NATION

PASSWORD

House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

If you were an MP in the Commons tonight, how would you vote?

Aye! Yes to same-sex marriage
224
84%
No! No to same-sex marriage
37
14%
Other
7
3%
 
Total votes : 268

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:06 pm

Naughtania wrote:
Delvoir wrote:
Does every thread about UK politics have to end in this shitty debate?

Apparently it does.

But, it is true, the Queen technically has the power to block any bill. If this were challenged in the courts, they would protect her decision. However, if that happened, a constitutional crisis would occur which would in all likelihood bring down the monarchy.

Ergo, she has the power de jure yet not de facto.


no. she doesn't.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Nadkor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12114
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Nadkor » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:10 pm

Naughtania wrote:
Delvoir wrote:
Does every thread about UK politics have to end in this shitty debate?

Apparently it does.

But, it is true, the Queen technically has the power to block any bill.


No.

And the easiest way to avoid this shitty debate is to accept that I know what I'm talking about.
economic left/right: -7.38, social libertarian/authoritarian: -7.59
thekidswhopoptodaywillrocktomorrow

I think we need more post-coital and less post-rock
Feels like the build-up takes forever but you never get me off

User avatar
Great Nepal
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28670
Founded: Jan 11, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Great Nepal » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:10 pm

The UK in Exile wrote:
Naughtania wrote:Apparently it does.

But, it is true, the Queen technically has the power to block any bill. If this were challenged in the courts, they would protect her decision. However, if that happened, a constitutional crisis would occur which would in all likelihood bring down the monarchy.

Ergo, she has the power de jure yet not de facto.


no. she doesn't.

She does.
Last edited by Great Nepal on Sun Nov 29, 1995 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
Of the Free Socialist Territories
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8370
Founded: Feb 12, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Of the Free Socialist Territories » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:14 pm

Olde Engelond wrote:
Of the Free Socialist Territories wrote:
It's funny because you didn't answer my question and instead went off on the usual tangential mini-rant about gays being evil sinners.

Thank goodness the majority of MPs don't think the way you do.


Hypocrite. Did you answer my point about the role of an MP? No, you ignored it and focused on my brief mentioning of the way certain MPs, that I had a connexion, with voted


Fine then. Let's go back to your original statement.

The role of a Member of Parliament is to represent the interests of their constituents in the legislative chamber of this land.


True.

MPs should not vote on bills whilst relying merely on their personal whims and self-interests.


They wouldn't be.

So if a significant number of constituents write to their representative calling for him to vote against a bill they feel strongly about, what else can he do?


Vote for it, because they are wrong. There is a difference between an MP listening to his constituents on a matter which actually affects them personally, and voting accordingly, and listening to his constituents on a matter in which they have no personal involvement, which does not affect them, which does not mark the intrusion of the state upon religious "institutions" and does not force anyone to do anything that they do not want to do, and voting against the rights of the minority because of the loud majority who aren't affected and yet who choose to obstruct the path to equality.
Don't be deceived when our Revolution has finally been stamped out and they tell you things are better now even if there's no poverty to see, because the poverty's been hidden...even if you ever got more wages and could afford to buy more of these new and useless goods which these new industries foist on you, and even if it seems to you that "you never had so much" - that is only the slogan of those who have much more than you.

Marat, "Marat/Sade"

User avatar
Zottistan
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14853
Founded: Nov 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Zottistan » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:23 pm

Sibirsky wrote:
Zottistan wrote:The fact that there are debates justifies the debates. The fact that there are people who actually believe that the state should choose who you get to marry is more than enough justification.

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.

I do, or at least I think I do. You're saying that the situation should never have allowed these debates to happen. But the fact that the situation does is justification for the debates. Problems shouldn't happen, but if they do, they justify a repair.

User avatar
DesAnges
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31732
Founded: Nov 02, 2011
Left-wing Utopia

Postby DesAnges » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:26 pm

Thank fuck they approved it.
My name is Kim-Jong Ayatollah, and I'm a big boy. I'm ten and three-quarters. I have high levels of respect for this man. <3<32 NSG, two pages into a debate
@Iseabbv Don't @ me

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:32 pm

Great Nepal wrote:
The UK in Exile wrote:
no. she doesn't.

She does.


Your own source appears to disagree with you.

Originally prerogative powers would have been exercised by the reigning monarch. However, over time a distinction has emerged between the monarch acting on his or her own capacity, and the powers possessed by the Monarch as head of state. In modern times, Government Ministers exercise the majority of the prerogative powers either in their own right or through the advice they provide to the Queen which she is bound constitutionally to follow. There have been calls to reform prerogative powers, chiefly because they are exercised without any parliamentary authority.


....It became established that the bulk of prerogative powers could be exercised only through and on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Nemezree
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Oct 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nemezree » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:40 pm

The UK in Exile wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:She does.


Your own source appears to disagree with you.

