https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clinton_(funk_musician) Duh.
I checked the article on the extreme off chance...
Who owns Parliament?
161–170 of 210 posts
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Constitution has been regularly amended since the beginning. Your claim that it would be heresy falls flat here. 2nd amendment ruined society, exactly how? The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law. What is in ruins?
I didn't claim that amending the constitution was heresy. I claimed that removing the second amendment is heresy. And I stand by that. [edit: on re-reading, the above is not true. I meant to claim that removing the 2A was heresy. My bad] Look, this is just an opinion, but from the outside looking in, your society is frankly awful at looking after its people , and the everyone-gets-a-gun made sense a few hundred years…
I'm American. And I agree with everything you've said.
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic we should make Charles the Prime Minister and shut down parliament. Maybe the reason the Queen is so respected is that she doesn't (visibly) exercise much power, and the lesson there is actually that Prime Ministers should be more limited in what they can do of their own volition (without broad consent from the public, in the form of a truly representative parliament and an independent judiciary enforci…
The only reason for the Queen to prorogue parliament when Boris was clearly lying about it --he was avoiding democratic dissent against him-- is to avoid making a kerfuffle that risked setting Tories against Royalists (these groups being largely coterminous). Basically, I felt she might be a person of upright morals and firm beliefs right up until that point; then she proved she's just doing everything to keep the mo…
One wonders who the Queen's "advisors" are. They surely hold enormous power for how unknown they are.
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of th…
Unfortunately not politically irrelevant at all. The Queen has directly interfered in legislation, and she also has a weekly chat with the PM every week. It's unlikely they talk about tea and biscuits. But the real issue is that the Queen legitimises hierarchy and privilege. Instead of modelling democratic authority and meritocracy, she models the opposite - vast inherited wealth and land ownership, without accountab…
>a weekly chat with the PM every week.
To be fair, a weekly chat at any other frequency would be quite eccentric!
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of th…
If you got rid of the monarchy tomorrow you could bet your life that Tory government would be immediately selling of assets to buy voters. There is little other reason to keep the monarchy, but that's enough.
The foxes are in charge of the henhouse. Tory party members and the monarchy - two intimately related groups characterized by extravagant and unearned privilege. There is little point in reforming just one.
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#166In Canada, who owns Parliament (Centre Block)? Public Services and Procurement Canada, the government arm responsible for the ownership of federal properties.
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like the system would be simpler if we removed root and gave capabilities to the sudoers instead. Edit: why does the disabled root account allocate so much RAM?
Been there, done that already. The British have tried that before. We called it the Interregnum[1]. It turned out nobody liked a system without a superuser so the fix was a restoration plus tweaks to limit powers. You’ll note this all happening well before others decided to repeat the experiment. The system has been ticking along at some definition of “fine”[2] ever since. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_I…
If I were a Brit, I'd be more concerned that the Parliament can do literally anything with a simple majority vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t...
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#168Re: Who owns Parliament?
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest that in the next bill, rather than updating the Crown to rest in Charles's CNAME, you acknowledge that the Crown is perpetually Elizabeth II. That way you never have to change Birthday celebrations, or anything else related.
We already solved the birthday celebration problem. The Queen's official birthday in Canada is May 24th. Charles' official birthday in Canada will be May 24th. We just decided at some point the best monarch's birthday to celebrate is Queen Victoria and have stuck with it.
The Dutch continued celebrating Queen Juliana's birthday (April 30th) as their national day when Queen Beatrix succeeded her, as they didn't want to move an event which is traditionally celebrated outdoors to January.
Beatrix was succeeded by King Willem-Alexander, who was born on April 27th- so the national day moved to his actual birthday. April 30th is now known mainly for confused tourists expecting a party that happened three days earlier.
Re: Who owns Parliament?
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
a quite fascinating quirk of UK land law is that squatters have a very impressive set of rights. If you squat on a piece of land for a long enough period of time without challenge, you can legally claim that land and take it into your ownership
That’s true in many places beyond the UK. The US has similar laws where if you meet the requirements of ownership and nobody contests it for X years, you can claim it.
Adverse possession dates back to all the way to the Code of Hammurabi. Arguably, it is a necessary part of property ownership itself because otherwise you could never know whether you (or the person you bought it from) owned a specific piece of land at all. Someone could always come by with an old deed and say that it belonged to them.