NationStates Jolt Archive

This question comes from various posts, especially one on the British Monarchy (as this example is always used).

If the BNP ever came to power after a general election. Would the Queen be justified in dissolving parliament?

Personally I think no. Although I cannot stand the BNP and dispise almost everything they stand. They would be elected by majority of the British people, and would therefore be the ones the British public, as a whole, want running the country. And since the Queen is unelected, and only gets her power from circumstance and birth, she is has no democratic mandate to interfere with something this major.

PS. This is a hythetical situation, so no replies like
It would never happen, the BNP have a snowball's chance in Hell

There was a poll, but it seems to have disappeared :?

I honestly don't know.
On the one hand she's go to do whats best for the country.
But on the other hand we live in a democracy and majority rules.

I'll go with no!

Hey, it vanished while I was typing! :?

Personally I think no, to do so would be to undermine the whole concept of democracy which has evolved over hundreds of years. Additionally her power to do so is detatable given the lack of a written constitution. In reality the monarch has virtually no power whatsoever and to attempt such an intervention against the democratically elected house, I think, would lead to the sharpish demise of the monarchy.

Democracy is only as good as its results. If undemocratic methods were necessary to prevent a deeply unethical government, they would be justified.

Of course, if a majority was in favour of the BNP, dissolving Parliament would be unlikely to do any good - we'd have a substantial number of individuals committed to racist violence, who could fairly easily make the country impossible to rule. If things got this bad, the BNP would end up in power one way or another.

Thank christ they're just a spotty, scrawny minority.

Democracy is only as good as its results. If undemocratic methods were necessary to prevent a deeply unethical government, they would be justified.

Of course, if a majority was in favour of the BNP, dissolving Parliament would be unlikely to do any good - we'd have a substantial number of individuals committed to racist violence, who could fairly easily make the country impossible to rule. If things got this bad, the BNP would end up in power one way or another.

Thank christ they're just a spotty, scrawny minority.

Of course, what is unethical is up for debate. (However, what I consider ethical and what I know about BNP policies, does mean I would see a BNP government unethical.)

However I think that if the BNP ever did into control, it would be partially due to low turnout. This of course brings in something else. No recent goverment has ever had more than 50% of the popular vote. So a government elected on a low (be which I mean about half that of todays turnout) turnout would represent a minority.

It would also mean that British society will nessasarily allow BNP thugs to carry out anything on a grand scale (someone on another thread meantioned Kristalnacht). However this point is debatable, especially using the Kristalnacht anallogy.

Never mind the BNP.

Here's the real question:

Would the Queen be justified in dissolving Parliament in the event of another New Labour victory with Bliar as Party Leader?

Never mind the BNP.

Here's the real question:

Would the Queen be justified in dissolving Parliament in the event of another New Labour victory with Bliar as Party Leader?

Ag, don't be so facetious TG.

But I'm feeling serious tonight. No.


------Censored by the Lodges------

Never mind the BNP.

Here's the real question:

Would the Queen be justified in dissolving Parliament in the event of another New Labour victory with Bliar as Party Leader?


No.

I am afraid, given democracy, if an extreme right (or left) candidate got in, you would have 3 choices. Leave, put up with it, or overthrow, or otherwise remove party from government. Realistically, there would be 3 parties, taking 1/3 of the main vote. They would be about equal, so the queen could appoint the P.M. (I believe something along the lines of this happened in Australia, and if it did not, it could happen here anyway.)
Since the queen can appoint the P.M in the event of such a close vote.

The real issue should be when will parliament decide to dissolve the House of Windsor.

What a farcical collection of dysfunctional individuals they have proved to be.

Unfortunately, you don't get the chance to vote them out. Well, not often enough anyhow

:lol:

Well. Smart comments aside, the monarchy does a good job, and provides political security, especially in the case of this threads scenario.

The real issue should be when will parliament decide to dissolve the House of Windsor.
:lol:

Not for a long time. Britain doesn't have decent freedom of speech laws :shock: :horror: . Parliament isn't even allowed to discuss the position of the Monarch as head of state (and until recently it was illegal to even call for a Republic (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,986030,00.html)).

It seems to me that the only way to free ourselves of the Monarchy is to have a revolution. And the English are about as famous for failing to have revolutions as the French are about having them (The English Rising of 1381, The English Civil War, the General Strike).