Originally prerogative powers would have been exercised by the reigning monarch. However, over time a distinction has emerged between the monarch acting on his or her own capacity, and the powers possessed by the Monarch as head of state. In modern times, Government Ministers exercise the majority of the prerogative powers either in their own right or through the advice they provide to the Queen which she is bound constitutionally to follow. There have been calls to reform prerogative powers, chiefly because they are exercised without any parliamentary authority.


....It became established that the bulk of prerogative powers could be exercised only through and on the advice of ministers responsible to Parliament.


That refers to the monarchy's acceptance of the inevitable. Legally, she can still dissolve Parliament, and probably start a second rebellion in doing so.

Which can be effectively explained by the concise and clear opinion already offered by Naughtania: de jure, but not de facto.
Last edited by Nemezree on Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:41 pm

Nemezree wrote:


Which can be effectively explained by the concise and clear opinion already offered by Naughtania: de jure, but not de facto.


concise, clear, wrong.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Nemezree
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Oct 31, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nemezree » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:45 pm

The UK in Exile wrote:
Nemezree wrote:
Which can be effectively explained by the concise and clear opinion already offered by Naughtania: de jure, but not de facto.


concise, clear, wrong.


I'll accept I'm wrong if you explain why, and not just copy chunks out of sources without explaining them properly.

User avatar
Jormengand
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8414
Founded: May 22, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Jormengand » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:54 pm

I'm currently listening to the speaker's smug satisfaction as he reads out the result over and over again...

Blissful...
Jormengand wrote:It would be really meta if I sigged this.

User avatar
The Matthew Islands
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6703
Founded: Feb 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Matthew Islands » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:55 pm

Nadkor wrote:
Naughtania wrote:Apparently it does.

But, it is true, the Queen technically has the power to block any bill.


No.

And the easiest way to avoid this shitty debate is to accept that I know what I'm talking about.

I don't understand it. You consistently provide excellent explanations and sources that show you know exactly what your talking about and how your correct, and people just keep ignoring it.
Tagmatium wrote:Not that I'm saying you look like an uplifted parsnip.

Mallorea and Riva should resign
I suppose I'm NSG's official moron. Credit to Aalnordhaven for spotting it.
Aalnordhavn » Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:01 pm
Odds of seeing anyone under 110 on this thread: 0 with one exception
Just sayin'
Souseiseki wrote:as a posting career in the UK Poltics Thread becomes longer, the probability of literally becoming souseiseki approaches 1

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 22915
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:57 pm

Nemezree wrote:
The UK in Exile wrote:
concise, clear, wrong.


I'll accept I'm wrong if you explain why, and not just copy chunks out of sources without explaining them properly.



Look up the events surrounding the 1914 Government of Ireland Act.

The Archregimancy wrote: Contrary to what most people in this thread seem to think, It is point blank unconstitutional for the Royal Assent to be withheld by the monarch. This is an established point in the unwritten British constitution. George V took legal advice in 1914 over whether he could withhold the Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Bill, and was told that he couldn't. Case closed.


Therefore the monarch cannot withhold dissent on his or her own initiative against the advice of his or ministers either de jure or de facto.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 22915
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:58 pm

The Matthew Islands wrote:
Nadkor wrote:
No.

And the easiest way to avoid this shitty debate is to accept that I know what I'm talking about.

I don't understand it. You consistently provide excellent explanations and sources that show you know exactly what your talking about and how your correct, and people just keep ignoring it.


And believe me, few people have more sympathy for her than I do.

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:59 pm

Nemezree wrote:
The UK in Exile wrote:
concise, clear, wrong.


I'll accept I'm wrong if you explain why, and not just copy chunks out of sources without explaining them properly.


on the understanding that this constitutes spoon feeding.

Originally prerogative powers would have been exercised by the reigning monarch.But Not Anymore. However, over time a distinction has emerged between the monarch acting on his or her own capacity I.e. making decisions, and the powers possessed by the Monarch as head of state I.e. as a symbol. In modern times I.e. Now, Government Ministers exercise the majority of the prerogative powers either in their own right I.e. Without Asking the Queen or through the advice they provide to the Queen They tell the Queen what to do which she is bound constitutionally to follow.So No constutional Crisis. She has to do it. the courts will say she has to do, if she doesn't, she gets ignored There have been calls to reform prerogative powers, chiefly because they are exercised without any parliamentary authority Ministers use the powers to ignore Parliament..
Last edited by The UK in Exile on Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Nationalist Eminral Republic
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5862
Founded: Jun 24, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nationalist Eminral Republic » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:59 pm

Aye!
[align=center]
Federation of Eminral RepublicPederasyon ng Republika ng Eminral
エミンラル共和連邦 Federación de la República Eminral

User avatar
Lunaka
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: Feb 04, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Lunaka » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:00 pm

I for one, am glad that same-sex marraige may finnaly become legal.
I'm an Autistic, Communist, American, Conspiracy Theorist who is also half Jewish.

