View previous topic | View next topic

Ireland: Mary McAleese and Queen Elizabeth

Page 6 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

CB27
725055.  Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:37 am Reply with quote

The problem with discussnig the merits of different types of rule and governance is that theory is never the same as practice.

In theory, different types of governance will somehow benefit everyone and we'd all enjoy ilfe, but we know that's not true. In practice there will always be some that do well and those who dow worst, whether in a communist state, a republic, a monarchy, a faschist state, a capitalist state or a militarist state.

To simply blame the type of rule itself is easy to do in order to demand change, Obama did it in the US and the Conservatives managed it to a degree here in the UK, and it's been going on for generations and will continue to do so.

However, if you really want to help a society as a whole you need to look deeper than simply who rules and how, you need to accept that there are a variety of factors, you need to remember that people in different regions, even within the same culture, still react differently, you need to remember that the land itself and our weather also impact on how well we do as a society. There are then other factors such as historic relations with neighbouring states, religion, race, language, etc, these all have an impact on how well we do on the international stage.

 
Spud McLaren
725553.  Sat Jul 03, 2010 5:03 pm Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
In practice there will always be some that do well and those who dow worst.
[bold mine]

Freudian slip there, CB?

 
CB27
725656.  Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:25 am Reply with quote

Bah, my fast typing has caught up with me... :)

 
tetsabb
725664.  Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:24 am Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
tetsabb wrote:
An uncharacteristic moment of levity on my part.
Run that by us again?

Perhaps my remark should have been accompanied by a :-), but I reckon most here knwo me well enough.....

 
bobwilson
725763.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 12:57 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
The problem with discussnig the merits of different types of rule and governance is that theory is never the same as practice.


You seem to think that Rule and Governance are the same thing. May I direct you to a dictionary? You can find them in most good bookshops.

CB27 wrote:
In theory, different types of governance will somehow benefit everyone and we'd all enjoy ilfe (sic)


Ignoring my desire to enjoy ilfe, no - in theory, different types of governance will benefit some people more than others. AFAIK there is no proposed system of governance which claims that it will universally benefit everyone. Nor does any proposed system of governance suggest that the outcome for everyone will be equal.

To take your exemplar states and put it in terms that you'll perhaps understand - to be a comedian with full licence:

In a monarchist state - you must be a member of one of the ruling families
In a capitalist state - you must pay the appropriate fee
In a fascist state - you must follow the party line
In a militarist state - you must follow the party line and be a member of the armed forces
In a republic - you mustn't offend the sensibilities of those who've been elected by a majority vote
In a communist state - you point out the oxymoron of "communist state"

ALL systems of governance propose that they will raise the general standard of living. If you think otherwise then you really hven't been paying attention.

 
CB27
725815.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:05 am Reply with quote

As usual bob, you've taken part of something I've written, twisted it to mean something you claim it to mean to further your own argument, taken the opportunity to insult and added little to the discussion.

The very fact I used rule and governance in my sentence is to show that there are two things in discussion here.

Raising the general standard of living and benefitting everyone, that's a play on semantics, but that's not something you ever use to skew discussions, is it?

Oh, and thanks for enlightening me and everyone else about types of political systems.

 
Neotenic
725833.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:14 am Reply with quote

I think you've used the word 'enlightening' there quite wrongly.

;-)

It doesn't readily explain, really, how a capitalist monarchy works. One assumes that you have to pay an appropriate fee to be part of the family?

And, by my reckoning, North Korea hits at least three of those categories - being a militarist communist republic.

 
CB27
725860.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:53 am Reply with quote

But not monarchist in any way, shape or form :)

 
Jenny
725877.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:22 am Reply with quote

How much does a monarch actually 'rule' these days anyway?

If QE2 decides that she would like some particular thing to come to pass - say, that her subjects should dedicate every Saturday to attending horse races - is there anything she can actually do to bring it about? It barely worked for QE1 and church attendance on Sundays in the days when the monarch had considerably more personal power than now.

 
barbados
725895.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:20 am Reply with quote

Does she not have the power of veto over all statute? it's just something that she defers to her parliament. After all you don't buy a dog and bark yourself.

 
bemahan
725896.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:26 am Reply with quote

See "Royal Prerogative in the UK" on Wiki which explains the powers of the Crown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

I've always liked the phrase "Royal prerogative".

 
CB27
725905.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:37 am Reply with quote

I've now got an image of Bobby Brown on the throne...

 
bemahan
725908.  Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:42 am Reply with quote

Holding his extended remix?

 
dr.bob
726026.  Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:43 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Does she not have the power of veto over all statute?


Having the power of veto doesn't let you introduce any new laws, of course. It just gives you the power to block ones you don't like.

Though, as I understand it, whilst Her Maj technically has the power of veto in one of those "old traditions left over from 700 years ago that nobody has bothered to change" things that you find in this country, in practise it is understood that she will never use such a power.

She's probably well aware that, if she ever did try to use that power, parliament would pretty quickly start debating the "Abolition of the Monarchy" bill.

 
Spud McLaren
726041.  Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:10 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
She's probably well aware that, if she ever did try to use that power, parliament would pretty quickly start debating the "Abolition of the Monarchy" bill.
Not necessarily - from what I can make out (and I may well be wrong here), withholding the Royal Assent automatically causes dissolution of Parliament. By the time all that's sorted out, who can tell what the new parliament would be willing to consider?

 

Page 6 of 7
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group