House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage

[The UK in Exile]

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.

[Nadkor]

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.

[Great Nepal]

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.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

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.

[Zottistan]

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.

[DesAnges]

Thank fuck they approved it.

[The UK in Exile]

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.

[Nemezree]

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.

[The UK in Exile]

Your own source appears to disagree with you.

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

concise, clear, wrong.

[Nemezree]

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.

[Jormengand]

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

Blissful...

[The Matthew Islands]

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.

[The Archregimancy]

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.

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.

[The Archregimancy]

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.

[The UK in Exile]

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..

[Nationalist Eminral Republic]

Aye!

[Lunaka]

I for one, am glad that same-sex marraige may finnaly become legal.

[Scholencia]

Eh, I'm for it.

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

Why do everybody hate torries?

[Souseiseki]

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?

[Souseiseki]

Eh, I'm for it.

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

Why do everybody hate torries?

[The UK in Exile]

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.

[Zanzor]

Your own source appears to disagree with you.

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.

[Divair]

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.

[Scholencia]

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.

[Baltenstein]

(Image)

Is that an actual campaigning poster?

Because he looks both scary and hilarious at the same time.