Pro: Irish Unification, Chechen/Tibetan/Scottish/Welsh independence, Greater Palestine (I'm a self-hating Jew), Communism, Socialism, Titoism, Trotskyism, Environmentalism (To a degree), LGBT, feminism, racial equality legalization of cannabis, third-party candidates
Anti: Zionism, Northern Ireland, Russia, China, UK, US (also a self-hating American), Israel, Imperialism, Capitalism, Stalinism, Homophobia, rascism, sexism, religion, conservatism, Electoral College, two-party system

User avatar
Scholencia
Minister
 
Posts: 3017
Founded: Feb 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Scholencia » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:02 pm

Tagmatium wrote:Eh, I'm for it.

I'm also in favour of anything that weakens the Tories.

Why do everybody hate torries?

User avatar
Souseiseki
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17893
Founded: Apr 12, 2012
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Souseiseki » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:03 pm

Scholencia wrote:
Tagmatium wrote:Eh, I'm for it.

I'm also in favour of anything that weakens the Tories.

Why do everybody hate torries?

how much time do you have?
ask moderation about reading serious moderation candidates TGs without telling them about it until afterwards and/or apparently refusing to confirm/deny the exact timeline of TG reading ~~~ i hope you never sent any of the recent mods or the ones that got really close anything personal!

signature edit: confirmation has been received. they will explicitly do it before and without asking. they can look at TGs basically whenever they want so please keep this in mind when nominating people for moderator or TGing good posters/anyone!
T <---- THE INFAMOUS T

User avatar
Souseiseki
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17893
Founded: Apr 12, 2012
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Souseiseki » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:03 pm

Scholencia wrote:
Tagmatium wrote:Eh, I'm for it.

I'm also in favour of anything that weakens the Tories.

Why do everybody hate torries?

Image
ask moderation about reading serious moderation candidates TGs without telling them about it until afterwards and/or apparently refusing to confirm/deny the exact timeline of TG reading ~~~ i hope you never sent any of the recent mods or the ones that got really close anything personal!

signature edit: confirmation has been received. they will explicitly do it before and without asking. they can look at TGs basically whenever they want so please keep this in mind when nominating people for moderator or TGing good posters/anyone!
T <---- THE INFAMOUS T

User avatar
The UK in Exile
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12023
Founded: Jul 27, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby The UK in Exile » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:04 pm

Scholencia wrote:
Tagmatium wrote:Eh, I'm for it.

I'm also in favour of anything that weakens the Tories.

Why do everybody hate torries?


they long nostalgically for a time where everyone except them was poorer and whiter.
"We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom"

"My actions are as noble as my thoughts, That never relish’d of a base descent.I came unto your court for honour’s cause, And not to be a rebel to her state; And he that otherwise accounts of me, This sword shall prove he’s honour’s enemy."

"Wählte Ungnade, wo Gehorsam nicht Ehre brachte."
DEFCON 0 - not at war
DEFCON 1 - at war "go to red alert!" "are you absolutely sure sir? it does mean changing the lightbulb."

User avatar
Zanzor
Secretary
 
Posts: 34
Founded: Jan 31, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Zanzor » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:05 pm

Nemezree wrote:


That refers to the monarchy's acceptance of the inevitable. Legally, she can still dissolve Parliament, and probably start a second rebellion in doing so.

Which can be effectively explained by the concise and clear opinion already offered by Naughtania: de jure, but not de facto.



The Queen does dissolve parliament, she does it before a general election, admittedly she is asked to by the prime minister.

User avatar
Divair
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63434
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Divair » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:06 pm

Scholencia wrote:
Tagmatium wrote:Eh, I'm for it.

I'm also in favour of anything that weakens the Tories.

Why do everybody hate torries?

Because they're a shit party.

User avatar
Scholencia
Minister
 
Posts: 3017
Founded: Feb 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Scholencia » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:39 pm

Oneracon wrote:
Totalise wrote:
is being a Fascist bad? i am a Fascist and i think that same-sex "marriage" will cripple socity as a whole


Yes all those crippled societies in Canada, Spain, Iceland, Argentina, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, South Africa, and Sweden all continue to thrive...


South Africa is indeed but for other reasons.

User avatar
Baltenstein
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9687
Founded: Jan 25, 2010
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Baltenstein » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:50 pm



Is that an actual campaigning poster?

Because he looks both scary and hilarious at the same time.
Last edited by Baltenstein on Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
O'er the hills and o'er the main.
Through Flanders, Portugal and Spain.
King George commands and we obey.
Over the hills and far away.


THE NORTH REMEMBERS

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aellex, Bienenhalde, Fartsniffage, Ifreann, Immoren, Internationalist Bastard, Kowani, Len Hyet, Narland, North Saitama, Proctopeo, Serconas, Tarsonis, The New United States, The Two Jerseys, Uiiop, Valrifell, Woodfiredpizzas, Yahoo [Bot], Yusseria

Advertisement

Remove ads