3 ms·

> Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? This bullshit is called prorogation. According to Wikipedia [0], there are a number of countries that have provisions f

> Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? This bullshit is called prorogation. According to Wikipedia [0], there are a number of countries that have provisions for the prorogation of Parliament. They do not have to be monarchies. In absence of the queen, it could have been Boris himself who suspended the Parliament if the republic gave its prime minister (or president) such power. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation

wfhordie 4y ago
It seems to me that having the queen involved provides a false sense of separation of powers. Prorogation in most countries is a routine process that signals the end of a particular session. It seems unique to the UK that this power move could even play out. I’m not familiar with this process, which is why it surprised me. Are there any countries where the PM can routinely and/or for political purposes just end parliament without triggering an election? It strikes me as a situation where , absent the monarchy, such a situation would have been so quickly abused that the constitution would have been patched to preclude it. In any case, and on base principle, no unelected head of state should be able to dissolve parliament. Like, full stop.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- potatototoo99 4y ago
  It is common for PM-plus-president systems to have the PM govern and the president be allowed to dissolve parliament. They are usually independent enough unless the president is seeking reelection.
- cf100clunk 4y ago
  A Canadian perspective is given in "Prorogation: A Powerful Tool Forged by History" https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ In recent years, Canadians have tended to treat Prime Ministers who attempt prorogation with enmity: https://archive.ph/nKG0a https://archive.ph/nKG0a
zarzavat 4y ago
Getting rid of the monarchy would imply establishing a written constitution as the current one strongly requires the presence of a monarch. It seems unlikely that a new UK written constitution would include a power for the prime minister or head of state to shut down parliament for an extended period of time in peace time (although with these idiots in charge everything is possible). So a republic is sufficient, but not necessary - you could just have a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution instead.

wfhordie 4y ago

It seems to me that having the queen involved provides a false sense of separation of powers. Prorogation in most countries is a routine process that signals the end of a particular session. It seems unique to the UK that this power move could even play out. I’m not familiar with this process, which is why it surprised me. Are there any countries where the PM can routinely and/or for political purposes just end parliament without triggering an election? It strikes me as a situation where , absent the monarchy, such a situation would have been so quickly abused that the constitution would have been patched to preclude it. In any case, and on base principle, no unelected head of state should be able to dissolve parliament. Like, full stop.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
potatototoo99 4y ago
It is common for PM-plus-president systems to have the PM govern and the president be allowed to dissolve parliament. They are usually independent enough unless the president is seeking reelection.
cf100clunk 4y ago
A Canadian perspective is given in "Prorogation: A Powerful Tool Forged by History" https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ In recent years, Canadians have tended to treat Prime Ministers who attempt prorogation with enmity: https://archive.ph/nKG0a https://archive.ph/nKG0a

zarzavat 4y ago

Getting rid of the monarchy would imply establishing a written constitution as the current one strongly requires the presence of a monarch. It seems unlikely that a new UK written constitution would include a power for the prime minister or head of state to shut down parliament for an extended period of time in peace time (although with these idiots in charge everything is possible). So a republic is sufficient, but not necessary - you could just have a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution instead.