3 ms·

> European monarchs [...] don't sign laws [...] At least in Norway, laws have to be signed by the King and the prime minister (with a few exceptions); for exam

> European monarchs [...] don't sign laws [...] At least in Norway, laws have to be signed by the King and the prime minister (with a few exceptions); for example, in 1975 the King did not sign a law passed by Parliament/Stortinget and the law did not become effective (this was, however, a special occation related to a strike where the two parts found an aggreement after the law was passed by Parliament but before it was signed by the King and the prime minister, so the government recommended the King not to sign). See https://lovdata-no.translate.goog/artikkel/vil_kongen_nekte_a_sanksjonere/2384?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://lovdata-no.translate.goog/artikkel/vil_kongen_nekte_...

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
In the UK laws are signed into being by the monarch, formally they're like writs from the monarch about what they wish. Parliament and the legislature are just advisors. It's a bad look for a country claiming to be democratic. The monarch chooses the PM, it's 'her majesty's government' according to law and tradition; she refused Australia's choice of PM in the past IIRC.
- karencarits 4y ago
  > It's a bad look for a country claiming to be democratic. Perhaps, but rather bad looking than bad functioning; I'm not intimate with how the Stuart Restoration worked, but the monarchy in Norway was introduced in 1905 by vote and has been widely popular since. If the monarchy and its role in the constitution and the sosicety have continuous support by a majority of the population, then it is a good look for a country claiming to be democratic?
hef19898 4y ago
We have a similar situation with German President, our head of state. The president has to sign laws once they are passed by both chambers of parliament. Usually Presidents sign, almost, whatever is put in front of them. Quite some time ago government had a phase when they tried to pass laws that were later struck down by the constitutional court. That prompted the then President to do some due dilligence and return proposed laws to parliament. Needless to say politians were not amused. That being said, our Presidents have not real power in the legislative process, pretty much like most Monarchs do. Playing this process, like in your example, is fair game if doesn't happen all the time.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

In the UK laws are signed into being by the monarch, formally they're like writs from the monarch about what they wish. Parliament and the legislature are just advisors. It's a bad look for a country claiming to be democratic. The monarch chooses the PM, it's 'her majesty's government' according to law and tradition; she refused Australia's choice of PM in the past IIRC.

karencarits 4y ago
> It's a bad look for a country claiming to be democratic. Perhaps, but rather bad looking than bad functioning; I'm not intimate with how the Stuart Restoration worked, but the monarchy in Norway was introduced in 1905 by vote and has been widely popular since. If the monarchy and its role in the constitution and the sosicety have continuous support by a majority of the population, then it is a good look for a country claiming to be democratic?

hef19898 4y ago

We have a similar situation with German President, our head of state. The president has to sign laws once they are passed by both chambers of parliament. Usually Presidents sign, almost, whatever is put in front of them. Quite some time ago government had a phase when they tried to pass laws that were later struck down by the constitutional court. That prompted the then President to do some due dilligence and return proposed laws to parliament. Needless to say politians were not amused. That being said, our Presidents have not real power in the legislative process, pretty much like most Monarchs do. Playing this process, like in your example, is fair game if doesn't happen all the time.