Whats going on in Canada?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Curval
Whoa..slow down there cowboy.  Beet didn't deny the existance of the "Royal Assent", he just said it was irrelevant in practice.

"The Queen plays no part in formulating new legislation."

Yes she does, as the information I posted and linked to states.

From the web site you linked:

"Royal Assent was last given in person by the Sovereign in 1854. The Royal Assent has not been refused since 1707, when Queen Anne refused it for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland."

1707?  Hmmm.  That's sixty nine years before there was such as a thing as American laws.

Sure, but just because the Kings and Queens decided not to exercise thier perogative in not granting Royal Assent doesn't mean that they don't have authority to do so.

[lazs2]

Curval, if the queen has to sign before it is law then why aren't you and beet admitting that you are wrong?

I admit that I didn't know that she is as useless as you say.. No bill not signed since the 18th century?  but.... useless tradition is pretty much the english way so I shouldn't have been.

Fact is... she can still screw up or improve things if she wants. and... I don't know how it works over there but here.... Mostly guys don't work on bills that they know will bet a presedential veto (there are exceptions... bills passed to make a point). soo... she probly does influence what laws are allowed to be put before her..

pretty much tho... you guys are saying that the old bag is a laughable anochronism.

lazs

[Curval]

The Queen does NOT formulate new laws.

From that website the "Royal Assent" is granted (again quoting your own source) "When a bill has completed all its parliamentary stages".  This means that the law has already been formulated and the Queen's "Assent" is basically a rubber stamp.

[lazs2]

so... you can have a bill become a law without her approval?

You are (starting?) to look foolish.

lazs

[Curval]

Originally posted by lazs2
Curval, if the queen has to sign before it is law then why aren't you and beet admitting that you are wrong?

Beet1e can fight his own battles, I was responding to Thrawn...thusly:

"Beet didn't deny the existance of the "Royal Assent", he just said it was irrelevant in practice."

You want me to admit to being wrong when I'm right?

[beet1e]

LOL! I go away for a quiet midweek outing (included a curry and some beers!), and when I get back there's a fight going on!

Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... I never said the queen made laws.... I said that you guys think the queen is royalty and knows best..

So you're still wrong.  

even so... say there were a hundred hard core pistol aficianados in your country....

Oh? Last time you posted, it was five million.

Mr. Toad! You're welcome!

No, it wasn't impossible; difficult but not impossible.

I did say almost impossible. I certainly never knew anyone who knew anyone who had a friend who knew someone who had a handgun... As you seem so convinced it was possible, please give examples of the people in Britain who had handguns. Shouldn't take you too long to come up with a full list!

An unproven hypothesis as you know;

No, banning alcohol has been tried - in the US and in Finland, at roughly the same period.  In both countries it was a disaster. Quod erat demonstrandum, my old china. But what's this - in one post you describe the lawlessness caused by alcohol, and now it's

the Brits as a whole are quite orderly and lawful as you know.

with regard to your suggestions about drinks measures...

Pubs to monitor alcohol consumption and end the pour after a shot or two. A very good start, I'd think. We can go for a ban sometime after that by simply increasing the restrictions.

Spirits have not been "poured" in British pubs in over 40 years! Measures are served from optics. I am not a spirits drinker (except the od bottle I get at xmas, and the post-curry freebies), but as I recall, spirits in pubs in England are sold in measures of one sixth of a gill. In Scotland I think its one quarter of a gill. And... if someone has had too much, the bar staff are required by law to stop serving that person. Sure, if you go to Spain it's a pour from the bottle - glug-glug-glug-glug...  I prefer to stick to beer and wine, although when I was out with curval and the lads, Ravells did introduce us all to an excellent single malt - Oban, I think it was.  

Good show! Then you wouldn't move to another country if alcohol were banned in England? I mean you respect the process right? And it would be the whim...er... will of the people.

Yes, I respect the process. But that doesn't mean I have to like who has gained power in accordance with that process, and does not tie me to living here if I chose not to.

No. The FAA has amazing powers, much like our IRS. They wrote a rule and air carriers had to comply. No one voted, no majority was consulted. They have their own little fiefdom and they rule like a King.

Wow! An absolute monarchy - within the USA!



Thrawn - the queen plays no part in formulating new laws. To maintain that she does is a bit silly. Sure, the queen signs the royal assent using a pen. Clearly the pen must have ink in it for this to be possible. What you're saying is akin to arguing that the manufacturer of the ink inside the pen  is "part of the law formulation process". Of the monarchs who have tried to defy parliament, one was executed in 1649, and the other was overthrown (James II - 1688-1689).

so... you can have a bill become a law without her approval?

