• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

B. Johnson to suspend parliament, to prevent it from stopping hard brexit

Acidizer

Member
Jun 7, 2018
640
538
445
"Democracy is dead" only because you aren't getting what you feel you are owed, which is nothing. Boris is killing democracy by undermining it badly. Parliament is part of our democracy, an important part. If MPs think it is going to leave us in a worse off position, they are right to question and debate this. It isn't as black and white as some fervently believe. The referendum was advisory only also.

Even Dominic Cummings, the guy actually trying to ram through a no-deal Brexit a couple of years ago said a 2nd referendum made sense, once the terms of the deal were known. "there's a strong democratic case for this" is the quote. Heh. Democracy you say?

Even Boris' brother, the one with the brains, has now resigned over this mess.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: llien

Acidizer

Member
Jun 7, 2018
640
538
445
Yep, Scottish Sun has a totally different narrative to the Brexit land edition.

That Corbyn pic is fucking hilarious.

... and neither of them has page 3 any more!!! (the REAL crime)
 
Last edited:

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
The referendum was advisory only also.



This leaflet was sent to every household in Britain by the government, promising to abide by the result:




And for extra good measure:



If you have any clips of any politicians saying "Please vote Remain, but if you're busy that day then don't worry, it's just advisory anyway. We'll probably just debate it for 3 years and then decide not to Brexit anyway.", then please post them here. Otherwise, please stop spreading bullshit claims.
 

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
I don't get why people think this is any kind of "gotcha" thing. Who's being played here exactly? The narrative is that Murdoch is some kind of evil genius manipulating the dumb and ignorant working classes for his own nefarious ends, but he actually seems to give a lot of editorial freedom. IIRC, The Times and The Sunday Times (both of which he also owns) both take opposite stances on Brexit. I think people generally pick whichever newspaper fits their already existing world view.


Metropolitan liberals read the Guardian/NYT because they are metropolitan liberals, they're not metropolitan liberals because they read the Guardian and NYT.
Dailer Stormer readers read the Daily Stormer because they are neo-Nazis, they're not Neo-Nazis because they read the Daily Stormer.
Sun readers read the Sun because it's right wing, they're not righ.....who am I kidding, they just read it for the tits and football :messenger_beaming:
 

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
Brexit was never going to be allowed by the powers that be. No matter what the people actually wanted.
I always thought so too, which is why I didn't even bother vote in the referendum. That said, any feeling of satisfaction I have from having my cynicism proven correct is still being outweighed by a feeling of anger towards those slimy cunts who promised to honour the result and who then have been doing everything to stop it ever since. I guess in the heart of every cynic there's always a little hope of being proved wrong.
 
Last edited:

Acidizer

Member
Jun 7, 2018
640
538
445



This leaflet was sent to every household in Britain by the government, promising to abide by the result:




And for extra good measure:



If you have any clips of any politicians saying "Please vote Remain, but if you're busy that day then don't worry, it's just advisory anyway. We'll probably just debate it for 3 years and then decide not to Brexit anyway.", then please post them here. Otherwise, please stop spreading bullshit claims.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: V4skunk

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
In the same way that the Queen could technically refuse Royal Assent, but in reality never could, right? Look, even the most remainers have moved on from this now. You can see from the evidence I posted that no-one claimed that the referendum was advisory, either before or during the referendum. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable reasons for opposing brexit, especially the no-deal type, but this "the referendum was only advisory" bullshit isn't one of them. Stop it.

 
Last edited:

Acidizer

Member
Jun 7, 2018
640
538
445
If something isn't legally binding, it's advisory. This referendum was not a mandatory one. You can roll out Donald, but you can plainly see that the UK has no legal obligation to implement the result.
 

funkygunther

Member
Dec 22, 2018
264
198
285
If something isn't legally binding, it's advisory. This referendum was not a mandatory one. You can roll out Donald, but you can plainly see that the UK has no legal obligation to implement the result.
It does. Parliament voted to implement it straight after and now it’s law. Would take another piece of legislation to pass to reverse it.
 

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
I'm not sure that Labour can enter an election with this insanely inane Brexit policy :



No wonder they're running scared of one. Between them, the Brexit party and Lib Dems could tear them a new one.
 
