7 ms·

See Australia. - The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'

See Australia. - The Govenor General is appointed by the Monarch as their representative. The government recommends a candidate. There is nothing (as far as I'm aware) to force the monarch to appoint the individual versus anyone they want. This would be a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General has kinds the same powers as the monarch. Legislation requires "royal ascent l" to become law (similar concept to the US president signing bills passed by congress). The Govenor could reject the bill, but that'd trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor General holds similar powers to the executive of the US (using them as an example because if you are on an England speaking site you probably have some familiarity of the US system via media). But based on recommendations from the Prime Minister defers these powers to different ministers. Commonly referred to as a Portfolio. Eg how we a minister for defence, immigration etc etc. Failure to follow government recommendations would trigger a constitutional crisis. - The Govenor general can sack government and trigger an election. The closest Australia has been to constitutional crisis was the time this power was exercised with the sacking of Gough Whitlam. (note this is all based on my memory and understanding from classes in high school long ago)

vkou 3y ago
The situation in Canada is the same, but there is one situation where the GG's power is significant, and does not trigger a constitutional crisis. Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form. In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party... Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)
- markdown 3y ago
  It's actually really sane. Elected individuals are almost always corrupt... you really can't be elected anymore without owing lots of people favours. An unelected, non-political individual who is above it all results in a more stable democracy.
  - martopix 3y ago
    Populist take aside, this is somewhat true. In Italy there has been talk of electing the president directly, but I think that would be a terrible choice. Currently, he is elected by parliament, and this (surprisingly) has worked mostly well. The president ends up being an older well respected politician who takes a neutral role. If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure. Ireland proves that isn’t true. The Irish system works by allowing the public to choose the President, but having tough nominating criteria. Anyone overly political or controversial is not going to get through the nominating process, and so won’t be able to run. The nominating process produces a shortlist of 2-6 respected figures, and the public gets to choose which one they respect the most. If Italy adopted the same system as Ireland, including the same tough nomination requirements, there is no reason why Italy couldn’t get the same outcome.
  - b800h 3y ago
    This is exactly why so many bots online are absolutely hammering the British monarchy. If we were to remove the King, it would totally destabilise the country. It would make Brexit look like a garden party.
    - lozenge 3y ago
      Anti monarchist sentiment is strong in UK surveys so the idea that it's fake/astroturfed online content seems ridiculous to me. Any evidence?
      - b800h 3y ago
        Top Google result: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/03/08/megbot-army-linked-russian-conspiracy-theories-tweeting-obsessive/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/03/08/megbot-a...
- goosedragons 3y ago
  Because the Prime Minister asked her to. So was it really the whim of one unelected person or the whim of the democratically elected leader in an undemocratic spirit? Her refusing would have caused it's own issues because precedent said to follow the PM advice.
  - vkou 3y ago
    The PM that no longer had the confidence of parliament a month after the election of his minority party. It's reasonable for the PM to ask for such a self-serving thing, it's not for that ask to have been acquiesced to. There were three options (that I can think of) for dealing with that situation: 1. Allow the coalition to form government. 2. Hold another election, a month after the previous one. 3. ...Suspend parliament for a few months, so that the coalition can't hold a vote to push the minority government out! #2 is pretty nuts, but kind of justifiable, but #3 was absolutely nuts. (And had the bonus points of threatening that a non-confidence election half-a-year after the previous one is 'okay', despite Parliament being entirely non-functional for most of that intervening time.) That there aren't clear rules about this, or that a minority PM can prevent a majority coalition from ousting him is the maddening part.
arrowsmith 3y ago
Royal assent*
caf 3y ago
The Governor General can refuse Royal Assent without causing a crisis, as long as it's a decision taken "in council", which essentially means as advised by the Prime Minister. Why would the PM advise the GG to withhold Royal Assent? It's rare, but it's happened when technical problems were found in legislation after it had been passed by Parliament but before going to the GG, so giving time to pass amended legislation. It could also happen if a PM governing in minority faced a parliament passing legislation they strongly disagreed with.
- skissane 3y ago
  > but it's happened when technical problems were found in legislation after it had been passed by Parliament but before going to the GG, so giving time to pass amended legislation. At least in Australia (don’t know how they do things in Canada), it is standard practice nowadays to put a clause in all Acts saying the Act enters into force on a date to be proclaimed by the GG. So, in the event that an Act is found to be unworkable after passage by Parliament, it isn’t necessary for the GG to refuse/withhold/reserve assent. Instead, the GG assents to it, and it goes on the statute book. But the ministers never advise the GG to issue a proclamation setting an entry into force date, so it never enters into force - like if you commit code guarded by a feature flag, release that code to production, but then decide to never turn the feature flag on so it never actually runs. Parliament can then pass an amending Act fixing the flaws, and the GG can proclaim an entry into force date after assenting to the amending Act. It has happened before that Parliament passes some controversial Act, GG assents to it, Cabinet decides to hold off entry into force pending some review, Cabinet decides to drop the whole idea, Parliament passes a repeal Act, GG assents to that, Act was enacted then repealed without ever entering into force-like merging a PR to remove code for a feature for which the feature flag was never enabled in production. An entry-into-force proclamation isn’t quite like a feature flag though, in that you can choose when and if to turn it on, but once you turn it on there is no way to turn it back off. It can however be selective - you can make different sections of the Act enter into force at different times, and some sections may never be brought into force at all
  - caf 3y ago
    The Federal bill I was most recently looking at didn't require a separate proclamation to enter into force - there were three commencement provisions, two based on the date of royal assent and one a fixed date: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22legislation/bills/r6876_aspassed/0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

vkou 3y ago

The situation in Canada is the same, but there is one situation where the GG's power is significant, and does not trigger a constitutional crisis. Determining whether or not a minority government is dissolved, and an election is held, or if a ruling coalition can be allowed to form. In 2008, right after the election the GG did the ruling minority of Tories a pretty big favor by refusing to accept a non-confidence vote by a majority coalition, and instead, proroguing parliament for the benefit of the ruling minority party... Absolutely insane. (That this question is left to the whim of one unelected person.)

