Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About Tony Blair  
User currently offlineWobbles From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

I was just watching something on CSPAN in the US about Bush and his current dictatorship which is really distrubing. Yes Bush has only vetoed one bill since he's come into office. But he has done something that basically sidesteps laws and admendments made by congress, called (I think) signature statements, when he does this, since it is not a veto, congress cannot go back and make admendments or override a veto and Bush basically violates the constitution by not enforcing laws that are passed, for example, holding funds to implement laws or directing agencies not to enforce it. He, as even the right know, said he is basicallly above the law since we are in wartime. Johnson and even Nixon did not try this stuff and this report said that he has used this measure to get his way (by not vetoing a law, but thinking it does not apply to him) way way more than all past presidents combined. My question is: has Tony Blair done similiar things in England? I know the constitution is different over there but, again, has Blair ever even indirectly said, Fuck the law, we in a war on terror. Even though I think he is a Bush puppet, I just don't think he has done so, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks for an answer.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
has Tony Blair done similiar things in England?

Tony Blair doesnt sign laws, the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

The majority party, of whom the Prime Minister is typically the leader (he doesnt have to be by law tho) takes the role of Executive and runs the country. Parliament, comprised of all elected members, brings new law for discussion and voting on, which then goes to the House of Lords for a vote there and then is signed into Law by the Queen. Although less common, law can originate in the Lords and be passed down to the Commons for discussion.

Any member can bring a bill for discussion, and it is then voted on - a defeat means the bill cannot be brought again for a certain period of time (last occurance of a majority party originating bill being defeated was in 2005 with the Terror Detention period extension being struck down).

Blair has no direct power to block laws, although it is common that the majority party uses its voting power to push through wide ranging modifications - althoiugh this can be blocked by the Lords and pushed through using the Parliment Act to Royal Assent.

Its worth mentioning that the British Prime Ministerial position is not one codified in law, it doesnt exist according to any law in British Justice, although in custom the holder of the position does so under Royal Perogative, and the reigning monarch invests in the holder any powers they may have, bar the Royal Assent.


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
Bush and his current dictatorship

And your credibility just went out the window.

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
he has done something that basically sidesteps laws and admendments made by congress, called (I think) signature statements, when he does this, since it is not a veto, congress cannot go back and make admendments or override a veto and Bush basically violates the constitution by not enforcing laws that are passed

It is well known that every President we have ever had has done this as well. Seeing your disgust towards Dubya (and believe me when I say he is off my Christmas card list with his continued antics and love of spending) where was your outrage when Bubba did the same thing? Typical liberal attitude (and also used by the Right as well before you call me out on it)...attack when it is convenient and ignore when your group is in power.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineWobbles From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1725 times:

Why do you Bush loyalists always try to say Clinton did the same thing for everything your boy does wrong? Because it's just about the only defense you have! If you can show me any articles where Bubba used even 400 signature statements, I will put a Bush/Cheney sticker on my car.

User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Quoting Wobbles (Reply 3):
Why do you Bush loyalists always try to say Clinton did the same thing for everything your boy does wrong?

I'm no Bush loyalist so you lose that argument. If you noticed I said every President. I only used Bubba as an example due to his recent term.

Quoting Wobbles (Reply 3):
If you can show me any articles where Bubba used even 400 signature statements, I will put a Bush/Cheney sticker on my car.

But in reading your original post even one use is horrible so why the double standard?...because it fits your model. When a Dem does it then all is well and good. When the GOP does it we are living in a dictatorship and turning into Nazi Germany. Please! Try again.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineWobbles From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

I NEVER said that one signature statement was horrible, but 800?

User currently offlineTurbo7x7 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 266 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 4):
When a Dem does it then all is well and good. When the GOP does it we are living in a dictatorship and turning into Nazi Germany. Please! Try again.

Puh-leeze! If a Democratic president had been caught doing all that Dubya's been caught doing so far, he would have been IMPEACHED already by the GOP Congress.

And you're complaining of double standards??