Last edited:

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
I can't believe how riven with division and hatred my beloved country has become. With this kind of viciousness on display between the Prime Minister and the remain supporters, can civil war be far behind?



Seriously, for people looking at the situation from the outside via the media and the blue check marks of twitter it might seem that the country has been riven with division since 2016, but in the reality of day to day life, this is pretty much as nasty as it gets :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
6,068
3,292
720
In the same way that the Queen could technically refuse Royal Assent, but in reality never could, right? Look, even the most remainers have moved on from this now. You can see from the evidence I posted that no-one claimed that the referendum was advisory, either before or during the referendum.
This is going into arguing about semantics area, but to me it looks that it is indeed advisory de jure (but not de facto) in UK (it's not in many countries and it doesn't even need government or parliament to do much to become a law in Switzerland).

I want to bring another example here. So what happens legally in UK, if the parliament states that PM must do <something>, but PM does not do it?
 

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
This is going into arguing about semantics area, but to me it looks that it is indeed advisory de jure (but not de facto) in UK (it's not in many countries and it doesn't even need government or parliament to do much to become a law in Switzerland).

I want to bring another example here. So what happens legally in UK, if the parliament states that PM must do <something>, but PM does not do it?
Whatever the semantics, as you can see in that video compilation I posted, pretty much every single major politician, from the Prime Minister downwards, all promised to abide by the result. To say that suddenly ignoring the vote by saying it was just advisory anyway would damage respect and faith in our politicians and our democracy would be a massive understatement.

I'm not sure what the rules are (so much of the UK constitution is based on precedent), but it looks like we'll soon find out!

 
  • Like
Reactions: Shad0w59

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
210
338
275
I think we need absolute monarchy again. Democracy clearly doesn’t work.

If the monarch brings calamity to their nation, their extended family, through poor rule, then there will be some kind of glorious revolution in which soldiers will not defend the monarch from another contender to the throne. This is what actually happened in the glorious revolution in Great Britain.

And if people don’t like the country they should be free to leave too.

Prime Ministers are just shit monarch substitutes and representative parliamentarians do not faithfully represent the views of their constituents. So to say what we have now is democracy is half cocked.

Parliamentarian Supremacy maybe a better name for it.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,324
2,852
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I'm not sure that Labour can enter an election with this insanely inane Brexit policy :



No wonder they're running scared of one. Between them, the Brexit party and Lib Dems could tear them a new one.
A better deal from Labour perspective is a deal that retains most of the advantages from EU membership and a backstop wouldn't be required for that either (because of customs union or even single market). Getting a better deal, from that perspective, shouldn't be much of an issue. To then give the option of a soft brexit (with that deal), super hard brexit (no deal) or no brexit is not really contradictory.
 

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
A better deal from Labour perspective is a deal that retains most of the advantages from EU membership and a backstop wouldn't be required for that either (because of customs union or even single market). Getting a better deal, from that perspective, shouldn't be much of an issue. To then give the option of a soft brexit (with that deal), super hard brexit (no deal) or no brexit is not really contradictory.
But to say you are going to negotiate a deal, and then immediately go home and campaign against the deal that you just negotiated in another referendum is bizarre! Since you've already decided to campaign against that deal in any case, wouldn't the incentive to be to make the deal as unpalatable as possible? What possible incentive would the EU side have to give any kind of concessions whatsoever, since they also want us to remain in the EU and would also hope that the deal loses in a referendum?

A lot of crazy stuff has been happening these past 3 years, but that situation would be the most bizarre yet!

I decent compromise (which I can't believe the MPs haven't managed to put together despite having 3 whole years) would be to go for an EEA/Norway style Brexit (out of the EU and customs union, but still in the single market). Of course, I would guess that maybe 50-75% of leave voters wouldn't be happy with maintaining freedom of movement, but there has to be some compromise somewhere. While being in the EU we had plenty of opt-outs to placate the eurosceptics (not joining Schengen or the Euro - very wise decisions in retrospect), so it's only fair that now leavers are getting their way and we are now leaving, we should have some opt-ins to placate the pro-EU people.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,324
2,852
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
But to say you are going to negotiate a deal, and then immediately go home and campaign against the deal that you just negotiated in another referendum is bizarre! Since you've already decided to campaign against that deal in any case, wouldn't the incentive to be to make the deal as unpalatable as possible? What possible incentive would the EU side have to give any kind of concessions whatsoever, since they also want us to remain in the EU and would also hope that the deal loses in a referendum?
Since the most likely outcome of the referendum would be either deal brexit or no deal brexit, it would still be in her and the EU's best interest to find a deal that has low impact societal and enconomically. The negotiations do not need to be antagonistic if both parties have similar goals. The one issue where they have contradictory goals is something that hasn't been much of an issue with the previous discussions, costs for remaining liabilities to EU.

