Google| Subject | Re: Queen mother (of Britain) has died |
| From | Richard K. McPike |
| Date | 2002-04-02 11:30 (2002-04-02 11:30) |
| Message-ID | <B8CED656.570F%mcpike2277@attbi.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien,soc.culture.australian |
| Follows | paulh |
And in the dark times of 4/1/02 7:56 PM, a word went out in 3p3iaucloa4t3vgmdqnen4mk32csid31ro@4ax.com, that "paulh" of <paulh@fahncahn.com>in his great wisdom had said:
paulhThe British government seems to work quite well without a separate Executive. The unification of powers makes for greater expediency, efficiency and unity of vision among government leaders. Why would the UK want to risk the problems of Co-Habitation (or in Americanese, gridlock)? If the Monarchy were to go, why would that impede the function of Parliament as it stands now?
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:53:49 +0100, "David Flood" <NOSPAMmaoltuile@utvinternet.ie>wrote:David Floodpaulh
"paulh" <aa@microsoft.com>wrote in message news:puhdauot0l664g651kafll5iend6s7clp4@4ax.com...paulhDavid Flood
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:18:20 GMT, spam@nospam.com (AC) wrote:paulhACpossibly others..
I am Canadian, and I can assure you that the head of state is Queen Elizabeth II. The republican movement in Canada is relatively weak and is made up of some infrequently vocal malcontents.
Ah... I didnt realise. Down here the Republicans are quite a bit bigger...but suffered a major defeat during a referendum a year or so ago....
I understand that this was because the republican vote 'split' - the electorate was rightly suspicious of the idea of the parliamentarians electing the President, rather than the electorate (which is the norm elsewhere)
Its hard to know exactly what people were thinking. But I certainly believe that an inability to see what sort of republic we would have was a major cause of the failure. Republicans certainly thought so... in this they were outmanouvered And of course no one trusts the parlimentarians. And I don't trust the Public... or we'd end up with Paul Hogan or Kylie Minogue as our first President. Still not sure why we need a President at all...
I mean, if you really need someone whose job it is to "officially" dissolve Parliaments and call for elections, I'd be willing to do that for a nominal fee. No need for a title or anything. :)
Kirk
2002-03-30-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
