Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Oct 11, 2017 5:23:59 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. Being expected to resign is not the same thing as being forced or required to resign. Why is this a pissing contest? If you wanted to resign as AG, you’re free to do so; I don’t think anyone has criticized you for that choice. We’re only discussing your assertion that other ministers / members of Government must do so also, which in my mind is untrue. I mean, so what if you studied these things duding undergrad? It isn’t possible that you’ve forgotten key points? I just don’t understand why you’re being so hostile; neither I nor anyone else are challenging your intelligence or character. Relax, amigo.
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Oct 11, 2017 5:28:09 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. There’s something in this, but I’d say that’s just a power the Cosa has over the government to hasten its demise. It can’t actually dismiss individual ministers. This^ The House of Commons has no power to dismiss the Crown’s ministers. None. The ministers are the Crown’s servants, serve at the Crown’s pleasure, and in a constitutional sense attend Parliament and answer questions as a mater of courtesy and tradition only. The Crown would be politically suicidal if it didn’t follow the advice of the Commons (in this case, via a vote of confidence or supply), but the whole point of the Crown is that it is the embodiment of the country. I mean... I just... Convention or tradition— they are not the same thing as constitution or law.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 11, 2017 9:00:19 GMT -6
Lol okay. Whatever you say. Doesn't really add anything or undermine my point. But great job at going over shit I learned my first year in undergrad. I love your compulsive need for asserting your believed superiority. It is very mature. Look who's calling the vase ming. But it's cool. My apologies for offending you Dad. I should've known better than to question you, as you clearly are the authority on propriety. Speaking of compulsion, why do you feel the need to constantly scorn people who disagree with you?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 11, 2017 9:07:10 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. Being expected to resign is not the same thing as being forced or required to resign. Why is this a pissing contest? If you wanted to resign as AG, you’re free to do so; I don’t think anyone has criticized you for that choice. We’re only discussing your assertion that other ministers / members of Government must do so also, which in my mind is untrue. I mean, so what if you studied these things duding undergrad? It isn’t possible that you’ve forgotten key points? I just don’t understand why you’re being so hostile; neither I nor anyone else are challenging your intelligence or character. Relax, amigo. I never said other minister had to resign in Talossa. The expectation point was a general comment not necessarily related to Talossa. Don't mischaracterize what I said as it relates to Talossa. I said that I would prefer minister who so choose to continue in the interim to affirmatively state so. Further, I'm not being hostile. The civics lesson was largely unnecessary and didn't add anything to the discussion. How that equals hostility is beyond me.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 11, 2017 9:11:29 GMT -6
Also, you're not accurate. Upon a loss of a vote of confidence, the government and its ministers are expected to resign. Tell me, then, if – before an election – the Government resigns after a failed VoC; who continues the day-to-day operations of Government offices? The situation in Talossa is unique that lends credibility to your argument. In countries with a developed civil service, those not in the cabinet, but who perform the day to day operations, would continue on. That said, this assertion you make is largely unpursuasive in the academic context of this discussion. Now, post something snarky and agree with anyone who takes a position opposite of mine, and then follow up by questioning my maturity. That is, after all, your modus operandi.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Oct 11, 2017 9:55:58 GMT -6
In the Netherlands, which has seen multiple governments lose its majority in the the past decades, a cabinet that has lost confidence (we don't have a vote of confidence, we do have motions of no confidence, but in most cases a cabinet would draw its conclusion before such a motion has a chance to pass) would (by tradition, I'm don't think it's a written law) offer their resignation to the King, but they would always continue to serve until after the elections when a new cabinet has been appointed. Of course, in some cases ministers of the party that broke with the government will be temporary replaced by ministers of the now minority coalition. We never do not have a cabinet, majority or no majority, elections or no elections.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Oct 11, 2017 10:34:30 GMT -6
My interpretation has been that all Ministers are presumed to continue to serve during the interim unless they say that they aren't. I'm not a lawyer though so I could be wrong. Is that so? Like it or not, I believe that you being an ex-officio member of the Bar is as much a lawyer here in Talossa as most other people are.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Oct 11, 2017 16:03:38 GMT -6
Hmmmm. I believe I said, in another place, that vituperation and noise bad arguments make. Logic is quiet and considered. Argument must be respectful argument. You may have this opinion and I may have that - but we should always - and I stress always - be polite to each other. I may, for example, disagree with your opinion - but that does not, under any circumstances, give me the right to condemn you as a person: I can criticise your opinions and state that you are wrong, but I cannot (in normal circumstances - and these, here, are normal circumstances) also state that your are a donkey and you should get back under the carpet (or whatever).