[Edited 2006-07-30 05:58:44]

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1685 times:

Quoting Wobbles (Thread starter):
I was just watching something on CSPAN in the US about Bush and his current dictatorship which is really distrubing. Yes Bush has only vetoed one bill since he's come into office. But he has done something that basically sidesteps laws and admendments made by congress, called (I think) signature statements, when he does this, since it is not a veto, congress cannot go back and make admendments or override a veto and Bush basically violates the constitution by not enforcing laws that are passed, for example, holding funds to implement laws or directing agencies not to enforce it. He, as even the right know, said he is basicallly above the law since we are in wartime. Johnson and even Nixon did not try this stuff and this report said that he has used this measure to get his way (by not vetoing a law, but thinking it does not apply to him) way way more than all past presidents combined.

Cute, a Blair thread that starts with a Bush Bash - incorrigible . . .

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 2):
And your credibility just went out the window.

Yup, with the first line in the thread, it's already proven to be worthless.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

I don't think there is room here for what I would like to do, throw a brickbat at Holy Tony.

I cannot do half as well as RP, but a couple of things. The UK has put through some anti-terror laws that have been kicked out by the justices. Tonys other major contribution has been to get the opposition to vote for his policies while his own party has been seriously split by them.

I still cherish that TV interview with the Tyne bridge as background where he was crucified by an audience of Geordies (Tynesiders) for his Iraq capers.

My 2c on signing statements, the one saying he is above the torture law could get him in a spot of bother. Esp if he plans a triumphal world tour after he leaves office (not that the tour is all that likely!).


User currently offlineBigOrange From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2365 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1679 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 2):
It is well known that every President we have ever had has done this as well

Yes they have, but every past US president combined has only signed 600 of these.


User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stopping the bill becoming law.

Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.

In truth there is nothing to stop the British Parliament from passing all sorts of laws, because as many British members here have noted on numerous occasions - the Queen is vested with certain powers over the democratically elected parliament up until she decides to actually use them. It's a house of cards that they won't allow to topple.

QFF


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1665 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.

Beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.

I think (though I could be wrong) the last time the Royal Assent was withheld was in 1707. In practice, the monarch never could do such a thing, because it would provoke a massive constitutional crisis. Picture the scenario, such a refusal is swiftly followed by a move to remove the monarch, which the monarch also refuses to sign. Bugger. What now?

It's a historical hangover, and the one point about it in the modern day and age is that it provides the "nuclear option" against tyranny, that the monarch could refuse to give the Royal Assent to a grotesque or tyrannical Bill.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1660 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
In truth there is nothing to stop the British Parliament from passing all sorts of laws, because as many British members here have noted on numerous occasions - the Queen is vested with certain powers over the democratically elected parliament up until she decides to actually use them. It's a house of cards that they won't allow to topple.

This has been my impression, as well. At present, the monarchy in Great Britain exists as a ceremonial entity to solemnize the proceedings in government. Theoretically, Parliament cannot function unless the Great Mace, representative of the power of the monarch, is on display. The Queen also has a right to know what laws are proposed in her name, and any recommendations she makes are presumably taken into account. It is said that the monarch can also act as a backstop to tyranny, but by historical measure, when the time came to confront a dictatorial Cromwell, the leader of the "Roundheads" in Parliament, it turned out quite badly for the Crown: Charles I lost not only the battle, but his life.

Incidentally, it seems that one reason that Prince Charles, assuming that he is elevated in succession, will probably not take the name, "Charles II" could be the unfortunate end that befell the first.


User currently offlineTrident3 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1013 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1657 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Incidentally, it seems that one reason that Prince Charles, assuming that he is elevated in succession, will probably not take the name, "Charles II" could be the unfortunate end that befell the first

It is probably because we have already had a CharlesII! Reigned 1660-1685, he was Charles I son.



"We are the warrior race-Tough men in the toughest sport." Brian Noble, Head Coach, Great Britain Rugby League.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1657 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Incidentally, it seems that one reason that Prince Charles, assuming that he is elevated in succession, will probably not take the name, "Charles II" could be the unfortunate end that befell the first.

