Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 2      Prev   1   2
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #16 
Great Britain ought to keep the peerage, even if the House of Lords is abolished. In Germany, titles of nobility are recognized as part of the legal name, despite legal privileges of nobility being abolished.
Despite preferring a unicameral British parliament, I prefer the current House of Lords to an elected upper house, because an elected upper house will be able to challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons. The supremacy of the House of Commons and the lack of a head of state with real executive power have caused Great Britain to have a political system, which worked far better than the American political system until the Brexit crisis, and the Brexit crisis would likely not have happened without the Fixed-Term Parliament Act, which is a departure from the traditional British political system.
ROO86

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 64
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

You appear to be an Australian. Australia actually has a bicameral parliament with an elected Senate.


You obviously didn’t keep reading the Wikipedia article where the make-up of the Parliaments of each State and Territory was explained.

We have a bicameral Parliament Federally and in all States except Queensland. Queensland, the ACT and NT have unicameral parliaments.
Queenslander

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 642
Reply with quote  #18 
Well coming from Queensland I have lived what it is like to see the excesses of an unchecked legislature first hand. From the results of gerrymandering of the forties (that lasted until 1991 at least) to the corruption of both conservative and labor governments over the past four decades. This was less of a case before the MLC's were removed in 1922. A point that may be lost on some from the outstide is that if you live in a federal structure as I do you get it in both barrels state and federal, and I thank my lucky stars the federal senate exists to sometimes delay and modify the excesses.
__________________
Yours Sincerely Queenslander
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #19 
Great Britain ought to abolish the House of Lords and make the House of Commons the unicameral parliament of Great Britain. The British nobility ought to be given the Weimar treatment. Great Britain ought to become a modern democracy like Germany and Spain.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,033
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
Great Britain ought to abolish the House of Lords and make the House of Commons the unicameral parliament of Great Britain. The British nobility ought to be given the Weimar treatment. Great Britain ought to become a modern democracy like Germany and Spain.

And you ought to shut up telling other countries how to run their affairs.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter

And you ought to shut up telling other countries how to run their affairs.

Demanding, that I must shut up on British politics, because I'm not a Briton, makes no sense, because I'm far from the only member of this forum, who tells other countries how to run their affairs. DavidV, who is an Australian of Czech descent, has repeatedly told Great Britain how to run its foreign affairs, and he repeatedly condemns the governments of Russia, Syria, Iran and South Africa (I agree with him on Iran, but not on the other countries), and a lot of members of this forum support specific candidates to the throne of former monarchies, when succession to the defunct thrones is contested, rather than merely supporting restoration of the monarchy of the country in general. As an example, most members of this forum claims, that Maria Vladimirovna is the de jure Empress of Russia, instead of supporting the right of a Zemskiy Sobor to elect the Tsar of Russia, when the Russian throne is vacant, as it has been since 1917. The Zemskiy Sobor electing the Tsar, when the Russian throne is vacant, is an ancient Russian tradition. The first Romanov Tsar was elected by a Zemskiy Sobor.

DutchMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 857
Reply with quote  #22 
The problem I have with Azadi's views is that they run counter to the ideals of nobility, an important pillar of the monarchy. But at the same time I agree with him that he can give his opinion about how other countries are run, certainly at this forum, where pretty much every member has done that.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchMonarchist
The problem I have with Azadi's views is that they run counter to the ideals of nobility, an important pillar of the monarchy. But at the same time I agree with him that he can give his opinion about how other countries are run, certainly at this forum, where pretty much every member has done that.

I'm actually a nobleman myself. I don't want to abolish nobility. I support state recognition of titles of nobility, but I want the legislative assembly to be fully democratically elected, as it is in all current European monarchies except Great Britain. I proposed the British nobility being given the Weimar treatment. The Weimar Constitution of Germany abolished the legal privileges of nobility, but recognized titles of nobility as part of the legal name. A lot of European countries have sadly abolished titles of nobility, including the Kingdom of Norway, which abolished titles of nobility in 1821. Portugal abolished titles of nobility in 1910, Russia abolished titles of nobility in 1917, Austria abolished titles of nobility in 1919 and Italy abolished titles of nobility in 1948. The kingdoms of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia never recognized titles of nobility. Japan abolished titles of nobility in 1947.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,269
Reply with quote  #24 
I can see Dutchmonarchist's point. I think the main issue is the degree in which he seems to want to remake other people's countries, even when he clearly has little personal acquittance with them, and, also, the sheer scale and repetitiveness of it all. Opinion should be supported with argument, especially if it is going to be given again and again and at length, rather than just repetitively consist of giving one's own personal preferences. I am British, and with all due respect to him, I don''t really care what his personal opinion is about our parliament's structure. If he wishes to argue for unicameral parliaments, okay, I will listen. But him endlessly repeating his simple preference, or banging on about Kurdistan, is tedious.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,033
Reply with quote  #25 
To DutchMonarchist, the operative word is 'telling'. Offering reasoned arguments supported by evidence is one thing. Bare imperatives are quite another.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
To DutchMonarchist, the operative word is 'telling'. Offering reasoned arguments supported by evidence is one thing. Bare imperatives are quite another.