not joining Schengen or the Euro - very wise decisions in retrospect
Well, wise in context of the unwise decision to leave the EU....
 

azz0r

Member
May 24, 2005
524
394
1,375
forums.wuggawoo.co.uk
I can't believe how riven with division and hatred my beloved country has become. With this kind of viciousness on display between the Prime Minister and the remain supporters, can civil war be far behind?

Warnie!



Bowled, Shane.
"Get on with it, drive your country off a cliff with a no deal and I'll go back home to my own country and forget it ever happened"
 

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,732
2,645
560
Since the most likely outcome of the referendum would be either deal brexit or no deal brexit, it would still be in her and the EU's best interest to find a deal that has low impact societal and enconomically. The negotiations do not need to be antagonistic if both parties have similar goals. The one issue where they have contradictory goals is something that hasn't been much of an issue with the previous discussions, costs for remaining liabilities to EU.


Well, wise in context of the unwise decision to leave the EU....
Since both the Labour party (well, not Corbyn, who has been a lifelong Brexiter, but the vast majority of his MPs) and the EU want to keep Britain in the EU, knowing there will be a referendum on the deal, I can't think of any other incentive than to make that deal a unpalatable as possible to UK voters, so guaranteeing it's defeat.

Corbyn's position is interesting. As a lifelong brexiter, it's not surprising how much he has dragged his feet over moving Labour to become a remain party (a process that is still not complete, as evidenced by Thronberry's humiliation on on Question Time last night). However, I think there is another reason for him not being on board with the whole "cancel the referendum result" thing. He knows that the elites currently trying to block brexit are just as opposed (if not more so) to Corbyn's economic policies. If MPs can ignore election/referendum results and manifesto pledges with regards to Brexit, then that sets a precedent for them to do the same if Corbyn ever becomes prime minister.

The fanatically anti-Brexit Financial Times has recently been releasing very alarming articles about Corbyn's economic policies. Both the media and even Labour's "centrist" MPs will turn on him as soon as Brexit is over. The same arguments will be used ("Yes, people voted for Brexit/Corbyn, but they didn't vote to be poorer" etc). It's like free speech. It feels good to some people when their opponents are denied it, but they don't seem to realise that it's denial could also be used against in the future. If the elite manages to stop Brexit, ten they will certainly stop any "radical" policies a Corbyn government proposes, no matter if he wins an election or not.
 

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
400
176
330
I'm not sure that Labour can enter an election with this insanely inane Brexit policy :



No wonder they're running scared of one. Between them, the Brexit party and Lib Dems could tear them a new one.
😂

It isn’t the first time Emily has being shown up on QT. It is laughable though go and get a *better deal and then proceed to campaign against it, why would the EU even bother to alter the deal they would just push the same deal with a customs union instead of the backstop.

This is why I won’t vote Labour the hypocrisy is out there in cuckoo land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KormaChameleon

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,324
2,852
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Since both the Labour party (well, not Corbyn, who has been a lifelong Brexiter, but the vast majority of his MPs) and the EU want to keep Britain in the EU, knowing there will be a referendum on the deal, I can't think of any other incentive than to make that deal a unpalatable as possible to UK voters, so guaranteeing it's defeat.
Such a referendum would surely include the option to leave without a deal. If the deal is something they couldn't live with (and no one votes on) then it is pretty much a 50/50 chance for all or nothing. Having a good fallback option with a deal that ensures a very mild brexit, they can increase the chance of nothing too bad happening (i.e. no deal / hard brexit). In the end, in a three-way vote with second pick, the deal-brexit is the most likely outcome anyway (if neither hard brexit nor cancelling brexit win a majority of first priority votes, deal brexit is the obvious winner), so making sure the deal is putting UK and government into a favourable position is in the highest interest of someone negotiating for UK government, even if they personally preferred no brexit at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kazza

