[WikiEN-l] Just what *is* Jimbo's role anyway?

[Michael Noda]

On 3/21/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer at 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.