Well. Smart comments aside, the monarchy does a good job, and provides political security, especially in the case of this threads scenario.

How does it do a good job exactly? And how would the Monarch be justified in providing political security in this scenario?

They have had nothing to do politically at the moment, so you cannot judge, except that they do a lot of civilian, and figurehead work, like launching ships, charity events, all that. In this scenario, given its most likely incarnation, would likely be a split, 3 ways. The queen could provide political stability, by choosing the leader least likely to inflame the other 2 thirds.

They have had nothing to do politically at the moment, so you cannot judge, except that they do a lot of civilian, and figurehead work, like launching ships, charity events, all that. In this scenario, given its most likely incarnation, would likely be a split, 3 ways. The queen could provide political stability, by choosing the leader least likely to inflame the other 2 thirds.

*Will shut up on the first point, as it will lead the tread off-topic (there is a thread on monarchy somewhere)*

I agree that the most likely scenario will be 3-way split. But the BNP will have the majority (for the scenario to remain within the thread parameters), and the British Constitution, which is to say convention and tradition, stipulates that the Prime Minister is the parliamentry leader of the largest parliamentry party (for the sake of arguement I'll assume it is Nick Griffin). Also, since the PM has the Royal perogative powers, which includes the power to hire/fire ministers, it would be safe to say that Griffin will put together a BNP cabinet (ie if not all BNP, BNP dominated or the BNP in the top jobs).

*realises that he has just wondered off the point*

But in this case, it will be a minority government, which means that the BNP will need (formal and informal) alliances, which may go so far as having many non-BNPers in the cabinet.

Surely political expediency will force Griffin to be 'moderate' and a regaly appointed PM will not be needed (and it is unlikely will be respected).

It's possible. The victory would be decided with only a few thousand between each candidate, (maybe about 25-100 thousand votes in it) so it is unlikely that Nick Griffen would be the outright winner. In this case, as stated, the monarchy would have to decide whether Griffen has the majority needed to run the nation. (34% is very low. Can I assume, the miraculous 100% turnout? I know we only hit 50% or so last election, but it makes things easier) In this case, having such a small majority, he would be unable to pass any of his laws, and as such would be a terribly inefficient P.M. However, a tory, or labour P.M, one of the parties which would likely gain the support of at least one of the oppositions, could, possibly, gain a 66% majority, assuming the other party supports them. It's really a case of who would be the most effective, given that they are almost equal.

It's possible. The victory would be decided with only a few thousand between each candidate, (maybe about 25-100 thousand votes in it) so it is unlikely that Nick Griffen would be the outright winner. In this case, as stated, the monarchy would have to decide whether Griffen has the majority needed to run the nation. (34% is very low. Can I assume, the miraculous 100% turnout? I know we only hit 50% or so last election, but it makes things easier) In this case, having such a small majority, he would be unable to pass any of his laws, and as such would be a terribly inefficient P.M. However, a tory, or labour P.M, one of the parties which would likely gain the support of at least one of the oppositions, could, possibly, gain a 66% majority, assuming the other party supports them. It's really a case of who would be the most effective, given that they are almost equal.

But would the Queen be justified in forcing the PM not to come from the winng party but from a more established party. Also, in the Commons, the victor is decided by seats rather than electoral representation. But what you mean by "outright" is vague. Also should the monarch have the right to decide what a workable majority should be?

Also, not having an outright majority would hardly be unique, in happens quite frequently. But the government has to pander to the opposition (and its own back benchers).

Simple common sense would decide the workable majority.

I am aware that a large majority in parliament is far more common than a small majority, and I am aware that the victor is decided by seats, rather than an electoral majority. Perhaps a safety measure to be adopted, is that if the seats were equal (or very close) then the electoral results would be examined, to see who really won in votes.
34% is also not a majority, but a winning minority. It is not nearly enough to pass most laws. (This is a very simple 3 party split, for some reason the other parties never got a seat anywhere) However, a labour or tory, given that their party is established, is much more likely to get at least 50%, and so can pass votes with some efficiency. It's not just a question of popularity, but efficiency. Even if he did win, Britain would come to a standstill for 5 years, which is unacceptable.

Well, it wouldn't be a few thousand, since the PM is elected by being the leader of the party that wins the most seats, ie. not direct democracy.

Thus, in my opinion, rendering arguments of democracy moot, since the party could conceivably gain power without a majority of individual votes.