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
210
338
275
Continuing my Absolute Monarchy thoughts. Right now the Royal Family are in effect insulated from anything that happens in the country because they have a bipartisan system underneath them. We cannot have any way of choosing a better Monarch - the Monarch is insulated from the people. In a Republic, the President takes the place of the Monarch. This in effect becomes a permanent role if the President is either strong enough, or tyrannical enough. See Napoleon/Hitler/Putin/Mugabe/Afewerki/Assad/Bashir/Meles Zanawi/Karimov...etc. So they can only stay in power through tyranny. But it is not hereditary, at least not officially. Heredity is actually good because the Monarch has skin in the game to be a good Monarch for the sake of their children, and will rule well and educate their children to be good rulers in order to avoid them being deposed. So Republicanism I would say leads to more tyrannical or subversive behaviour than Monarchy.


A Monarchy is essentially a family structure. Part of the evolution of Monarchy is marriage and children. So if you are the sort of person who thinks family is important, it's worth reflecting on Monarchy vs Republicanism. Bhutan was an Absolute Monarchy as recently as 2008. It is now a Constitutional Monarchy with a bi-cameral legislature. In 1972 the King of Bhutan coined the term Gross National Happiness, which is now part of the Constitution as established in 2008. Absolute Monarchy is the bedrock of Constitutional Monarchy. Any Constitutional reform must ultimately be done by returning to Absolute Monarchy before changing to the new Constitution. As far as Bhutan goes, it's also worth looking at its response to immigration of Nepalese labour and the response it had to that in 1990 when the demographic change threatened to change the country's culture, and compare that with the fate of its neighbour Sikkim, which is now majority Nepalese - , and whose original inhabitants find themselves a minority in their own country after the foreign deposition of its monarchy after a sham election. This is what happens when Absolute Monarchy is overridden, i.e. a legislature put together under demographic pressue can abolish the Monarchy - the Monarchy inevitably is abolished and the people of the country are destroyed.


So thinking about a modernised system it would probably be something like an Absolute Monarchy but with a single vote of permanent loyalty that every citizen would have and could use to pledge allegiance to the Monarch. Modern technology could implement this and the maintainance of this system would have to be radically transparent and auditable (effectively a commons). The Monarch would in turn rule Absolutely. If the Monarch does not rule well, then each citizen can freely (and anonymously) change their pledge vote to another person who they think should be Monarch - and this could be anyone in the world. There would be no political parties so all partisan campaigning would be obsolete other than the normal structure of non-partisan local councillors etc in a hierarchical geographic structure (Parish, District, Regional etc), with the Monarch at the top. Just think of how great no more political parties and politicians would be! People of great character and ability would then emerge to support the Monarch. If over two thirds of pledge votes change from the current Monarch to another Monarch then the armed forces would pledge allegiance to the new Monarch and there would have to be some kind of ceremonial transfer of new power (much like the inauguration ceremony in the U.S.A.) in which the outgoing Monarch would pass on their power. The outgoing Monarch would then retire peacefully, i.e. no communist style murders of entire families or military coups by force. If people want to move to another country that is also an Absolute Monarchy, they would first need to become naturalised legally and they and their family would have to pledge their allegiance vote to the current Monarch permanently, and only children born in that country would be able to change their pledge - this would avoid foreign deposition. Also the right of exit should be universally upheld (i.e. no Berlin Wall style barrier stopping people from leaving). If a Monarch attempted to proscribe the right of exit then they would be deposed. A Monarch could conceivable set up a system in which they delegate all their power to lower orders, effectively a Constitutional Monarchy as we have now with a Parliamentary system, however the Monarch should always retain the ability to dissolve any Constitutional structure other than the pledge system. I don't think the Parliamentary System works anymore and so I would say it needs to change.