It would be Charles III. There was already a Charles II, who was the son of Charles I, and who was a fantastically poplular monarch, it seems, brought back by popular acclaim during the Restoration ie. after the republican Commonwealth period which was not popular, mostly because it imposed very strict Puritanism on Great Britain. So I don't think Prince Charles will have any problem being Charles III.

[Edited 2006-07-30 11:33:10]

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1655 times:

Quoting Trident3 (Reply 13):
It is probably because we have already had a CharlesII! Reigned 1660-1685, he was Charles I son.

My apologies -- my slip is showing!

You're quite right, of course.


User currently offlineQANTASforever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 11):
It's a historical hangover, and the one point about it in the modern day and age is that it provides the "nuclear option" against tyranny, that the monarch could refuse to give the Royal Assent to a grotesque or tyrannical Bill.

This is like the real nuclear option. In a world of salami tactics, what constitutes the last straw?

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Theoretically, Parliament cannot function unless the Great Mace, representative of the power of the monarch, is on display.

That's not theory - it's practice! lol

Also the case for most (if not all) of the federal, state, and provincial parliaments that operate in countries of which the Queen is equally and concurrently head of state.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
The Queen also has a right to know what laws are proposed in her name

Laws are never proposed in the name of the monarch, just as laws are never proposed in the US congress in the name of the President. Once royal assent has been given to an act of parliament, it becomes part of the legal position of "The Crown" as a legal entity, not as an individual.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
and any recommendations she makes are presumably taken into account.

The Queen **NEVER** makes legislative recommendations. See reply 11.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 14):
So I don't think Prince Charles will have any problem being Charles III.

Maybe, but by all accounts he will most likely be King George VII.

QFF


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
Maybe, but by all accounts he will most likely be King George VII.

Any reason why, apart from his Grandad being George ? I don't see the need particularly...


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
This is like the real nuclear option. In a world of salami tactics, what constitutes the last straw?

Ah. Yes, Prime Minister.  Wink

You're quite correct, of course. The other side of it though is whether anyone would risk causing the monarch to refuse to sign a Bill. Who knows? In gloriously British constitutional fashion, the very defence is that no-one has the faintest idea how to manage such an event.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1641 times:

Thank you for the reply, QANTAS. However, I wonder what you would make of the boldfaced language in the following, which I found after reading your message:

Quote:
Constitutional monarchy is a key principle, meaning that the monarch does not technically rule, he or she has a ceremonial role only. This principle traces from Restoration, and by the time Walter Bagehot wrote that the monarchy was the 'dignified parts' of the constitution, the modern situation had been established. However, this is tempered by the fact that parliament technically derives its authority from the Crown by the implicit consent of the monarch. The collective term for the legislative and governmental power of parliament is therefore the King (or Queen) in Parliament principle.

Source:

http://www.answers.com/topic/constitution-of-the-united-kingdom

(Boldfacing added.)

[Edited 2006-07-30 11:57:59]

User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1631 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 16):
The Queen **NEVER** makes legislative recommendations. See reply 11.

Althouh the Queen does counsel the Prime Minister in the weekly audiences. Prime Ministers without exception talk about how valuable this is to them, to have a genuinely neutral person with huge experience to act as a sounding board, safe in the knowledge that she will never ever tell anyone.

Of course, none of us have a clue what they talk about. Could be the weather for all we know...



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 20):
Of course, none of us have a clue what they talk about. Could be the weather for all we know...

I bet the slag off the leader of the Opposition ("David Cameron, what a wanker, haha !") and talk about soaps.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1615 times:

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.



Quoting Banco (Reply 11):
Beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing.

My post never alluded that she had, jsut that she could.

Quoting QANTASforever (Reply 10):
In truth there is nothing to stop the British Parliament from passing all sorts of laws, because as many British members here have noted on numerous occasions - the Queen is vested with certain powers over the democratically elected parliament up until she decides to actually use them. It's a house of cards that they won't allow to topple.