My support for the introduction of a unicameral British parliament isn't a bare imperative. It's based on democratic principles. The British House of Lords is undemocratic, and it was even more undemocratic before most hereditary peers were removed from the House of Lords in 1999. Great Britain is the only European monarchy, which doesn't have a fully democratically elected legislative assembly. I support constitutional monarchy despite being a democrat, because a monarch is a non-partisan head of state, which embodies the history and traditions of a nation. 
Despite being a nobleman myself, I want nobles and commoners to be equal before the law, but titles of nobility ought to be kept as honorifics. I'm not opposed to the nobility having great informal political influence, as in Kurdistan and in India, and I'm opposed to expropriation of the landed estates of the nobility. The British nobility ought to be treated as the German nobility is treated. The Federal Republic of Germany recognizes titles of nobility as part of the legal name and the noble landowners of Germany have kept their estates.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,033
Reply with quote  #27 
The post of yours to which I replied was a bare imperative, one of many such from you. Now that you have offered argument, I don't think democracy is a good in itself. I agree with Lord Palmerston's reply to Gladstone over a proposed extension of the franchise: 'What every Man and Woman too have a Right to, is to be well governed and under just Laws, and they who propose a change ought to shew that the present organization does not accomplish those objects.' That does not mean I believe in oligarchical rule or a severely restricted franchise. It means I believe the value of democracy is as a means of ensuring the rule of law and peaceful transfers of power when an electorate becomes discontented with its government; a check exercised by the governed on those who govern, and it has no special worth beyond that.

It follows that saying something is more democratic does not automatically mean it is better, or the way to go. It might be better, and it might not. I believe there is a real value in having a revising chamber that is not composed of professional politicians who ultimately have to follow the popular will, or a sufficient slice of it, regardless of its wisdom; people who are selected on a different basis, who are in it for the longer term and are not subject to the same electoral pressures. Ditto with having a hereditary constitutional monarch at the head of affairs.

Ultimately the elected chamber must rule, as is the case in Britain, but it being asked sometimes to think again, to consider different views, and to hold back a while is not a violation of democracy, it is sound governance. Now I would not claim that the House of Lords as presently constituted achieves all this. Some reform is surely needed. It is not however sorely needed, we have far more urgent problems to engage us at the moment. When the time comes, I personally would deprecate any move towards a purely elected upper house, and I really don't care what other European monarchies do or don't do. That is their affair, and what Britain does is Britain's.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 389
Reply with quote  #28 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
The post of yours to which I replied was a bare imperative, one of many such from you. Now that you have offered argument, I don't think democracy is a good in itself. I agree with Lord Palmerston's reply to Gladstone over a proposed extension of the franchise: 'What every Man and Woman too have a Right to, is to be well governed and under just Laws, and they who propose a change ought to shew that the present organization does not accomplish those objects.' That does not mean I believe in oligarchical rule or a severely restricted franchise. It means I believe the value of democracy is as a means of ensuring the rule of law and peaceful transfers of power when an electorate becomes discontented with its government; a check exercised by the governed on those who govern, and it has no special worth beyond that.

It follows that saying something is more democratic does not automatically mean it is better, or the way to go. It might be better, and it might not. I believe there is a real value in having a revising chamber that is not composed of professional politicians who ultimately have to follow the popular will, or a sufficient slice of it, regardless of its wisdom; people who are selected on a different basis, who are in it for the longer term and are not subject to the same electoral pressures. Ditto with having a hereditary constitutional monarch at the head of affairs.

Ultimately the elected chamber must rule, as is the case in Britain, but it being asked sometimes to think again, to consider different views, and to hold back a while is not a violation of democracy, it is sound governance. Now I would not claim that the House of Lords as presently constituted achieves all this. Some reform is surely needed. It is not however sorely needed, we have far more urgent problems to engage us at the moment. When the time comes, I personally would deprecate any move towards a purely elected upper house, and I really don't care what other European monarchies do or don't do. That is their affair, and what Britain does is Britain's.

I don't support introducing an elected British upper house. The current House of Lords is preferable to an elected upper house, because an elected upper house will be able to challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons. But I would like Great Britain to introduce an unicameral parliament. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,033
Reply with quote  #29 
I believe you already said that, and I already answered it. In fact you quoted my answer prior to repeating yourself. But I will take it that you are not persuaded. Well, neither am I. Let's leave it at that.
bator

Registered:
Posts: 222
Reply with quote  #30 
i support keeping the house of lords and i would like denmark to have kept the landsting along the folketing as that was the tradition we had. also i wouls have liked sweden to continue with two chambers of parliament. those countries which have always only had one chamber i dont see any reason to change to two chamber parliaments.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.