There are movements for Constitutional Monarchy, see here for one of the descendents of the Ethiopian Emperor: https://ethiopians4cm.org/author/lij-teodrose-fikremariam/


Scott Alexander also explored these ideas in a post here except he says dictator instead of Monarch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/07/addendum-to-enormous-nutshell-competing-selectors/


Another article which I've skimmed but does cover the divergent Constitutional ideas and mentions how Brexit is effectively a return to the Constitutional Monarchy established after the Glorious Revolution: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/


I guess looking at what I've described is not so much an Absolute Monarchy as it depends on the permanently registered consent of the people. However the ruler would rule Absolutely once in power. As I said the actual structure/system of governance would be a kind of commons above the Monarch. If the Monarch did not live up to being the best Monarch they could be then they would be deposed, but this would be a rare event, and otherwise the system would be hereditary. This is basically Constitutional Monarchy but with complete disintermediation between the Monarch and every single citizen. If it was an org chart it would have two levels, the Monarch and then everyone else. But actually the power structure would be inverted. All the citizens of the country would hold power over the Monarch. The Monarch could change the system of governance absolutely apart from the pledge of allegiance mechanism. So maybe you could call it Direct Monarchy.

These a just a bunch of ideas that I'm making up as I go along - so please take them apart. But we need unity. The current system is broken. Look how divided the country is. I want to return to the age of Kings and Queens, of family, honour, respect, allegiance, duty, responsibility, love. What we have now is a grotesque mess of demographic tribalism and polarisation.

My ideas above may sound wild but they are directly relevant to Brexit. We have a situation in which a popular referendum by the people received the greatest mandate in the islands's history, 17.4 million people. If we were to express this directly to the Monarch, they would have to listen for fear of losing allegiance. There is no doubt that Parliament is currently opposed to the people's wishes, and are even putting off an election. I would welcome if the Queen refused to give Royal Assent to any Bill of Law that went against the wishes of the people with regard to the referendum. The people are sovereign.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
210
338
275
Johnson will have to resign and trigger a General Election. We're not leaving on 31st October. When the General Election comes the turnout and coordination for pro Brexit parties will need to overcome postal vote fraud by Labour.

 

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,416
899
615
San Francisco, CA
EU will want UK to have a general election in exchange for an extension
But if the UK rejects the deal of leaving with the new MPs, aren't they going back to square one? Is this a tactic where they keep nerfing the 'hard' Brexit into a 'wet noodle' Brexit?

Edit: I probably sound like an ass, but this is from an outsider's perspective and I have no clue how UK politics work.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
5,135
3,955
635
What's going to happen now? Brussels, France and Germany is going to reject an extension unless it's a *very* compelling reason.
Oh they will leak stories about being unsure, and maybe try leveraging it for a vote if they are confident in the results, but IMO there is no way in hell they are going to force Brexit. Any stories suggesting they are even considering that will be smoke and mirrors, designed to give leverage to remainers.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,324
2,852
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Continuing my Absolute Monarchy thoughts. Right now the Royal Family are in effect insulated from anything that happens in the country because they have a bipartisan system underneath them. We cannot have any way of choosing a better Monarch - the Monarch is insulated from the people. In a Republic, the President takes the place of the Monarch. This in effect becomes a permanent role if the President is either strong enough, or tyrannical enough. See Napoleon/Hitler/Putin/Mugabe/Afewerki/Assad/Bashir/Meles Zanawi/Karimov...etc. So they can only stay in power through tyranny. But it is not hereditary, at least not officially. Heredity is actually good because the Monarch has skin in the game to be a good Monarch for the sake of their children, and will rule well and educate their children to be good rulers in order to avoid them being deposed. So Republicanism I would say leads to more tyrannical or subversive behaviour than Monarchy.


A Monarchy is essentially a family structure. Part of the evolution of Monarchy is marriage and children. So if you are the sort of person who thinks family is important, it's worth reflecting on Monarchy vs Republicanism. Bhutan was an Absolute Monarchy as recently as 2008. It is now a Constitutional Monarchy with a bi-cameral legislature. In 1972 the King of Bhutan coined the term Gross National Happiness, which is now part of the Constitution as established in 2008. Absolute Monarchy is the bedrock of Constitutional Monarchy. Any Constitutional reform must ultimately be done by returning to Absolute Monarchy before changing to the new Constitution. As far as Bhutan goes, it's also worth looking at its response to immigration of Nepalese labour and the response it had to that in 1990 when the demographic change threatened to change the country's culture, and compare that with the fate of its neighbour Sikkim, which is now majority Nepalese - , and whose original inhabitants find themselves a minority in their own country after the foreign deposition of its monarchy after a sham election. This is what happens when Absolute Monarchy is overridden, i.e. a legislature put together under demographic pressue can abolish the Monarchy - the Monarchy inevitably is abolished and the people of the country are destroyed.


