• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Our next unelected PM?

The Don said:
For a unionist party, the Conservatives have been going about it completely the wrong way.....

Scotland and Norn Iron have got the message. For some reason the Welsh seem wedded to Brexit :mad:
Click to expand...

Unionist is synonymous with Imperialist so no they have been doing it exactly right.

The problem is people are starting to see it for what it is. English nationalism wrapped in a Union Flag.
 
ponderingturtle said:
An actual plan to resolve the Irish border. This is totally impossible so really the only thing that can be done is tearing up the good Friday agreement. And that is sure to help long term British negotiating power.
Click to expand...

Actually all the GFA says about the border is that it should be demilitarised; it says nothing about it being open (even now taxes differ across the border and you cannot freely move goods across the border without any paperwork). The concern really is the propaganda value to people who would take it as an excuse for a return to violence. The UK could do a hard Brexit and it would not breach the GFA.
 
ponderingturtle said:
What seems to be the biggest difference between america and Britain is that the executive and legislative are not as separate. So the head of a government agency is also an MP and the PM is in a lot of ways chosen more like out Speaker of the House than our president.
Click to expand...

That is how most democracies work. There is a head of state monarch or president who is more of a figure head (E.g. Germany, Israel. Ireland), and the executive is formed by the political party who can command a majority of elected representatives. The political heads of department are elected representatives (ministers) and those who run the department (civil servants) are supposed to be apolitical.

The US is an exception in having an unelected people as the executive and often having the elected representatives at loggerheads with the executive.

Also having so many frankly political appointments such as judges that in other countries would be ineligible for appointment for the very reason of being politically biased.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
That is how most democracies work. There is a head of state monarch or president who is more of a figure head (E.g. Germany, Israel. Ireland), and the executive is formed by the political party who can command a majority of elected representatives. The political heads of department are elected representatives (ministers) and those who run the department (civil servants) are supposed to be apolitical.

The US is an exception in having an unelected people as the executive and often having the elected representatives at loggerheads with the executive.

Also having so many frankly political appointments such as judges that in other countries would be ineligible for appointment for the very reason of being politically biased.
Click to expand...

How are judges hired in other countries?

Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know. Hence the difference in the executive between career and political appointments.
 
ponderingturtle said:
How are judges hired in other countries?

Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know. Hence the difference in the executive between career and political appointments.
Click to expand...

A typical model in Europe would be 'career judges' - people who come up through the bar (QC's for example) - and then there are the politically appointed. For example, before we had the Supreme Court, final appeals on legal matters of importance went before a panel made up of Lords, from the House of Lords, usually three.
 
In Australia there just isn't a distinction between legislative and executive. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with a majority in Parliament. There is the Crown, of course, but that's literally a rubber-stamp position.
 
arthwollipot said:
In Australia there just isn't a distinction between legislative and executive. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with a majority in Parliament. There is the Crown, of course, but that's literally a rubber-stamp position.
Click to expand...

I know you know this, but others may not. Royal Assent is required before any bill becomes active. This not done by the Queen but is delegated to the governor or governor-general. Technically the queen’s rep can disallow a bill (as that mongrel GG Kerr did in 1975), but since then the most that happens is that questions might be asked of the intent or impact of a bill. I’m not aware of any bill being rejected since 1975.

Although in the grand scheme of governing Australia the need of the Queen’s rep to rubber stamp a bill is not a major issue, for me it is justification to become a republic. Not that the LNP would ever support this.
 
lionking said:
I know you know this, but others may not. Royal Assent is required before any bill becomes active. This not done by the Queen but is delegated to the governor or governor-general. Technically the queen’s rep can disallow a bill (as that mongrel GG Kerr did in 1975), but since then the most that happens is that questions might be asked of the intent or impact of a bill. I’m not aware of any bill being rejected since 1975.

