On 3/21/07, wikien-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org < wikien-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com
Of course, England has the same thing. The Queen has to approve each
law. The monarch has done so without exception since, well, I don't know right now, but you could look it up in Wikipedia.
Since 1708 (last Bill refused Royal Assent was to allow a Scottish nobleman to set up a private army, incidentally). The House of Lords analogy is a good one but poorly timed since last night they knowingly broke one of their few self-imposed rules and vetoed a Bill at second reading.
Jimbo clearly has a prerogative of mercy, unblocking some community blocked users (such as Anittas) when they apologise and ask to be let back.
Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power unspecified. We can never know when there may be an intractable dispute over some arcane matter which needs someone to come down and decree a solution. Keeping it unspecified also amounts to a restriction to only important exceptions. A specified power is a restricted one but also turns into a duty to exercise it when the specifications are met.
On 3/21/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power unspecified.
The queen's power pretty much is specified. She gets to veto a bill exactly once. After that I assume that the commons would take the steps required to make sure it doesn't happen again.
On 3/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power unspecified.
The queen's power pretty much is specified. She gets to veto a bill exactly once. After that I assume that the commons would take the steps required to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Not quite true: the queen gets to veto a *popular* or *controversial* bill exactly once. If she vetoed a bill declaring nuclear war against Norway, and then dissolved Parliament, it's likely that the people would back Her Majesty over Parliament, at least until the first opportunity to vote in a new Parliament.
I'd suggest that, instead of the rock-solid monarchy of the United Kingdom, a closer model to consider might be Spain, circa 1980. We're still trying to figure out this whole system of governance, and we may have to just wing it a few times, but we're learning, and we have a leader we can trust to not be crazy if and when things get bad.
I'm worried that Jimbo is out of touch in general with Wikipedia policies, etc.
On 3/21/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power unspecified.
The queen's power pretty much is specified. She gets to veto a bill exactly once. After that I assume that the commons would take the steps required to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Not quite true: the queen gets to veto a *popular* or *controversial* bill exactly once. If she vetoed a bill declaring nuclear war against Norway, and then dissolved Parliament, it's likely that the people would back Her Majesty over Parliament, at least until the first opportunity to vote in a new Parliament.
I'd suggest that, instead of the rock-solid monarchy of the United Kingdom, a closer model to consider might be Spain, circa 1980. We're still trying to figure out this whole system of governance, and we may have to just wing it a few times, but we're learning, and we have a leader we can trust to not be crazy if and when things get bad.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/21/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
Not quite true: the queen gets to veto a *popular* or *controversial* bill exactly once. If she vetoed a bill declaring nuclear war against Norway, and then dissolved Parliament, it's likely that the people would back Her Majesty over Parliament, at least until the first opportunity to vote in a new Parliament.
Such a bill isn't constitutionally possible. Parliament doesn't have the power to declare war. Declaration of war is still a Royal Prerogative which in practice means it is up to the prime minister not Parliament. Mind you under the current set up even he can't directly order the use of nuclear weapons.
On 3/22/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power unspecified.
The queen's power pretty much is specified. She gets to veto a bill exactly once. After that I assume that the commons would take the steps required to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Not quite true: the queen gets to veto a *popular* or *controversial* bill exactly once. If she vetoed a bill declaring nuclear war against Norway, and then dissolved Parliament, it's likely that the people would back Her Majesty over Parliament, at least until the first opportunity to vote in a new Parliament.
I'd suggest that, instead of the rock-solid monarchy of the United Kingdom, a closer model to consider might be Spain, circa 1980. We're still trying to figure out this whole system of governance, and we may have to just wing it a few times, but we're learning, and we have a leader we can trust to not be crazy if and when things get bad.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day folks,
According to Walter Bagehot's, the English Constitution the monarch has three main powers:
- the right to be consulted; - the right to warn; - the right to advise.
He or she also has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the parliament.
Bagehot's view was the British monarch would have to sign his or her death warrant if parliament were to pass legislation authorising it.
In short, while there are things we can learn from the British monarch, the situation is not directly analogous.
Regards
Keith Old
According to Walter Bagehot's, the English Constitution the monarch has three main powers:
- the right to be consulted;
- the right to warn;
- the right to advise.
He or she also has the right to dismiss the Prime Minister if the Prime Minister no longer has the confidence of the parliament.
Bagehot's view was the British monarch would have to sign his or her death warrant if parliament were to pass legislation authorising it.
Effectively, that's true, but legally, I don't know of anything in writing that says the Queen can't withhold Royal Assent from a bill. If she tried for any reason other than the PM going insane the UK would become a republic extremely quickly (How exactly you get royal assent for the bill that abolishes the monarchy, I'm not sure, it would probably require a weapon of some sort...).
On 21/03/07, Michael Noda michael.noda@gmail.com wrote:
I'd suggest that, instead of the rock-solid monarchy of the United Kingdom, a closer model to consider might be Spain, circa 1980. We're still trying to figure out this whole system of governance, and we may have to just wing it a few times, but we're learning, and we have a leader we can trust to not be crazy if and when things get bad.
A nice analogy.
geni wrote:
On 3/21/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power unspecified.
The queen's power pretty much is specified. She gets to veto a bill exactly once. After that I assume that the commons would take the steps required to make sure it doesn't happen again.
The queen retains her power by not exercisiing it. That makes it available for those rare occasions where it must be exercised.
Sometimes a monarch (like Edward VIII) must even bow to unreasonable demands.
Ec
On 21/03/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Jimbo clearly has a prerogative of mercy, unblocking some community blocked users (such as Anittas) when they apologise and ask to be let back.
Yeah. This is a Jimbo power the AC has too - for people who have been community banned (and remember, a community ban means you've been *such* a dick that lots of people are pretty sure you'll *never* fit into Wikipedia - it's IMO a much stronger ban than an AC ban) to appeal to the AC and/or Jimbo if they feel they understand the problem and are able to try again fruitfully. Even the worst troublemaker should be able to come back if they can stop making trouble. (Wik came back lots, and people were mostly happy to look the other way as long as he wasn't being a dick about it. Unfortunately, he continued being a dick about it.)
Maybe my English way but I like the idea of keeping Jimbo's power unspecified. We can never know when there may be an intractable dispute over some arcane matter which needs someone to come down and decree a solution. Keeping it unspecified also amounts to a restriction to only important exceptions. A specified power is a restricted one but also turns into a duty to exercise it when the specifications are met.
Indeed. It's limited by the fact that the community has to be willing to go along with the founder's statement. This is almost universal to open-source and open-content projects.
Remember that this isn't the world. There's a whole world out there.
- d.
On 21/03/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
Since 1708 (last Bill refused Royal Assent was to allow a Scottish nobleman to set up a private army, incidentally). The House of Lords analogy is a good one but poorly timed since last night they knowingly broke one of their few self-imposed rules and vetoed a Bill at second reading.
Actually, the [[Salisbury Convention]] does not apply as the Fraud (Trials Without a Jury) Bill was not a manifesto commitment.