markdown 3y ago
It's actually really sane. Elected individuals are almost always corrupt... you really can't be elected anymore without owing lots of people favours. An unelected, non-political individual who is above it all results in a more stable democracy.
- martopix 3y ago
  Populist take aside, this is somewhat true. In Italy there has been talk of electing the president directly, but I think that would be a terrible choice. Currently, he is elected by parliament, and this (surprisingly) has worked mostly well. The president ends up being an older well respected politician who takes a neutral role. If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > If they were elected by a public election, there's no way you could have a neutral figure. Ireland proves that isn’t true. The Irish system works by allowing the public to choose the President, but having tough nominating criteria. Anyone overly political or controversial is not going to get through the nominating process, and so won’t be able to run. The nominating process produces a shortlist of 2-6 respected figures, and the public gets to choose which one they respect the most. If Italy adopted the same system as Ireland, including the same tough nomination requirements, there is no reason why Italy couldn’t get the same outcome.
- b800h 3y ago
  This is exactly why so many bots online are absolutely hammering the British monarchy. If we were to remove the King, it would totally destabilise the country. It would make Brexit look like a garden party.
  - lozenge 3y ago
    Anti monarchist sentiment is strong in UK surveys so the idea that it's fake/astroturfed online content seems ridiculous to me. Any evidence?
    - b800h 3y ago
      Top Google result: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/03/08/megbot-army-linked-russian-conspiracy-theories-tweeting-obsessive/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/03/08/megbot-a...
goosedragons 3y ago
Because the Prime Minister asked her to. So was it really the whim of one unelected person or the whim of the democratically elected leader in an undemocratic spirit? Her refusing would have caused it's own issues because precedent said to follow the PM advice.
- vkou 3y ago
  The PM that no longer had the confidence of parliament a month after the election of his minority party. It's reasonable for the PM to ask for such a self-serving thing, it's not for that ask to have been acquiesced to. There were three options (that I can think of) for dealing with that situation: 1. Allow the coalition to form government. 2. Hold another election, a month after the previous one. 3. ...Suspend parliament for a few months, so that the coalition can't hold a vote to push the minority government out! #2 is pretty nuts, but kind of justifiable, but #3 was absolutely nuts. (And had the bonus points of threatening that a non-confidence election half-a-year after the previous one is 'okay', despite Parliament being entirely non-functional for most of that intervening time.) That there aren't clear rules about this, or that a minority PM can prevent a majority coalition from ousting him is the maddening part.

arrowsmith 3y ago

Royal assent*

caf 3y ago

The Governor General can refuse Royal Assent without causing a crisis, as long as it's a decision taken "in council", which essentially means as advised by the Prime Minister. Why would the PM advise the GG to withhold Royal Assent? It's rare, but it's happened when technical problems were found in legislation after it had been passed by Parliament but before going to the GG, so giving time to pass amended legislation. It could also happen if a PM governing in minority faced a parliament passing legislation they strongly disagreed with.

skissane 3y ago
> but it's happened when technical problems were found in legislation after it had been passed by Parliament but before going to the GG, so giving time to pass amended legislation. At least in Australia (don’t know how they do things in Canada), it is standard practice nowadays to put a clause in all Acts saying the Act enters into force on a date to be proclaimed by the GG. So, in the event that an Act is found to be unworkable after passage by Parliament, it isn’t necessary for the GG to refuse/withhold/reserve assent. Instead, the GG assents to it, and it goes on the statute book. But the ministers never advise the GG to issue a proclamation setting an entry into force date, so it never enters into force - like if you commit code guarded by a feature flag, release that code to production, but then decide to never turn the feature flag on so it never actually runs. Parliament can then pass an amending Act fixing the flaws, and the GG can proclaim an entry into force date after assenting to the amending Act. It has happened before that Parliament passes some controversial Act, GG assents to it, Cabinet decides to hold off entry into force pending some review, Cabinet decides to drop the whole idea, Parliament passes a repeal Act, GG assents to that, Act was enacted then repealed without ever entering into force-like merging a PR to remove code for a feature for which the feature flag was never enabled in production. An entry-into-force proclamation isn’t quite like a feature flag though, in that you can choose when and if to turn it on, but once you turn it on there is no way to turn it back off. It can however be selective - you can make different sections of the Act enter into force at different times, and some sections may never be brought into force at all
- caf 3y ago
  The Federal bill I was most recently looking at didn't require a separate proclamation to enter into force - there were three commencement provisions, two based on the date of royal assent and one a fixed date: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22legislation/bills/r6876_aspassed/0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....