News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > General discussions > Garbage threads > @scotsboyuk vs @bobafett - where brave knights meet politic, cultures and traditions Bookmark topic

@Patrick-in-CA

I'm awfully sorry I haven't replied earlier, but I was summerring and I didn't get the chance to.

Britain has no written constitution, instead we have an unwritten constitution, which has been passed down for centuries, based upon Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Norse, and Norman tradition and laws as well as English commom-law and Scots law. There is nothing therefore to prevent a government from passing a law setting up a dicatorship, nothing except for two very important factors. The first is that the armed forces, although paid by parliament, swear allegiance to the Soveriegn, thus assuring, in theory at least, that neither can use the armed forces against the other. The other factor is no less important; governments call elections and hand over power because of a sense of fairplay and sportsmanship, as I said there is nothing to stop them from hanging on to power, save for their sense of fairplay.
I am not suggesting that our system is better than the U.S. system because it is older, I am suggesting that our system is better for us because it is older. Great Britain has been governed under our present system in one form or another for more than a millenium with one brief interruption, the people have not seen fit in all that time to swap the system for another e.g. an elected republic. British democracy has evolved over the past thousand or so years and will continue to evolve at the same slow pace.

_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC

[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2004-08-04 00:52 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-31 02:45:23
Edit : Quote


How is the Monarchy involved in the running of the military in GB?
--
Posted: 2004-07-31 22:11:51
Edit : Quote


@Patrick-in-CA

The military swear allegiance to the Soveriegn, the armed forces are the monarch's armed forces, not the government's. In theory the government uses the armed forces on behalf of the Soveriegn, but in reality it is the government who make the decisions. The armed forces are paid by parliament through general taxation, but the oath of allegiance to the Soveriegn makes them the Soveriegn's armed forces. In theory military property is owned by the Queen in her role as the Crown, which translates as parliament having control over said military assets.
Various members of the Royal Family are Colonel-in-Chief of one or more regiments, thus giving them symbolic roles within the military, the Soveriegn being the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. It is quite common for members of the Royal Family to join the military e.g. HM the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, etc. Both the Duke of Edinburgh an Prince Andrew have seen active service, during WWII and the Falkland's War, respectively. HM the Queen served in the military during WWII, although she did not see active service owing to the fact that women were not allowed to take part in front line fighting in those days.
The Soveriegn acts in a similar role to that, which I have outlined above, in th various other nations that have the British Monarch as Head of State e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc
Interestingly enough the Duke of Argyll was the only man in Britain to have an army besides HM the Queen up until his death a few years ago.
Anohe rinteresting fact, which I have just remembered, is that King George II, in the eighteenth century, was the last British King to lead troops into battle.
--
Posted: 2004-08-04 02:05:41
Edit : Quote


So, what stops the Queen from just saying she's sick of helping the US in Iraq and bringing the British troops home right now?
--
Posted: 2004-08-04 21:54:43
Edit : Quote


@Patrick-in-CA

HM the Queen acts on the advice of her ministers, that is to say that she signs legislation that has been agreed upon by parliament and decisions taken taken by Ministers. In theory HM the Queen does not have to take this advice, but in practice this never happens. Military decisions are made by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister, the Queen has no real say in how the army is run, although the Prime Minister would take advice from HM the Queen at his weekly meeting with her. The Queen could recommend that the Prime Minister recall British troops, but he wouldn't be obliged to do so, although the Queen would never make such a demand. There is a rule that members of the Royal Family do not become involved in politics, so HM the Queen is unable to act in any political capacity outside of her official powers.
HM the Queen's role in the armed forces is largely ceremonial, the actual decsions are made by government Ministers, although it would be a foolish Minister who didn't at least listen to advice given by HM the Queen.
--
Posted: 2004-08-05 01:44:26
Edit : Quote


She has the power to block legislation and the Military is sworn to her, but there are rules she doesn't act in a political way? Ceremonial, tradition, history - I can see how these things have become so very important in the governance of GB/UK. However, so far I'm still under the impression that under a Constitutional Monarchy, the sovereign may not exercise their power and just let their "advisers" do as they see fit - yet at any time this could change. And it appears that Ceremony, tradition, history are the things standing in the way of a would be tyrant - not a legitimate legal structure? Can you point me in the right direction here if I'm wrong?
--
Posted: 2004-08-05 10:23:47
Edit : Quote


@Patrick-in-CA

You have essentially 'hit the nail on the head', it is very much a case of tradition; as I said there is no written constitution for the U.K. This system has served us very well for centuries and I see absolutely no need to change it now. I should also point out that your use of the term G.B (meaning 'Great Britain') is not the correct terminology to use when speaking in a political sense as it only refers to the island of Great Britain and excludes Northern Ireland, which is also a part of the U.K.
--
Posted: 2004-08-06 01:19:41
Edit : Quote


Thank you for the correction ... that is why I included UK there because I wasn't sure. So you then agree that the only thing keeping the monarch from being a tyrant is tradition?
--
Posted: 2004-08-06 01:40:54
Edit : Quote


@Patrick-in-CA

I feel you have missed the point somewhat; it isn't so much the case that the monarch may become a tyrant, rather it is parliament that may become tyrannical. In this regard it really is very little more than tradition and fair play that keeps this from happening.
--
Posted: 2004-08-06 01:49:51
Edit : Quote


Yes, I see your point. It is the commons that seems to be the center of power for the UK. Yet, although there doesn't seem to be a reason to change it now - it still tends to concern me that the checks on the power of the commons are not very strong.

The President of the US is rather powerful, but congress and the courts can put him in his place rather easily. Example: Bush wanted detainees in Guantanamo Bay to not have a day in court ... but the Supreme Court recently handed Bush a paddling, telling him he must allow them the opportunity to go to court.

It gets confusing and frequently frustrating ironing out all the posturing and movement in the US Government but through deliberate process, lots of pushing and shoving, and protracted contesting - we frequently arrive at a reasonably good position.

And the process is written law, not unwritten tradition, so that we rely less on history, tradition, and a sense of "fair-play" to grant legitimacy to the functions of government. I like it that way.
--
Posted: 2004-08-06 01:58:11
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index