Ahh so we are back to this crap again - wah wah wah shes jsut a figurehead. Her powers certainly sorted out the Australian government in 1975!

The reason the monarch hasnt withheld their Assent recently is because of the success of the House of Lords - you dont have to refuse to sign something that never makes it to you.

This thread was about what happened to laws in the UK, and I answered that with the legal chain.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
My post never alluded that she had, jsut that she could.

Sorry, no. You said, and I quote: "the Queen does and can withhold the Royal Assent" which is not true, as she never has.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1608 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
Ahh so we are back to this crap again - wah wah wah shes jsut a figurehead. Her powers certainly sorted out the Australian government in 1975!

Well, I'm going to leap in and defend QFF here, because that isn't what he's saying at all. He is entirely correct that the British constitution, which has evolved over a thousand years, is almost entirely constrained by convention rather than statute. Despite the complications of EU membership and the recent Human Rights Act, Parliament remains sovereign in this country, and can do absolutely anything it likes. That is doesn't is because of the peculiar historical circumstances that created our political structure. The safeguards to autocracy in the British system are down to how complicated everything is, rather than any specific safeguards.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
The reason the monarch hasnt withheld their Assent recently is because of the success of the House of Lords - you dont have to refuse to sign something that never makes it to you.

300 years ago is hardly "recently". And it has nothing to do with the House of Lords, it has everything to do with the gradual transfer of power from the monarch to the Lords to the Commons, which at the kindest estimate for your argument could be said to be complete 100 years ago, and more realistically 200 years ago.

You are entirely mistaken in your apparent belief that the removal of all but the vestiges of monarchical power occured within living memory.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
25 RichardPrice : When did I say that? The question posed was 'Provide me with one example where the current Queen has witheld Royal assent.' - thats my 'recent' and I
26 Baroque : Indeed, it was in all the papers. "Potted" would be the correct term after the salami reference. I was going to bring this up as a matter where a goo
27 Post contains images Banco : You went on about the House of Lords being important. That is not so. The most recent change in the status of the Lords was the Parliament Act of 194
28 Post contains images QANTASforever : It's an oft repeated rumour. Nothing to do with me. I knew you'd get it. That was exactly what I was talking about. In purely constitutional terms, p
29 Baroque : Is it time for Apostrophe man? Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1): Tony Blair doesnt sign laws, the Queen does and can withhold Royal Assent, thus stoppi
30 RichardPrice : No I didnt, I said she DOES SIGN LAWS. You are reading something into my sentence which DOES NOT EXIST. The sentence is constructed to portray that S
31 RichardPrice : Based on my use of MS Word, I wouldnt use it as the basis of any statistical analysis of sentence structure.
32 QANTASforever : Well that's not quite true, you do have an argument - going by your reference to the 1975 constitutional crisis. That aside, nobody took offence at w
33 Baroque : Just looking for an unbiased assessment, sport, or do I take it that you have in some way offended the dark forces of MS and they just know your work
34 AerospaceFan : Ah, yes. On this, we heartily agree! I think you have put it quite well, as it captures our mutual position on this matter. By the way, I appreciate
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question About Verdict Saddam posted Sun Nov 5 2006 16:03:57 by FJWH
Question About Visiting Israel posted Tue Oct 31 2006 22:15:44 by Springbok747
UK: Question About Post Offices posted Wed Oct 18 2006 22:55:05 by 9V
Question About Slot Machines posted Wed Oct 18 2006 03:35:57 by Derico
Question About Updating My Windows posted Mon Oct 16 2006 06:41:00 by STLUAL747
Question About Rochester, NY posted Fri Oct 6 2006 09:25:09 by Copaair737
Question About Translation Assistance At ATL posted Mon Sep 25 2006 04:47:27 by 767Lover
Tony W Blair posted Sun Sep 17 2006 12:17:04 by Braybuddy
Question About European Trains posted Mon Sep 11 2006 22:17:52 by Derico
Should Tony Blair Go Now? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 20:23:56 by 9VSPO