Posts by Rich of Observationz
-
I think the PM has the right to demand her abdication immediately.
I think not.
Previous monarchs removed before their natural demise include:
- Charles I, defeated by Parliament's army, captured, executed.
- James II, deposed by invading army of William of Orange, fled.
- Edward VIII, persuaded by Baldwin to abdicate, self-exiled.I think it requires an act of parliament, a few thousand troops, or both.
I don't know what would happen if either the UK parliament or a Commonwealth realm were to deny assent to a monarch who wanted to abdicate.
-
And twice the current Queen has made a call on who will form the government – in the 50s with Alec Douglas-Hume, and in the 70s with Wilson – the office still has some teeth.
Home was in 1964 – the situation stemmed from the Conservative Party having no procedure to choose a new leader after Macmillan’s resignation.
In February 1974, no party had an overall majority. Heath was given a chance to continue in government by agreement with the Liberals, and when he indicated that this would not happen, Wilson became PM.
In both cases the situation amounted to one of timing. The incoming government had to be able to win a confidence vote in parliament in order to take office.
The last comes from the still extant and not insubstantial royal prerogative, which also still includes the right to declare war!
That is exercised by governments, which is the source of Mr Bragg’s rightful concern. Many of the royal prerogatives (actually executive powers) have been subsumed by legislation – for instance, the issuing of passports was once a royal prerogative but is now covered by the Passports Act. It would be sensible if all such powers were brought under a statutory basis, but the tendency of our present government is to move in the opposite direction.
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to nzlemming,
Read the legislation, Rich.
Could you provide a link to this statute?
Because my understanding is that this is covered not by statute but by the Letters Patent and by convention. The G-G is appointed and dismissed “at the pleasure of” the queen on advice of the NZ government. Conventionally, the monarch would automatically implement that government’s advice. (The words “at the pleasure” imply that the role, like that of a minister, is held subject to the whim of the PM, as opposed to being subject only to dismissal for cause, like a judge or public servant).
EDIT: It was declared at the Imperial Conference of 1930 that “the constitutional practice that His Majesty acts on the advice of responsible Ministers applies ..
The Ministers who tender and are responsible for such advice are His Majesty’s Ministers in the Dominion concerned"Which is fairly clear and puts the appointment of the G-G firmly into the areas where the Monarch acts on advice.
(It is likely that in a constitutional crisis, particularly an overseas one, the monarch would take the least controversial course of action – which would almost always be to act on the advise of ministers. The opposite approach would risk the institution of monarchy, which would be anathema to a Windsor).
BTW, thank you for prompting me to look into the Imperial Conference, which is a little known cranny of our constitutional history.
-
the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.
The G-G can be fired by the Prime Minister at any time, without cause.
The British have zero input, except as one of 192 members of the UN. Even when the Privy Council was the highest court of NZ (that changed for cases after 2004) it acted as a hired adjudicator to interpret *NZ* law.
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to chris,
I already explained why it did't affect the Treaty upthread at:
http://publicaddress.net/system/topic/3006/?p=211115#post211115Or see the Republican Movement's explanation here.
-
If Labour don't run, they'll be on the back foot come the general election. Hone has a huge majority in any case.
I can see Mana getting 1.5-2% at the general election and hence 2 or 3 MPs. It's even possible that in the unlikely event of a tight result, Labour might need those votes, although they'd probably rather enable a National minority government.
-
Hard News: Any excuse for a party, in reply to Lea Barker,
There is no reason why an NZ republic should separate a powerful executive (president/governor and cabinet) from the legislature
In fact, only a minority of republics (such as the USA and France) do this.
Most republics have a titular president with limited powers, with the head of government being the parliamentary majority leader (Ireland, Germany, India, etc) or combine the roles of PM and head of state (South Africa).
-
I would say that one good reason for the by-election is to (assuming that Hone wins) establish his hold on the electorate and thus enable those considering voting for the Mana Party at the general election to be sure that their votes will not be wasted.
-
It's a fact that not only have all of Elisabeth Windsor's children's marriages ended in divorce, so did her late sister's. And her own marriage, per Kitty Kelley, involves quite a lot of playing away.
I guess this may have a lot to do with their general wierdness. Expecting to be called 'sir' by close friends doesn't exactly make relationships easy.
-
<i>...are you for or against the right to share files?</i>
File sharing is not illegal per se. It's only illegal when the creator of the work asserts copyright and the person sharing the file doesn't have the right to do so.