Simple common sense would decide the workable majority.
Surely reality will decide it far better than common sense.
I am aware that a large majority in parliament is far more common than a small majority, and I am aware that the victor is decided by seats, rather than an electoral majority. Perhaps a safety measure to be adopted, is that if the seats were equal (or very close) then the electoral results would be examined, to see who really won in votes.
34% is also not a majority, but a winning minority. It is not nearly enough to pass most laws. (This is a very simple 3 party split, for some reason the other parties never got a seat anywhere) However, a labour or tory, given that their party is established, is much more likely to get at least 50%, and so can pass votes with some efficiency. It's not just a question of popularity, but efficiency. Even if he did win, Britain would come to a standstill for 5 years, which is unacceptable.

The problem with that idea is that, if used, people would quickly ask "why don't we do that anyway?" Also what would be 'close?'

Also, I don't quite get your point about :

"However, a labour or tory, given that their party is established, is much more likely to get at least 50%, and so can pass votes with some efficiency."

I assume that you mean % of the popular vote, but it is unworkable within the confine of the current British Constitution (unless your suggesting everything should be done on referendum). So it will not nessasarily be more efficient.

Also the cabinet has a variety of powers available to it which don't require consultation with parliament, so the country would not come to a standstill.

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the BNP?

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the BNP?

British National Party (http://www.bnp.org.uk)

A common arguemet cited in foavour of Monarchy is that they will/can prevent the BNP taking power by democratic means.

Is she justifies to do this though?

I mean 50% of a vote in the house of commons on a bill to be passed. 50% of the seats.

Parliament controls the monarchy far more than the monarchy controls parliament, and a good thing too.

Edward V111 was forced to abdicate by parliament in 1936, due to his love for the American divorcee, Wallis Simpson.

The pair subsequently, as Duke and Duchess of Windsor, visited Germany in 1937 and were entertained by Hitler and other senior Nazis.

A year after war broke out, the FBI sent a memo to President Roosevelt outlining the agency's worries about the couple. It stated: "It has been ascertained that for some time, the British government has known that the Duchess of Windsor was exceedingly pro-German in her sympathies and connections and there is strong reason to believe that this is the reason why she was considered so obnoxious to the British government that they refused to permit Edward to marry her and maintain the throne.

"Both she and the Duke of Windsor have been repeatedly warned by representatives of the British government that in the interest of the morale of the British people, they should be exceedingly circumspect in their dealings with the representatives of the German government. The duke is in such state of intoxication most of the time that he is virtually non compos mentis. The duchess has repeatedly ignored these warnings."

When war broke out, the duke, a serving officer, had been posted to France to liaise between the British and French armies. But the secret memo, on September 13 1940, reports that an informant had "established conclusively that the Duchess of Windsor has recently been in touch with Joachim von Ribbentrop and was maintaining constant contact and communication with him."

"Because of their high official position, the duchess was obtaining a variety of information concerning the British and French official activities that she was passing on to the Germans."

After the Germans invaded northern France in May 1940, the couple fled to Biarritz in the south. But the FBI noted that the Nazis were able to score a propaganda coup by broadcasting that the "increasing successes of the German armies" had compelled the couple to retreat to a Biarritz hotel. Within minutes of checking in, Berlin radio announced their hotel room number because the unnamed informant "had ascertained that the duchess had informed von Ribbentrop of her itinerary, schedule, etc, prior to her departure from their villa."

The couple then travelled to Spain in June 1940 "but the communications between the duchess and von Ribbentrop were apparently facilitated because of the pronounced Nazi sympathies in Spain."

In July 1940, the pair moved to Portugal where the duke made indiscreet remarks that Britain stood little chance of resisting a German invasion and may as well try to settle for peace with the Germans. Ribbentrop, encouraged by these remarks, hatched a plot to lure the Windsors into German hands.

But Winston Churchill had arranged for the duke to become governor of the Bahamas in August 1940.

"The British were and are always fearful that the duchess will do or say some thing which will indicate her Nazi sympathies and support, and consequently it was considered absolutely essential that the Windsors be removed to a point where they would do absolutely no harm," wrote the FBI in the memo, one of a batch of 227 pages released to the Guardian under the US freedom of information act. The FBI believed that the Bahamas were selected to prevent the duchess from coming into contact with British officials and scooping up more secrets to leak and that special precautions were taken, presumably by the British, to prevent her from "establishing any channel of communication with von Ribbentrop."

