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

[Keith Old]

On 3/22/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at 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