Yep - I'm sure she doesn't approve of some of the bills coming through, but she never refuses to sign them. If she did, I'm sure that T. Blair would find some way to circumvent her, just as he circumvented the house of lords in order to railroad through the ban on foxhunting with hounds. But I don't think the queen would be beheaded or overthrown - unlike Charles I and James II.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I certainly never knew anyone who knew anyone who had a friend who knew someone who had a handgun...

[/b]

That's just because you don't run with the right crowd in England. I'll wager I know far more people over there that owned a pistol than you do. I met several.  All of them rather bitter about the ban, old chap; after all, they'd never done ANYTHING illegal with any firearm. Not cricket. I daresay some of them still have pistols, so no list for you.


 

 No, banning alcohol has been tried - in the US and in Finland, at roughly the same period.

[/b]

Not a factor of "when", is it? You're all some much more socialized and compliant now. It's merely a matter of how. Start slow, lots of "saving lives", "decreasing violence", "better health" campaigning; then slowly tighten up the regs and finally...the Ban. Think long term; a 20-50 year campaign if that's what it takes; after all...we're saving liveshere and with proper technique we can make the people "want" it which is ever so much more important. And, since you will be a stalwart, I know you won't leave England just because you can no longer drink...after all the "people" will want your ox well-gored and that's all that's necessary. Surely you'll comply with what the people want.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
That's just because you don't run with the right crowd in England. I'll wager I know far more people over there that owned a pistol than you do.

Well that's hardly a wager, given that I've already told you that I never knew ANY.  

they'd never done ANYTHING illegal with any firearm. Not cricket. I daresay some of them still have pistols, so no list for you.

The mere possession is itself illegal.

Surely you'll comply with what the people want.

You seem fascinated with all this thing about "the people". I wondered why you found it so amusing, so I had a look at the first three words of the US constitution, and find it begins "We the people".
 

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
Well that's hardly a wager, given that I've already told you that I never knew ANY.

[/b]

Well, I suspect it's that fact that makes you such an erudite commentator on the feelings of gun owners in England; the entire gun scene there, for that matter.

The mere possession is itself illegal.

[/b]

Indeed it is, and, as we have seen, the illegality of it has not changed your gun homicide rate to any noticable degree.

You'll note that I said "they'd never done ANYTHING illegal with any firearm", "they'd" being an abbrieviation for "they had", which is past tense. They are mighty, formidable, dangerous criminals now, I'm certain. These yeomen of the English countryside, formerly an assest of Empire now a dastardly part of the criminal class who are destroying the country from within like termites in mighty English oak.  Oh... wait.... your gun homicide rate really hasn't changed. Nevermind; it's what the people want.

Which brings us to:

  You seem fascinated with all this thing about "the people". I wondered why you found it so amusing,

[/b]

I find is so amusing in juxtaposition to something else you said here.

Beet: No, I'd move to France. Or Spain. Or Italy.

[/b]

Beet: Guns are banned because that's what most people want. Alcohol isn't banned because that's what most people want.

[/b]

That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.

Which takes us back to whose ox is being gored.

Pretty much sums up your entire argument. It's all about Beet.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Indeed it is, and, as we have seen, the illegality of it has not changed your gun homicide rate to any noticable degree.

It's been illegal to own handguns for the overwhelming majority of the British population for many decades. That's because only a tiny minority were eligible for permits. And between us, we can't come up with any names to see any pattern in ownership. But it's funny, isn't it, that whereas there is a high profile protest (400,000 marching on London) against the ban on hunting foxes with hounds, no-one has posted any pictures of the protest against the ban on handguns. Given the status this issue enjoys as an international spectacle, I thought either you or Lazs might be able to find some.

That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Sure, I can move to France/Spain/Italy if I wanted to... what bearing does that have on the legal status of guns? As for what "the people want", the entire package of gun legislation dating back to 1903 was passed by a succession of democratically elected governments, ie governments that were elected by an electoral process which determined that they were the choice of more people than any other party. I don't see what any of this has to do with ME, since I wasn't even born when key elements of gun legislation became law. Yes, I do believe that the way our gun legislation is now is the way most people want it. If it was not, people would protest - just as they did against the poll tax, and just as they did against the foxhunting ban. But guess what? They haven't. The way the law is now suits me fine - I don't really give a toss either way about the 1997 law, but one thing I do know is that along with ~99% of the population, I don't want to see a guns free for all as in the US.

...and I don't see any Brits on this board disagreeing...

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Curval
The Queen does NOT formulate new laws.

From that website the "Royal Assent" is granted (again quoting your own source) "When a bill has completed all its parliamentary stages".  This means that the law has already been formulated and the Queen's "Assent" is basically a rubber stamp.

beetle didn't say the Queen the doesn't formulate new "bills", he said she didn't formulate new "laws".

