One American on International Politics (page 5)

dawg

The thread he's talking about was his chicken little thread about his lovely guns being taken llbh, he actually believes theres a threat... I still haven't figured out how he smoked me on that thread yet, but the right wingers have somehow come to that conclusion... but then again, they voted for Bush....need I say more.

Thanks for sharing your view on parliament, maybe Burns can learn a thing or two. Doubtful as it may seem.

llbh

Hi Dawg

I read your replies on that thread too, i thought you rather got the better of him. He tends to induce an answer fom an entrenched position rather than examine things .

I understand that milligal wants to study law too,and that maybe is what may be behind her starting this thread as well

Regards David

BurnTheShips

As for the original point of the thread you are are exhibiting what Milligal was saying about ignorance of another countrie's jurisprudence

I resent this comment. I may not be intimately acquainted with the functioning of your government, but I have a fair working knowledge of how it functions--for a foreigner. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

My own government is of much more immediate importance to me, obviously.

As for your statement regarding the law of your country, an appeal to your own authority is meaningless on an anonymous electronic forum.

I have read before that the Queen retains the legal power to dissolve Parliament and to appoint the Prime Minister, even if that power has not been used for a very long time, and that such a procedure would be extremely irregular at this time.

You say this statement is incorrect. Rather than appeal to your own authority, please show me why?

I find it to be a peculiar European quality that always seems to appeal to position, rather than product. You Brits are a shade better than the rest.

BTS

digderidoo

I have read before that the Queen retains the legal power to dissolve Parliament and to appoint the Prime Minister, even if that power has not been used for a very long time, and that such a procedure would be extremely irregular at this time.

You are right to a point.

The Queen only has the power to dissolve Parliament at 1) it's request or 2) if it decides to extend it's period of office. The latter i believe happened in Australia in the 70's. The Australian government decided to bring in legislation to extend it's time in power and the Queen stepped in. I cannot remember the details but i'm sure the info is out there.

She only appoints the Prime Minister at the request of Parliament. It is not her decision.

Paul

llbh

Ok i do accept that your knowledge of our legal system is limited. as mine if yours.

I will ask you to show me where what i stated is wrong.

Page 244 paragaph 1 Constitutional and Administritive Law by ECS Wade and AW Bradley states in part " The Sovereign may reign but it is the Prime Minister and other ministers who rule ".

If you want to read the rest of the chapter you will see that i have not taken this out ot context. though it does go to on to ennumerate the limited powers the Soveriegn has

I trust know you accept my assertion

Regards David

BurnTheShips

You are right to a point.

The Queen only has the power to dissolve Parliament at 1) it's request or 2) if it decides to extend it's period of office. The latter i believe happened in Australia in the 70's. The Australian government decided to bring in legislation to extend it's time in power and the Queen stepped in. I cannot remember the details but i'm sure the info is out there.

She only appoints the Prime Minister at the request of Parliament. It is not her decision.

Thank you Didgeridoo, this is the kind of clarification I was seeking.

BTS

BurnTheShips

I trust know you accept my assertion

Thank you David.

It may seem that I have an entrenched position on some matters (this not being one of them), however, they are based on careful examination and consideration.

BTS

hamilcarr

I find it to be a peculiar European quality that always seems to appeal to position , rather than product .

Marked ... LOL

dawg

So Burns, does that mean you'd like to have a parliament too now that you've been corrected? You seemed to be asserting earlier that I was wrong to wish for such things here in the good ole US.

Bottom line, parliaments are better because they have more parties represented... If you're a Republic like the one we live in, there's too much pandering. Our forefathers we're scared of this very thing and we're trying to avoid it (Federalist #10).

digderidoo

Bottom line, parliaments are better because they have more parties represented...

The number of parties in a parliament has more to do with the way those parties are elected than anything else. In this country we have the first passed the post system, where an MP is elected for his area, then that MP has his vote in Parliament, once the number of MPs gets past the winning post that party becomes the government. IMO a much fairer system would be proportional representation, where the percentage of vote would reflect the percentage in Parliament. This would mean that coalitions have to be formed, but it would be a much fairer representation.

The Scottish Parliament, Welsh and NI assemblies favour more towards PR, but even that IMO can go further. I do not really see how more parties are represented in our parliament with the electoral system we have in place at the moment.

Paul

One American on International Politics

Share this