5 ms·

I wish my high school had covered parliamentary systems. So many things about it seem batshit insane. The government can expel MPs who vote against it? The prim

I wish my high school had covered parliamentary systems. So many things about it seem batshit insane. The government can expel MPs who vote against it? The prime Minister can seize power by suspending the entire parliament?

itcrowd 7y ago
No two parliamentary systems are really the same. And the British system is uniquely erratic.
mjw1007 7y ago
They're expelled from their political party, not from parliament. In fact he probably can't even do that in all cases, as the local party branches might not let him.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
I found it interesting that while everyone says it’s a democracy and the Queen is an entirely symbolic position... she suspended parliament which happens a lot but not lately and the timing was unusual, IDK! So it seems like a Democracy With Assistance, but also some sort of Revokable Representative like you said? I’m with you man, makes no sense to me.
- edh649 7y ago
  The Queen has to give her permission to suspend parliament (as it is 'her' government), however it was not her decision about whether to say yes or no. She acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, and must do as they say. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575
  - mjw1007 7y ago
    But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it. I think how it works is the Queen will always deny having had any discretion. If she ever has to reject the 'advice' of her Prime Minister she will say she has been advised that the advice was unconstitutional and therefore she had no option but to reject it.
    - QuesnayJr 7y ago
      This is a case where the UK is governed by norms, rather than laws. Charles I prorogued Parliament for 11 years. Of course when he reconvened Parliament they refused to be dismissed again and ultimately deposed him. It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy.
      - krisgee 7y ago
        >It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy. It'd be a pretty much immediate constitutional crisis but I don't doubt at all that it'd end up with the head of state getting changed to an elected position. Definitely messy though which is why the tradition stuff works fine for now.
    - krisgee 7y ago
      >But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it. It is actually though. We had a similar situation in Canada a few years back where the PM prorogued parliament for an extended period of time and the Governor-General (our representative of the Crown). The procedure for formally ratifying a bill is called Royal Assent[1]. An exerpt from the wiki article on it kind of sums up your issue >Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld. So it's all a matter of tradition and stuff. Theoretically the Queen could go and put her foot down in England or in any other Commonwealth realm that she still technically rules. That said the common consensus on what would probably happen there is that parliment would essentially immediately have a vote on tossing the queen as head of state, probably write in some elected presidential position or something to do all the stuff that the Queen or her representative used to do then go back to arguing about whatever they were before and the main consequence would be a wasted voting period and having to remove "Royal ____ of ______" from a lot of organizations. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    There is a full quorum she can call for - the full Privy Council, over the usual three government MP's. I'm not sure in what circumstances, but it's been claimed that even asking for this would be judged to be exercising political involvement. Impossible position, much?
pjc50 7y ago
Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal. The suspension of parliament trick was not normal, is currently subject to legal actions, and may be rendered moot by Parliament having taken control of the order paper this evening.
- Causality1 7y ago
  >Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal. If they're required to vote with the party then why are they there at all instead of a single party representative casting multiple votes? How does a party ever change its mind about anything if its members can't make their own decisions?
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    There's a scale to these things. A free vote allows an MP to vote against their party with no consequence. at the other extreme we have: A three line whip, which is literally underlined three times, are votes and proceedings the government considers important. Traditionally manifesto promises and last votes on major bills. Voting against a three line whip can result in removal of the whip, ie expulsion, but traditionally even this has been rare. Parties have usually had a few MPs well known for voting against them on some issues, and managed to keep them on as MP. Throwing out 21 when you lose your very first vote is unprecedented. Mind you, losing your very first vote as PM is unprecedented. :) https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whips/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whip...
soneil 7y ago
At this point, I can't figure out if I'm learning new and interesting things about how this system works .. or if they're just making it up as they go along now. And I'm British ..

itcrowd 7y ago

No two parliamentary systems are really the same. And the British system is uniquely erratic.

mjw1007 7y ago

They're expelled from their political party, not from parliament. In fact he probably can't even do that in all cases, as the local party branches might not let him.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

I found it interesting that while everyone says it’s a democracy and the Queen is an entirely symbolic position... she suspended parliament which happens a lot but not lately and the timing was unusual, IDK! So it seems like a Democracy With Assistance, but also some sort of Revokable Representative like you said? I’m with you man, makes no sense to me.

edh649 7y ago
The Queen has to give her permission to suspend parliament (as it is 'her' government), however it was not her decision about whether to say yes or no. She acts on the advice of her Prime Minister, and must do as they say. [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49495575
- mjw1007 7y ago
  But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it. I think how it works is the Queen will always deny having had any discretion. If she ever has to reject the 'advice' of her Prime Minister she will say she has been advised that the advice was unconstitutional and therefore she had no option but to reject it.
  - QuesnayJr 7y ago
    This is a case where the UK is governed by norms, rather than laws. Charles I prorogued Parliament for 11 years. Of course when he reconvened Parliament they refused to be dismissed again and ultimately deposed him. It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy.
    - krisgee 7y ago
      >It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy. It'd be a pretty much immediate constitutional crisis but I don't doubt at all that it'd end up with the head of state getting changed to an elected position. Definitely messy though which is why the tradition stuff works fine for now.
  - krisgee 7y ago
    >But it can't be as simple as that. If a prime minister asked the Queen to suspend parliament for a year, she wouldn't approve it. It is actually though. We had a similar situation in Canada a few years back where the PM prorogued parliament for an extended period of time and the Governor-General (our representative of the Crown). The procedure for formally ratifying a bill is called Royal Assent[1]. An exerpt from the wiki article on it kind of sums up your issue >Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld. So it's all a matter of tradition and stuff. Theoretically the Queen could go and put her foot down in England or in any other Commonwealth realm that she still technically rules. That said the common consensus on what would probably happen there is that parliment would essentially immediately have a vote on tossing the queen as head of state, probably write in some elected presidential position or something to do all the stuff that the Queen or her representative used to do then go back to arguing about whatever they were before and the main consequence would be a wasted voting period and having to remove "Royal ____ of ______" from a lot of organizations. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  There is a full quorum she can call for - the full Privy Council, over the usual three government MP's. I'm not sure in what circumstances, but it's been claimed that even asking for this would be judged to be exercising political involvement. Impossible position, much?

pjc50 7y ago

Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal. The suspension of parliament trick was not normal, is currently subject to legal actions, and may be rendered moot by Parliament having taken control of the order paper this evening.

Causality1 7y ago
>Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal. If they're required to vote with the party then why are they there at all instead of a single party representative casting multiple votes? How does a party ever change its mind about anything if its members can't make their own decisions?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  There's a scale to these things. A free vote allows an MP to vote against their party with no consequence. at the other extreme we have: A three line whip, which is literally underlined three times, are votes and proceedings the government considers important. Traditionally manifesto promises and last votes on major bills. Voting against a three line whip can result in removal of the whip, ie expulsion, but traditionally even this has been rare. Parties have usually had a few MPs well known for voting against them on some issues, and managed to keep them on as MP. Throwing out 21 when you lose your very first vote is unprecedented. Mind you, losing your very first vote as PM is unprecedented. :) https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whips/ https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whip...

soneil 7y ago

At this point, I can't figure out if I'm learning new and interesting things about how this system works .. or if they're just making it up as they go along now. And I'm British ..