George Hannah
Well-Known Member
I did say 'almost' and if you think De Valera's term didn't that's your privilege, I don't agree, that's mine.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Scottish Independence
- Thread starter Gray
- Start date
The pres. does not have to be a polititian. The constitution will spell out his/her powers , which may be ceremonial only.Why would anyone want a Republic when the President would be a politician? The last 3 ½ years have proved that all politicians are fucktards and would sell their grannies for power.
The citizens of the USA, Germany, Swizerland, Austria, Finland, France, all not crying, say Hi George.The simple point is that electing your head of state almost always ends in tears - the most stable countries in Europe and elsewhere are all monarchies.
The citizens of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Brunei, and Qatar would like to say hi, but it's a bit dangerous.
In the UK, of course, there is no separation of powers. The royal prerogative is exercised by the prime minister. The queen may only act on the advice of her ministers, and cannot refuse to act.Indeed God Save the Queen (or King) the power they deny is all important.
The "elective dictatorship" so beloved of socialists.
Or......"our family will rule in perpetuity."All claimed to be democratically elected and accountable - the monarchial principle is that the electorate shouldn't be burdened with the ultimate responsibility of their mistaken choices.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
HM could act independently if she thought circumstances were sufficiently dire and of course she nearly did (by maternal proxy) when they were worried about Harold Wilson's red connections in the 60s.In the UK, of course, there is no separation of powers. The royal prerogative is exercised by the prime minister. The queen may only act on the advice of her ministers, and cannot refuse to act.
The "elective dictatorship" so beloved of socialists.
Consider Andorra. It is a diarchy, ruled by two princes. One prince is the President of France, elected by the ppl of France, but not by those of Andorra. The other is the bishop of Urgell, appointed by the pope.Tax free shopping and skiing make it quite wealthy, despite its strange constitution.
Very doubtful doctrine. Mullins, I think.Constitutional crisis would follow. See the removal of Goff Whitlam.HM could act independently if she thought circumstances were sufficiently dire and of course she nearly did (by maternal proxy) when they were worried about Harold Wilson's red connections in the 60s.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
It's all about checks and balances old boy - the British monarch retains the power of dissolution even if it has not been used for 400 years.The pres. does not have to be a polititian. The constitution will spell out his/her powers , which may be ceremonial only.
Last edited:
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Seems to be working well then - good news for Royalists everywhere.Consider Andorra. It is a diarchy, ruled by two princes. One prince is the President of France, elected by the ppl of France, but not by those of Andorra. The other is the bishop of Urgell, appointed by the pope.Tax free shopping and skiing make it quite wealthy, despite its strange constitution.