From their base in the Bahamas, the couple made frequent visits to the United States during the war. In April 1941, President Roosevelt ordered FBI agents to tail the Windsors discreetly when they visited Florida. But J Edgar Hoover was alarmed because bodyguards from another government department had been assigned to protect the couple. He warned that the bodyguards "would undoubtedly immediately detect the presence of any undercover agents, which might result in considerable embarrassment to all parties concerned".

Instead, the government arranged for the bodyguards to report back to the FBI on where the Windsors went and whom they met. An 18-page report was subsequently produced on the five-day trip.

On May 2, an FBI agent wrote to Hoover, saying that an English socialite had told an informant that he had definite proof that Herman Goering, Hitler's deputy, and the Duke of Windsor had reached a deal - "after Germany won the war, Goering, through control of the army, was going to overthrow Hitler and then he would install the duke as king of England."

The informant also stated that there was no doubt that "the Duchess of Windsor had had an affair with Ribbentrop, and that of course she had an intense hate for the English since they had kicked them out of England".

SOURCE http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4451107,00.html.

COMMENT.
Just as well that this near-monarch was in no position to over-rule parliament.
Try to explain now how the monarchy would 'save" anyone from a right wing racist party.

COMMENT.
Just as well that this near-monarch was in no position to over-rule parliament.
Try to explain now how the monarchy would 'save" anyone from a right wing racist party.

I have no idea. By refusing to leave her room probably. But it is an oft repeated arguement used by monarchist to justify the existence of the Monarch.

If the BNP ever came to power after a general election. Would the Queen be justified in dissolving parliament?


As far as I understand it the Queen would also be able to appoint a prime minister from some other party, even if they did not hold the majority of seats in Parliament, so it would not be necessary to dissolve parliament and remove all democratic process from the equation. Thus if the BNP got a majority of seats, for example, it would still be legally possible for the Queen to appoint the prime minister from the Labour party or the Conservatives, or, indeed, Sinn Fein...

However, if you are asking if it is ethically justified for her to carry out such an action, I can't answer that without pointing out that I consider the role of the monarch in appointing (on recomendations from her ministers, but not bound by them) the PM to be seriously undemocratic and objectionable.

If we consent that the PM should in all cases be appointed from the party or coalition holding the majority of seats in parliament, then we are endorsing the British parliamentary system and ignoring any questions about the overall ethical valdity of the current system.

If, for example, due to the mathematical peculiarities of the current system, party X gained more seats than party Y, but party Y received more votes than party X, then as things currently stand party X would usually gain the role of prime minister. Similar mathematic paradoxes which confound the general democratic aim of the UK system are easy to create with the system in use today. So, there currently exist several ethical problems with the whole shebang...

Simple common sense would decide the workable majority.

The problem with common sense is that in most cases it is neither common, nor sense.

If the BNP ever came to power after a general election. Would the Queen be justified in dissolving parliament?


As far as I understand it the Queen would also be able to appoint a prime minister from some other party, even if they did not hold the majority of seats in Parliament, so it would not be necessary to dissolve parliament and remove all democratic process from the equation. Thus if the BNP got a majority of seats, for example, it would still be legally possible for the Queen to appoint the prime minister from the Labour party or the Conservatives, or, indeed, Sinn Fein...

However, if you are asking if it is ethically justified for her to carry out such an action, I can't answer that without pointing out that I consider the role of the monarch in appointing (on recomendations from her ministers, but not bound by them) the PM to be seriously undemocratic and objectionable.

If we consent that the PM should in all cases be appointed from the party or coalition holding the majority of seats in parliament, then we are endorsing the British parliamentary system and ignoring any questions about the overall ethical valdity of the current system.

If, for example, due to the mathematical peculiarities of the current system, party X gained more seats than party Y, but party Y received more votes than party X, then as things currently stand party X would usually gain the role of prime minister. Similar mathematic paradoxes which confound the general democratic aim of the UK system are easy to create with the system in use today. So, there currently exist several ethical problems with the whole shebang...

The Queen could, as I understand it, act as you have described.

The next sequence of events would, however, be for parliament to carry a vote of no-confidence in the Prime Minister, who would therefore be expected to resign, and possibly call for fresh elections.

Back to square 1.