, the makeup of the Lords needs to be fundamentally different to the Commons. There are multiple ways to achieve this, but turning the Lords into a carbon copy of the Commons by direct elections clearly isn't one of them.

The only way it could work would be to elect the Lords by proportional representation, but obviously no Tory or Labour government will ever allow this. They're too attached to first past the post for obvious reasons.
I just read the wiki article on this and it looks like these positions will remain.

Another aspect to it is that they can now just give them a lifetime peerage, and can obviously choose younger candidates to represent certain interests for longer.

Why does it need to be representative? Can it be done directly?

I don't see why we can't just have an electoral number that grants us access to a website, which would open the doors to many direct democratic processes.

Or if that wouldn't work, why not select a cross section of society with a system similar to jury duty?
09-30-2014 , 04:24 PM
There are basically no differences between a written constitution and a set of statutes as we use here. It all comes down to a judge deciding what the written words mean.

America is the perfect example for how a constitution can mean whatever you want, just apply the right amount of personal prejudice and boom corporations are people with first amendment protected free speech rights that include donating unlimited amounts of money but students on campus have restricted right to protest. Call me when you work out how the PATRIOT act doesnt break at least two of the amendments in the bill of rights.
09-30-2014 , 04:50 PM
"America's constitution is meaningless, therefore all written constitutions are meaningless"

Spoiler:
Deep breaths.......
09-30-2014 , 05:02 PM
America's constitution is the blueprint for many modern constitutions and is widely regarded as one of if not the best (in balance, at least).

Its only worth doing if you are going from something like a dictatorship to democracy where there were no defined rights or rule of law before, Britain doesnt need a new written constitution. It already has one written into centuries of statute and case law.
09-30-2014 , 06:23 PM
America's constitution is considered the best not because of how well it's written, but how well respected it is.

It's not changed on a whim like pretty much every other constitution in the world.

Britain has quite a few laws that aren't called constitutional but are obviously held in similar regard.
10-01-2014 , 01:51 PM
'we the people' is one of the biggest myths of ever, either that or it has been wildly misinterpreted.
10-01-2014 , 04:28 PM
Correct on both counts
10-05-2014 , 10:03 AM
According to panelbase, a majority of Scotland favours devo-max, devolution of all but foreign policy and defence, with 66% in favour and 15% who don't know.

68% want control over oil and gas revenue, 71% over all tax revenues.

Apart from the obvious question of why these ******s voted no, the fact remains that we were promised devo max by the scrotum faced Brown, on behalf of his beloved establishment.

The Smith Commission is inviting all residents in Scotland to submit their proposals for new powers, so it seems like either significant change will be made, or the will of the people in Scotland will be denied.

What does England want?
10-05-2014 , 10:48 AM
I bet three quarters of those who want devo-max couldnt define it.

It certainly wasnt defined when Gordon Brown unilaterally offered it despite Parliament not giving him permission to do so.

Anyway, Scotland should have power of vote on issues just related to Scotland, of which the north sea isnt included, and they can decide tax revenues on people living there. Then just continue the current powers. England should get the exact same powers so Scots cant vote on English related issues and England not Scotland should decide how people living here in England get taxed.

Any shortfalls in things in Scotland like education, NHS spending, and all infrastructure like roads should be paid for by the Scottish. When Scotland gets new tax and spend powers they should be cut off from the English purse unless it is a British wide matter.

The current law says the north sea reserves are owned equally by all British citizens so no need to change any of that.

      
m