So thinking about a modernised system it would probably be something like an Absolute Monarchy but with a single vote of permanent loyalty that every citizen would have and could use to pledge allegiance to the Monarch. Modern technology could implement this and the maintainance of this system would have to be radically transparent and auditable (effectively a commons). The Monarch would in turn rule Absolutely. If the Monarch does not rule well, then each citizen can freely (and anonymously) change their pledge vote to another person who they think should be Monarch - and this could be anyone in the world. There would be no political parties so all partisan campaigning would be obsolete other than the normal structure of non-partisan local councillors etc in a hierarchical geographic structure (Parish, District, Regional etc), with the Monarch at the top. Just think of how great no more political parties and politicians would be! People of great character and ability would then emerge to support the Monarch. If over two thirds of pledge votes change from the current Monarch to another Monarch then the armed forces would pledge allegiance to the new Monarch and there would have to be some kind of ceremonial transfer of new power (much like the inauguration ceremony in the U.S.A.) in which the outgoing Monarch would pass on their power. The outgoing Monarch would then retire peacefully, i.e. no communist style murders of entire families or military coups by force. If people want to move to another country that is also an Absolute Monarchy, they would first need to become naturalised legally and they and their family would have to pledge their allegiance vote to the current Monarch permanently, and only children born in that country would be able to change their pledge - this would avoid foreign deposition. Also the right of exit should be universally upheld (i.e. no Berlin Wall style barrier stopping people from leaving). If a Monarch attempted to proscribe the right of exit then they would be deposed. A Monarch could conceivable set up a system in which they delegate all their power to lower orders, effectively a Constitutional Monarchy as we have now with a Parliamentary system, however the Monarch should always retain the ability to dissolve any Constitutional structure other than the pledge system. I don't think the Parliamentary System works anymore and so I would say it needs to change.


There are movements for Constitutional Monarchy, see here for one of the descendents of the Ethiopian Emperor: https://ethiopians4cm.org/author/lij-teodrose-fikremariam/


Scott Alexander also explored these ideas in a post here except he says dictator instead of Monarch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/07/addendum-to-enormous-nutshell-competing-selectors/


Another article which I've skimmed but does cover the divergent Constitutional ideas and mentions how Brexit is effectively a return to the Constitutional Monarchy established after the Glorious Revolution: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/


I guess looking at what I've described is not so much an Absolute Monarchy as it depends on the permanently registered consent of the people. However the ruler would rule Absolutely once in power. As I said the actual structure/system of governance would be a kind of commons above the Monarch. If the Monarch did not live up to being the best Monarch they could be then they would be deposed, but this would be a rare event, and otherwise the system would be hereditary. This is basically Constitutional Monarchy but with complete disintermediation between the Monarch and every single citizen. If it was an org chart it would have two levels, the Monarch and then everyone else. But actually the power structure would be inverted. All the citizens of the country would hold power over the Monarch. The Monarch could change the system of governance absolutely apart from the pledge of allegiance mechanism. So maybe you could call it Direct Monarchy.

These a just a bunch of ideas that I'm making up as I go along - so please take them apart. But we need unity. The current system is broken. Look how divided the country is. I want to return to the age of Kings and Queens, of family, honour, respect, allegiance, duty, responsibility, love. What we have now is a grotesque mess of demographic tribalism and polarisation.