"Beet didn't deny the existance of the "Royal Assent", he just said it was irrelevant in practice."

No he didn't.  As I quoted he, said the Queen didn't forumulate new laws.  And as I posted, the Queen's Royal Assent is essential to the formulation of new laws.

Originally posted by beet1e
Yep - I'm sure she doesn't approve of some of the bills coming through, but she never refuses to sign them.

Which doesn't mean she hasn't the legal authority deny Royal Assent.

If she did, I'm sure that T. Blair would find some way to circumvent her, just as he circumvented the house of lords in order to railroad through the ban on foxhunting with hounds.

Yeah, and if wishes were horses beggars would ride.  Why the hell are you talking what may happen in the future.  I'm talking about the Queen's authority now.

[lazs2]

either she has the authority or she doesn't.....  either her signature is needed or it isn't...  black and white.

Toad put it best on the gun owners thing... He has met brits who wanted handguns but can't have em... I have heard brits on this board express their dismay that they couldn't have em.....  there are hundreds of thousand of illegal gun owners in england right now.   They simply have not turned in their handguns or rifles.  

The compliance rate is very low.   More guns are coming into the country every day.

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I don't understand what you're saying here. Sure, I can move to France/Spain/Italy if I wanted to...

[/b]

Indeed, you posted that if alcohol were banned in England you'd move.

No, I'd move to France. Or Spain. Or Italy.

[/b]

So much for your belief in / support of / compliance with  "what the people want" in the way of law.

Once again:

That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.

Which takes us back to whose ox is being gored.

Pretty much sums up your entire argument. It's all about Beet.

[Toad]

United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Royal Assent is granted by the Sovereign (currently Elizabeth II). Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign or the Sovereign's representative, he or she has three formal options. Firstly, the Sovereign may grant the Royal Assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament. Secondly, the Sovereign may withhold the Royal Assent, thereby vetoing the bill. Finally, the Sovereign may reserve the Royal Assent, that is to say, defer a decision on the bill until a later time.

Under modern constitutional conventions, the Sovereign usually acts on the advice of his or her ministers. Since these ministers most often maintain the support of Parliament and are the ones who obtain the passage of bills, it is highly improbable that they would advise the Sovereign to withhold Assent. Hence, in modern practice, the Royal Assent is usually granted; a refusal to do so would only be appropriate in an emergency requiring the use of the monarch's reserve powers.

It would seem that Royal Assent is required for a bill to become an Act of Parliament.

Is this true or not? Seems pretty simple; either it is or is not required.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Toad
Indeed, you posted that if alcohol were banned in England you'd move.

Clearly that was a tongue in cheek remark to Lazs - I even included a at the end of it. Besides, I might move anyway - regardless of any alcohol bans - because I can.

That makes it very clear you have no respect or regard for what "the people" want. You don't give a fig what "the people" want. You only want what Beet wants.... and if the people happen to agree with your prejudice, well then... there you are.

What I want and what I get are not necessarily the same. An alcohol ban is not what people would want, and would prove to be disastrous - just as it was in both the USA and Finland, early in the 20th century. As for guns being banned, that too is what most people want. If it wasn't, there would have been a massive public outcry - just as there was against the poll tax and, to a lesser degree, the ban on foxhunting. You're trying to argue that just because the status quo with regard to gun laws and alcohol laws in Britain suits me personally, that makes me a hypocrite. There's no logic in that, as I was not personally responsible for enacting any laws. I could understand your point of view perhaps, if I'd ever worked for the company that produces the ink that goes in the queen's pen.  I think you'll find that the way things are in Britain today suits the vast majority and, as I said before, I don't see any Brits on this board jumping up and down in protest.

It would seem that Royal Assent is required for a bill to become an Act of Parliament. Is this true or not? Seems pretty simple; either it is or is not required.

Royal Assent is required, but that does not mean that the queen signs bills herself. Indeed, I have found an interesting link which points out that no monarch since the 16th century has done this, and adds that "Royal Assent was last given in person by the Sovereign in 1854. The Royal Assent has not been refused since 1707, when Queen Anne refused it for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland." These days it's apparently done by some sort of notification procedure. Based on what I googled up this morning, the monarch  gives both houses of parliament a carte blanche at the start of the parliamentary session. Link:
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/demow/const1.html


Now Mr. Toad, you seem to be doing some fence hopping of your own. One moment you say

people abuse alcohol and wreak havoc upon their fellow citizens

and then in another post it's

the Brits as a whole are quite orderly and lawful as you know.

Which is it? Careful, those fences are made from barbed wire, and with one leg either side of the fence, tearing your trousers should be the least of your worries!