RE: Tarsh Kings

From: Graham Robinson <gjr_at_...>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:44:38 +0000 (GMT)


On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Gareth Martin wrote (in reply to me):

> TB undoubtedly is the de facto head of state, but the UK is not a democracy.

I didn't say it was. I said REPRESENTATIVE democracy.

> The queen forms the parliament at her discretion, and invites the PM to form
> a government at her discretion. The armed forces are not loyal to the
> state, they are loyal to the queen, and swear an oath to that effect.

Which is, again as I pointed out, a theoretical truth, but not practiced in reality. The last actual refusal of a monarch to follow the desires of the parliament was Queen Anne.

> The UK is a constiutional monarchy which permits its *subjects* the freedom
> to establish a republican parliament.

The UK parliament is not republican. We have a monarch as head of state, not a president. There is no constitution, beyond accepted normality. If you accept that as a constitution, then the monarch has little power beyond the ceremonial.

> But the queen does not have to obey
> the will og the people, as she demonstrated in the 70's (IIRC)- despite the
> Tories losing the election, she invited them to form a coalition government
> with the LibDems. Labout only took power when it became clear that the
> Tories and LD's would not work together.

Labour formed a minority government - they didn't win either.

> Also note that the house of lords is still filled by patronage, not be
> democratic process.
>

Only patronage of the politians. The monarch has no say (other than for relatives) in deciding who gets in.

This is, however, getting wildly off topic.

Cheers,
Graham

-- 
Graham Robinson			The Stable Yard - Internet Solutions
gjr_at_...		http://www.thestableyard.net

Powered by hypermail