Although in the grand scheme of governing Australia the need of the Queen’s rep to rubber stamp a bill is not a major issue, for me it is justification to become a republic. Not that the LNP would ever support this.
Click to expand...
Yep, it would simply need the removal of the phone line from Yarralumla to Buck House, change the position name to "First Bloke" or "First Sheila" if you must, then carry on as now.
 
lionking said:
I know you know this, but others may not. Royal Assent is required before any bill becomes active. This not done by the Queen but is delegated to the governor or governor-general. Technically the queen’s rep can disallow a bill (as that mongrel GG Kerr did in 1975), but since then the most that happens is that questions might be asked of the intent or impact of a bill. I’m not aware of any bill being rejected since 1975.

Although in the grand scheme of governing Australia the need of the Queen’s rep to rubber stamp a bill is not a major issue, for me it is justification to become a republic. Not that the LNP would ever support this.
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree on the republic thing. I'm just saying that in terms of process, Royal Assent is nothing more than a rubber stamp. The GG does not influence policy in any way whatsoever. It's an entirely ceremonial role.
 
Vixen said:
A typical model in Europe would be 'career judges' - people who come up through the bar (QC's for example) - and then there are the politically appointed. For example, before we had the Supreme Court, final appeals on legal matters of importance went before a panel made up of Lords, from the House of Lords, usually three.
Click to expand...

Vixen you once gain show your ignorance of the legal system. It worked the other way round; senior judges were promoted to house of lords and became a law lord and effectively formed the supreme court. Lords were not appointed judges. Only senior judges became a law lord. It did mean that the most senior judges could advise on legislation and vote on the law before it became law.
 
Planigale said:
Actually all the GFA says about the border is that it should be demilitarised; it says nothing about it being open (even now taxes differ across the border and you cannot freely move goods across the border without any paperwork). The concern really is the propaganda value to people who would take it as an excuse for a return to violence.
Click to expand...
And the concern on the part of Irish republicans in both countries who see any kind of a border as a step away from their objective

ETA the point being that opposition to a north south border is not confined to those who want to uphold the GFA as being something that preserves the separation of two countries along that border but also shared by those who want to dismantle it.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
How are judges hired in other countries?

Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know. Hence the difference in the executive between career and political appointments.
Click to expand...

As said from senior lawyers usually over the age of 50 in the UK. Judges would not be eligible for appointment if they were frankly political, most people with an interest in becoming a judge would avoid belonging to a political party or anything that might be seen as signalling political partisanship. There is a very hands off approach from politicians in appointments to avoid any sense of political appointment. The senior judges essentially appoint the more junior (it is actually more complex with a whole office of judicial appointments, temporary and part time appointments, vetting etc. before a full time appointment is made).
 
Planigale said:
Vixen you once gain show your ignorance of the legal system. It worked the other way round; senior judges were promoted to house of lords and became a law lord and effectively formed the supreme court. Lords were not appointed judges. Only senior judges became a law lord. It did mean that the most senior judges could advise on legislation and vote on the law before it became law.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I came across one case where the judge was a Lord but had no real background in law, so whilst most of them might have been senior judges anyway I don't think it was a person specification for that role (referring to when it was the House of Lords that presided rather than the more recently formed Supreme Court).

Bearing in mind that of the usual three judges, one judge was the lead whilst the other two were there as the side judges.
 
Vixen said:
I am pretty sure I came across one case where the judge was a Lord but had no real background in law, so whilst most of them might have been senior judges anyway I don't think it was a person specification for that role (referring to when it was the House of Lords that presided rather than the more recently formed Supreme Court).

Bearing in mind that of the usual three judges, one judge was the lead whilst the other two were there as the side judges.
Click to expand...

Not sure how old you are but since 1876 only law lords (professional lawyers) judged cases, and usually they were judged by 5 law lords, sometimes more.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/hoflbpjudicial.pdf
 
ponderingturtle said:
Though the ministers are roughly like the politically appointed heads of departments as far as I know.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem much alike at all. Some departments are headed by secretaries of state, others by senior ministers, but there are also junior ministers within departments. Generally, though, they're MPs, or - less frequently - members of the house of Lords.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom