peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Oct 20, 2015 23:42:23 GMT
My view (and the view of a reasonable amount of people) is that the first and foremost duty of a government is to keep the country safe. We need a military to keep us safe from any threats which may arise. The Vatican doesn't need that as they have an agreement with Italy for defence, and I imagine most countries without a military would have a similar agreement with one country or another. On the other hand, Parliament and the Cabinet could be abolished tomorrow. The bureaucrats would take over and things would be run about the same, minus the regular changes in policy. If we left running the country to the civil service, senior civil servants would quickly become politicians, rather than bureaucrats. You can't make country-governing decisions for any length of time without some form of politician becoming involved. My pointing out the number of sovereign states without a military was simply pointing out that a military is not absolutely essential to the existence of a country. Also, several of the countries on that list don't have any defence agreements with other countries (Vatican City and Costa Rica don't). And a military is only relevant if the threats to a country's safety are military ones. Threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, or climate change can't be dealt with by military force. Well some would argue that terrorism can be stopped by military force. How well that turns out is another matter I suppose. But I'd take the military as more essential to our country than politicians any day of the week. In the Vatican, the Swiss Guard are technically a military force but I believe defence against foreign threats is the responsibility of the Italian government. Costa Rica does not officially have a military, but do have a "small armed force". Parliament has been de facto supreme over the monarch ever since they tried Charles I. They've abolished the monarchy, restored it, and changed dynasties without it being considered treasonous to do so. I'm pretty sure the majority of constitutional scholars would agree that parliament does have the legal authority to abolish the monarchy, should it choose to do so. For at least the last century, the monarch's powers have been purely symbolic and ceremonial. Incidentally, I would agree with you to some degree about the monarch deriving her power from God - though certainly not in the medieval "right of kings" way. But I'm not convinced that it's a constitutionally binding thing. You may have a point about the oath of allegiance, though. I don't think abolishing the monarchy would necessarily count as treason, but it probably would count as oath-breaking. [/quote] We seem to have more in common on this point than I expected. But for the record, the trial and execution of Charles I was an act of treason by definition and was legally invalid. It was accomplished by a group that had force of arms rather than force of law on their side. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,808
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 20, 2015 23:46:20 GMT
You may have a point about the oath of allegiance, though. I don't think abolishing the monarchy would necessarily count as treason, but it probably would count as oath-breaking. Isn't the oath something like "HM (current monarch), and his/her legal successors" so if the monarchy was legally replaced with something else the oath would continue to be valid, but now refering to the legal sucessor. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Oct 20, 2015 23:47:26 GMT
Its "Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors" (not "legal successors"). That clearly implies those who are Monarch in the future.
|
|
Andrew_S
Top Poster
Posts: 28,241
Member is Online
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 20, 2015 23:58:51 GMT
I would imagine it starting rather like the end of the following sketch: O/T: The impression at 2:55 by Eric Idle is hilarious. Is it supposed to be David Frost? |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 22, 2015 1:26:54 GMT
There are circumstances in which I would support a coup, all involving unlikely events. However, as outlined by others, I don't think the Army in particular is competent enough to run its own affairs let alone a country so the possibility is limited to the threat of a takeover if the government doesn't resign office in order to be replaced by David Owen or someone similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Oct 22, 2015 7:18:08 GMT
On a related note, wasn't there once talk in the Seventies of MacMillan returning to form a national government?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 10:16:10 GMT
On a related note, wasn't there once talk in the Seventies of MacMillan returning to form a national government? Thought it was Mountbatten who was to head the coup. (1974) |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 22, 2015 10:18:25 GMT
Wasn't that 1968?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 10:21:36 GMT
Stand corrected - Cecil King behind that one. 74 was the dress rehearsal when the Army took over Heathrow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 10:24:57 GMT
'67 according to Peter Wright in 'Spycatcher', but Mountbatten wasn't keen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 10:30:13 GMT
GB75 rather Facist type group at the heart of the Tories were always willing to overthrow the Government, If Labour won in 79 they would have overthrown the Government
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 22, 2015 10:39:54 GMT
I've never understood why Mountbatten was touted as he was virtually a Socialist himself
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 10:43:06 GMT
I've never understood why Mountbatten was touted as he was virtually a Socialist himself Community ownership of himself & his missus doesn't count .......  |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,039
|
Post by Khunanup on Oct 22, 2015 13:32:48 GMT
The Glorious Revolution of 1689 essentially Establised two things vis a vis the monarchy. 1) The end of the Devine Right of Kings 2) That the monarchy exists on the sufferance of parliament. That is why no monarch since the early days of that situation (Queen Anne, 300 years ago) has refused to sign off a parliamentary act. If any monarch did so it is highly likely that they would be removed and either replaced or the monarchy would be abolished outright.
The Abdication Crisis in the '30s also showed the power of parliament over the monarchy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2015 13:37:39 GMT
The Glorious Revolution of 1689 essentially Establised two things vis a vis the monarchy. 1) The end of the Devine Right of Kings 2) That the monarchy exists on the sufferance of parliament. But some members of UKIP clearly view 1689 as just some new-fangled nonsense .... |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,820
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Oct 22, 2015 15:07:38 GMT
Maybe this showed how it might have happened?
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by cibwr on Oct 25, 2015 8:42:20 GMT
No. Though I doubt its official repudiated either.  If it isn't then UKIP are far too dangerous to be allowed to play with the big boys.... such constitutional illiteracy has no place in a party that aspires to be in government. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 25, 2015 10:37:21 GMT
The Glorious Revolution of 1689 essentially Establised two things vis a vis the monarchy. 1) The end of the Devine Right of Kings 2) That the monarchy exists on the sufferance of parliament. That is why no monarch since the early days of that situation (Queen Anne, 300 years ago) has refused to sign off a parliamentary act. If any monarch did so it is highly likely that they would be removed and either replaced or the monarchy would be abolished outright. The Abdication Crisis in the '30s also showed the power of parliament over the monarchy. The 'Abdication Crisis' showed the weakness and poor quality of advice to the King. And the hangover of narrow-minded religiosity and absurd upper class social 'rules' still prevailing. The King was thwarted for all the very worst reasons and the whole matter was an utter disgrace. He should have toughed it out and brought to a head Church and State, perhaps by sacking the pernicious twat archbishop in his capacity as supreme controller of the church actually constructed for the purposes of the crown. It might have resulted in the end of monarchy and the end of the established church and the end of Baldwinism with the ascent of Churchill usefully earlier? In fact I think he would have won and Baldwin and Archbishop would have gone and Churchill would have taken the Conservatives by a 'coup'. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 25, 2015 15:25:45 GMT
No. Though I doubt its official repudiated either. If it isn't then UKIP are far too dangerous to be allowed to play with the big boys.... such constitutional illiteracy has no place in a party that aspires to be in government. What makes you think that UKIP aspires to be in government? |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by cibwr on Oct 25, 2015 16:59:02 GMT
That is what they campaigned on in the last UK general election....
|
|