My ideas above may sound wild but they are directly relevant to Brexit. We have a situation in which a popular referendum by the people received the greatest mandate in the islands's history, 17.4 million people. If we were to express this directly to the Monarch, they would have to listen for fear of losing allegiance. There is no doubt that Parliament is currently opposed to the people's wishes, and are even putting off an election. I would welcome if the Queen refused to give Royal Assent to any Bill of Law that went against the wishes of the people with regard to the referendum. The people are sovereign.
To increase democratic procedures, let us kill democracy and replace it by monarchy. I am flabbergasted.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
210
338
275
To increase democratic procedures, let us kill democracy and replace it by monarchy. I am flabbergasted.
You could still have democracy within a monarchy. Just not partisan politics. Every citizen has a vote of allegiance. You didn't read what I actually proposed.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,324
2,852
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
You could still have democracy within a monarchy. Just not partisan politics. Every citizen has a vote of allegiance. You didn't read what I actually proposed.
With the powers you envisioned for the monarch, this is a meaningless vote. People need far less poewr than you are proposing to solidify a permanent dictatorship, as has been shown many times (and as you can observe right now with Erdogan).
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
210
338
275
With the powers you envisioned for the monarch, this is a meaningless vote. People need far less poewr than you are proposing to solidify a permanent dictatorship, as has been shown many times (and as you can observe right now with Erdogan).
In my proposal anyone can leave the country so long as they have an invite to another, and so can vote with their feet, and every citizen has a permanent vote of allegiance that has the power to depose a monarch given a majority. How is this meaningless?
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,324
2,852
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
In my proposal anyone can leave the country so long as they have an invite to another, and so can vote with their feet, and every citizen has a permanent vote of allegiance that has the power to depose a monarch given a majority. How is this meaningless?
If you do not like your dictator you can leave is a great way to go about this...

It is meaningless, because at that level of power and that high hurdles to get rid of one (two thirds majority!), preferential treatment of the right people and groups, soft media control and procedural control make a half-way clever head of state a permanent one.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
210
338
275
If you do not like your dictator you can leave is a great way to go about this...

It is meaningless, because at that level of power and that high hurdles to get rid of one (two thirds majority!), preferential treatment of the right people and groups, soft media control and procedural control make a half-way clever head of state a permanent one.
What percentage majority would you say would be more appropriate considering this would be a major constitutional change? And if enough people are happy to live under the monarch, what would be your issue? Would you prefer to live happily under a clever head of state or in a chaos of people promising things to you in exchange for your vote so they can get into power to try and deliver it against other people trying to stop them? And aren't the problems you describe also endemic to Republics?
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,324
2,852
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
What percentage majority would you say would be more appropriate considering this would be a major constitutional change? And if enough people are happy to live under the monarch, what would be your issue? Would you prefer to live happily under a clever head of state or in a chaos of people promising things to you in exchange for your vote so they can get into power to try and deliver it against other people trying to stop them? And aren't the problems you describe also endemic to Republics?
Some republics (not my country though, unfortunately) have a pretty good measure against it: term limits. Limiting the power of any individual constitutionally and to have a system of checks and balances is the way to go in my view. A change in power should occur at set intervals when the (simple) majority want it.

And I would prefer living in a representative democracy with a constant competition of ideas rather than in a state where a single person who views themselves as particularly exquisite ruling with hard to contest powers.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
210
338
275
Some republics (not my country though, unfortunately) have a pretty good measure against it: term limits. Limiting the power of any individual constitutionally and to have a system of checks and balances is the way to go in my view. A change in power should occur at set intervals when the (simple) majority want it.

And I would prefer living in a representative democracy with a constant competition of ideas rather than in a state where a single person who views themselves as particularly exquisite ruling with hard to contest powers.
A monarch would find it impossible to rule alone. He or she would need loyal subjects, advisors, a governance system, a structure, a way to keep informed about the needs of the country. You must also remember that because of the pledge vote which is in the power of all citizens, it is not the judgement of the monarch that they are particularly exquisite ruling, but the citizens.

If you had a great leader for 8 years, who was generally thought of as being a great servant of the country, and then you had to get rid of them because of term limits and have the choice between two awful candidates, would you not for a second think 'why are we being compelled to get rid of this leader who the majority of people like?'. And what about political dynasties? Kennedy, Bush, Clinton - is this not a form of hereditary rule by the back door anyway?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
14,102
26,396
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
No wonder the UK can't get out: their own politicians do everything in their power to neuter the UK's ability to negotiate.

UK: "No, no, those are bad terms for a deal"
EU: "Hahah as if you're allowed to leave without a deal anyway..."