Criticise the opinion, by all means, but not the person.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Oct 11, 2017 16:22:12 GMT -6
If we're nitpicking, Parliament isn't chosen by the people, individual MPs are elected by electors in their constituencies. Parliament also consists of the Sovereign, and Peers sitting in the HofL. You're absolutely right about ministerial appointments. However, I'm determined not to do what I did last time and project British norms onto the RT! So I'll stand back and listen. In the UK Parliament does not include the Sovereign or the Ministers. Parliament consists only of the House of Commons (the elected house) and the House of Lords (the appointed house). Government contains the Sovereign, and Parliament, and Ministries (which are permanent) headed by the Ministers (who are appointed - technically by the Monarch, but in practice by the Prime Minister), and the Judiciary. Although there are laws of succession for the monarchy, Parliament has the power to remove the existing monarch and choose the new monarch - and has done so... the last two occasions were the appointment of Queen Victoria, and the removal (only apparently by agreement - his arm was twisted) of Edward VIII in 1936. And I agree - British norms are not Talossan norms. Anyway, we don't have a constitution in the UK - even though we have had continuous recorded government (in England) for over a thousand years.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Oct 11, 2017 16:39:30 GMT -6
If we're nitpicking, Parliament isn't chosen by the people, individual MPs are elected by electors in their constituencies. Parliament also consists of the Sovereign, and Peers sitting in the HofL. You're absolutely right about ministerial appointments. However, I'm determined not to do what I did last time and project British norms onto the RT! So I'll stand back and listen. In the UK Parliament does not include the Sovereign or the Ministers. Parliament consists only of the House of Commons (the elected house) and the House of Lords (the appointed house). Government contains the Sovereign, and Parliament, and Ministries (which are permanent) headed by the Ministers (who are appointed - technically by the Monarch, but in practice by the Prime Minister), and the Judiciary. Although there are laws of succession for the monarchy, Parliament has the power to remove the existing monarch and choose the new monarch - and has done so... the last two occasions were the appointment of Queen Victoria, and the removal (only apparently by agreement - his arm was twisted) of Edward VIII in 1936. And I agree - British norms are not Talossan norms. Anyway, we don't have a constitution in the UK - even though we have had continuous recorded government (in England) for over a thousand years.That’s not actually true. Parliament is said to consist of three parts: the Commons, the Lords, and the Crown: “And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together...” - A.V. Dicey
|
|
Açafat del Val
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 112
Talossan Since: 10-15-2017
|
Post by Açafat del Val on Oct 11, 2017 17:16:29 GMT -6
And Government in a parlimentary or British context refers only to the Ministers, and sometimes the Crown therewith. Government as a catch-all term for all the organs (legislative, executive, etc.) is a uniquely American phenomenon that has spread to other countries by means of, well, America’s influence.
For instance, I’ve never heard a BBC pundit use government to include Parliament or the judiciary, and same goes for German, Swedish and Spanish pundits (in their own languages, that is). Outside of the U.S., I’ve only ever heard the word to mean the executive, and it’s used to differentiate the ministers from the Privy Council or equivalent.
Final example: in the French and Russian Constitutions, Government is established specifically as the body, separate from the legislatures or presidents, being comprised by the ministers in juxtaposition to the Council of Ministers and Council of State, respectively.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 11, 2017 17:56:46 GMT -6
In the UK Parliament does not include the Sovereign or the Ministers. Parliament consists only of the House of Commons (the elected house) and the House of Lords (the appointed house). Government contains the Sovereign, and Parliament, and Ministries (which are permanent) headed by the Ministers (who are appointed - technically by the Monarch, but in practice by the Prime Minister), and the Judiciary. Although there are laws of succession for the monarchy, Parliament has the power to remove the existing monarch and choose the new monarch - and has done so... the last two occasions were the appointment of Queen Victoria, and the removal (only apparently by agreement - his arm was twisted) of Edward VIII in 1936. And I agree - British norms are not Talossan norms. Anyway, we don't have a constitution in the UK - even though we have had continuous recorded government (in England) for over a thousand years. That’s not actually true. Parliament is said to consist of three parts: the Commons, the Lords, and the Crown: “And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together...” - A.V. Dicey AV Dicey's 1915 treatise on the Constitution of the UK is quite informative. And if I recall his 1885 treatise, he distinguishes between the government and the rule of law (ie the judiciary)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 11, 2017 17:59:25 GMT -6
And Government in a parlimentary or British context refers only to the Ministers, and sometimes the Crown therewith. Government as a catch-all term for all the organs (legislative, executive, etc.) is a uniquely American phenomenon that has spread to other countries by means of, well, America’s influence. For instance, I’ve never heard a BBC pundit use government to include Parliament or the judiciary, and same goes for German, Swedish and Spanish pundits (in their own languages, that is). Outside of the U.S., I’ve only ever heard the word to mean the executive, and it’s used to differentiate the ministers from the Privy Council or equivalent. Final example: in the French and Russian Constitutions, Government is established specifically as the body, separate from the legislatures or presidents, being comprised by the ministers in juxtaposition to the Council of Ministers and Council of State, respectively. I respectfully disagree regarding your description of the US. In the parliamentary system, government is used. In the presidential system, administration is used. It's a matter of nomenclature differing between two types of democratic systems.
|
|
|
Post by Danihél Roðgarüt on Oct 12, 2017 0:27:05 GMT -6
If we're nitpicking, Parliament isn't chosen by the people, individual MPs are elected by electors in their constituencies. Parliament also consists of the Sovereign, and Peers sitting in the HofL. You're absolutely right about ministerial appointments. However, I'm determined not to do what I did last time and project British norms onto the RT! So I'll stand back and listen. In the UK Parliament does not include the Sovereign or the Ministers.Having been a member of both Parliament and the Government, I can assure you that the Sovereign is one of the three constituent elements of Parliament.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Oct 12, 2017 4:29:03 GMT -6
In the UK Parliament does not include the Sovereign or the Ministers. Having been a member of both Parliament and the Government, I can assure you that the Sovereign is one of the three constituent elements of Parliament. You are correct, and I was wrong. I looked at www.parliament.uk which contains two conflicting statements about parliament, but the definitive one is as you say - Parliament is the Sovereign, the Lords and the Commons. But - as we agree - it does not contain the Ministers.
|
|