mr2mk1g 10
QuoteIt does require the monarchs approval which is given 99.99% of the time but they do have the power to reject anything they do not like!
Seriously, where do you get this stuff? Royal Assent has not been refused since 1708. Since then it has been granted 100% of the time - the Monarch has absolutely no say whatsoever in what laws get enacted.
We do not have a written constitution in this country but one based on Constitutional Conventions. This particular one is a very strong Constitutional Convention which means that in all practical sense it would be impossible for the Queen to refuse Royal Assent to a bill passed by both Houses of Parliament.
The mechanism may however still hold a small role in that it would be a way in which a highly unpopular law passed by a tyrannical government could be prevented from coming into effect; in that way the population could look to their Monarch to protect them from an over powerful government. This is a further safety mechanism which simply cannot exist in the absence of a Constitutional Monarch. The same mechanism would not work in reverse though as all the constitutional power lies with Parliament rather than the Monarch.
Skyrad 0
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFLMAO!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Why he would make a remark about a very private part of his anatomy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's making no comment whatsoever on the size of Jeffrey's penis (I can't believe I'm typing this).
ROFLMAO!
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Skyrad 0
When was the last time a monach overuled a bill?
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
QuoteWhen was the last time a monach overuled a bill?
When was the last time a monarch contributed more to his society than he cost it?
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteWhen was the last time a monach overuled a bill?
1708.
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteWhen was the last time a monarch contributed more to his society than he cost it?
Last year actually. And the year before that, and the year before that. In fact, every year that the Royals have been required to pubish their accounts.
That's the only reason I'm happy to stomach such a figurehead. The cost to the country of running the Royal family is actually far less than:
a: they personally contribute to charities,
b: they assist in fund raising activities for charities and other good causes,
c: (most importantly) they bring into the country in terms of tourism money.
The funny thing is that the Yanks love our Royals more than we do (in general terms). We just laugh at the Royals... but at least they represent a very significant net gain to the country's GDP. Financially speaking at least, getting rid of them would be a poor move.
Well, I still find it hard to stomach the idea of a nation's people paying millions of their own dollars every year to keep a figurehead living the life of...well, royalty. 
It's a sickening idea.
It's funny, lots of brits condemn the U.S. for still employing the death penalty, calling it archaic.
WTF is a monarchy then??
-
It's a sickening idea.
It's funny, lots of brits condemn the U.S. for still employing the death penalty, calling it archaic.
WTF is a monarchy then??
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuoteWhen was the last time a monach overuled a bill?
When was the last time a monarch contributed more to his society than he cost it?
-
If you're talking monetary contrubution and cost....
(Most up to date figures I could find)
QuoteFigures for the year 2003 show that the royal family 'cost' each person in the UK 60p, up from 58p last year. The rise was caused largely by the Jubilee celebrations. However, these 'facts', although correct in themselves, fail to tell the whole story.
Costs
The gross cost of the royal family was £41 million. This was made up of three parts:
£9 million was the Civil List. This is the money paid to the Queen in return for surrendering the Crown Estates (see below). Only Prince Philip receives money from the List; other royal family members get nothing.
£27 million is Grants-in-aid. Basically this is the cost of maintaining royal buildings, which would be maintained whether we had a monarchy or not.
£5 million was the Royal Flight and Royal Train, but the royal flight in particular is used more often by government ministers than by the Queen herself.
The Queen also gets income from the Privy Purse, which basically is income from her remaining lands, the Duchy of Lancaster. This costs the taxpayer nothing, but she pays tax on it (see below).
Revenue
A conservative estimate is £168 million, made up as follows:
Most royal revenue is income from the royal lands, the Crown Estates. This body owns nearly 300,000 acres of land. Sounds a lot, but it's equivalent to a square block of land 21.5 miles on the side. A small but important part, however, is in Central London, and thus worth a lot of dosh - 75% of CE revenue is generated by its urban holdings. Revenue from the Crown Estates this year was £163 million - a lot, compared to the £9 million the queen gets in return!
As well as the aforementioned tax from the Duchy of Lancaster (£2 million), the country also receives tax from Prince Charles' Duchy of Cornwall (£3 million). In spite of the name only about 5% of its landholdings are in the county of Cornwall, and even more annoyingly for the Cornish, 20% are in Devon.
There are, of course, unquantifiable gains in the form of business generated by royal trips abroad, and tourism.
End Figure
If we ignore the tourism and business gains, the net gain to the country from having a monarchy of £127 million a year - or approximately £2.18 per person per year.
http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/ROYAL32.htm
If those figures are correct then i'd say our current monarchy contributes alot more to society than they cost it.
Having said that, I think they are a bunch of pricks but they are good little earners.
I say keep them but ridicule them.
------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......
I think you could add to the benefits of having a monarch in an ambassador type role as well.
We don't need to send our Tiny out glad handing with foreign diginitaries etc.
Lets face it, 60p, thats the price of a can of Coke in our office vending machine, so not bad value for money.
I'm firmly in the 'ridicule them but they are useful so lets keep them' camp.
We don't need to send our Tiny out glad handing with foreign diginitaries etc.
Lets face it, 60p, thats the price of a can of Coke in our office vending machine, so not bad value for money.
I'm firmly in the 'ridicule them but they are useful so lets keep them' camp.
--------------------
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson
kallend 2,175
QuoteWell, I still find it hard to stomach the idea of a nation's people paying millions of their own dollars every year to keep a figurehead living the life of...well, royalty.
It's a sickening idea.
It's funny, lots of brits condemn the U.S. for still employing the death penalty, calling it archaic.
WTF is a monarchy then??
-
At least their head of state isn't G.W. Bush. That must be worth $billions just by itself.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jakee 1,610
QuoteIt's funny, lots of brits condemn the U.S. for still employing the death penalty, calling it archaic.
WTF is a monarchy then??
Yep, that is my only real opposition to the death penalty - it's old, just like the Monarchy. Which makes the Queen as evil as state sanctioned murder.
It's good that you are here to reason these things through for us.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Thanks for clearing that up.
-
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites