This is a monarch instead thumbing her nose at her subjects. Another well-rehearsed argument is that the monarch somehow provides balance in our political system. That she is a check on our politicians. And if our politicians misbehave — as they did quite astonishingly through their abuse of parliamentary expenses — it is they who call an inquiry in themselves. The Queen does not hold them to account and she herself cannot be held to account. Discussion of royalty is banned by parliamentary rules.
Furthermore the Queen is used as a puppet of politicians. Either to hide behind at times of unpopularity so as not to take ultimate responsibility.
Or to rubber stamp their cronyism through our corrupt honours system. Politicians largely decide who get the gongs — big party donors and the like — and she hands them out.
What else? The Queen promotes Britain abroad. It ultimately resulted in the abolition of slavery. Slaves first arrived in America in Virginia in The Underground Railway was a way by which slaves could find freedom. This was a method for northerners to help escaped slaves to find a place to live in free states or Canada.
Free black Americans were usually the ones to plan and helped with the Underground Railroad. My answer is: no He started to apply his work in practice for that one great work like Paradise Lost when penning the Sonnets. Not every sonnet is identical but they can be difficult in interpretation, styles, word use, and so forth.
The Articles of Confederation forced the amendment process for federal laws to be unanimous, had no executive, encouraged a loose association of states and required a two-thirds majority for the passage of federal bills.
Michael Jacobs, general secretary of The Fabian Society emphasizes: "We've had a lot of constitutional reform and we need to make sure the Head of State is part of that process? In Britain the Prime Minister is technically appointed by the Monarch.
But in fact it is already a person with huge political authority - the head of the party which has won the majority of seats in Parliament as a result of the General Election. It is the Prime Minister, who forms the Government and the Cabinet. In theory, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a primus inter pares first among equals in the British Cabinet.
However, in practice, a strong Prime Minister can so dominate government that he becomes a 'semi-president', and fulfils the leadership role in a country in the same way as presidents do. It's interesting to note that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister is also a committed monarchist and he has resisted all calls for a review of the institution.
But a large number of government ministers have republican sentiments and they are ready to speak out. Some of them urge for complete abolition of monarchy. Some Americans hold the same opinion. For example, they regard monarchy as an archaic and worthless institution.
In my opinion the main issue is that all politicians seek to gain more and more power. It concerns not only Britain, but the whole world. Why is Tony Blair a committed monarchist? As a Prime Minister he enjoys much power, because real powers of the monarch are restricted and mainly symbolic. It suits him since he is not sure that he will become a President if the country changes its form of government.
That's why Tony Blair's policy is very severe and bizarre. So, should he enjoy constitutional powers as a president? Should he become one? It's unclear. Moreover in model presidential republics such as the USA the President has much more powers and prerogatives than the monarch in Britain. I mean not only formal powers, but also the real ones. Therefore many ministers are in favour of the republic since they seek to gain all political power rather than act in the interest of the nation.
As for the public sentiment, most of the people support monarchy, because it is the real symbol of national unity, a part of the tradition. In fact common people want to become wealthier and they don't care who should be the Head of State. Unfortunately, they were not always successful in it. Since the ideas expressed in Plato's "Government", Moore's "Utopia" and Campanella's "City of the Sun" were not translated into reality, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and other dictators tried to bring about their own concept of state.
These efforts will always remain a notorious part of the world's history. Only today we realise that an ideal state is only delusive. It is only a dream buried by cruel reality formed by governments. It'd be a great exaggeration to say that we are getting closer to an ideal state. The humankind has experienced a-thousand-years disgrace and lost dreams. But people hope on. For example, 70 years ago a renowned Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachov wrote a fairy tale about a state of prosperous culture, science and welfare.
He called it Gremlandia. The tale tells us about the Perfect and Sophisticated Person. In this tale Likhachov draws a line between vice and virtue, knowledge and ignorance, conscience and cynicism. In s at the rise of democratic changes in Russia the scholar revived the old dream.
Gremlandia materialized. They talked about the state based on conscience and reason. They manifested their ideas about the major events in the country and in the world through various decrees and projects. It was no surprise that in the imaginary country with the territory no more than one square metre there was an appointed prime minister, the congress headed by composer Andrey Petrov, elected officer and other bodies typical of a regular state.
There was even a prison and every citizen could convict himself if he had something on his conscience. According to decisions passed by congress and government of Gremlandia the coat of arms, the hymn and various governmental rewards had to be purchased. To develop this principle the teachers of Gremlandia decided to create a special fund and met in a prestigious Petersburg casino Conty.
God knows how this brilliant concept could be associated with the casino. Unfortunately the members of the government of Gremlandia and its fund split up. One day the scholar Likhachov issued a letter in which he informed the public about his decision to quit the self-proclaimed state.
Unfortunately, fairy tales are remote from the truth. Is an ideal state likely to be a fairy tale or attainable reality?
The idea of model state - the best form of government - has been changing throughout history since it depends primarily on the specific social and historical circumstances, and secondly on the views and ideas of a person who develops the theory. One of the first philosophers who considered this issue was famous Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. He suggested the classification of governments which is based on a key question: Who governs the state?
Under this classification, all governments belong to one of the following groups: monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and so on - depending on how many people were vested with power and in whose interests this power was exercised. This author thinks so. Human ErrorThere is always a possibility of error in sentencing death to an innocent person. In the last 30 years, inmates on the death row were found to be innocent and released. Someone against it will say that it's not ok to kill another human being, no matter what they have done, because that won't change anything.
The death penalty is a violation of human rights, but it is also torture and racial and class biased.
It is believed that the elected Head of State is one of the most significant symbols of democratic state. I mean not only formal powers, but also the real ones. Another well-rehearsed argument is that the monarch somehow provides balance in our political system.
However, the minimum wage is not the best way to combat poverty. So why break the continuity and skip a generation?
However, the eventual successor that would experience the highest degree of failures would be his son, Charles I.
We just need to use them. Traditionally it is held that the USA, having one constitutional act, has a written constitution, while the UK, where constitutional law is not codified, has an unwritten one. Government plays a political game with its citizens and mass media is the instrument in its hands. Of course, it depends on the legal system of this or that country, because "strict" doesn't necessarily mean "cruel", and strict laws are useful: people know, that they will be punished, if they do something wrong the so-called general prevention , and it influences them greatly.
The Queen promotes Britain abroad. So, it is the matter of taste - there are people who prefer to do what they wish and others who put up with being governed, ordered and controlled. There is public law, such as criminal, administrative etc. No offer to accept less money from the taxpayer for her official duties. No-one else does pomp and ceremony like the Brits, goes the old cliche and our foreign friends apparently view it all with some envy. But if the Crown skips a generation and Prince William comes to the throne the British will have a young, fresh and inexperienced King.