The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of legislation
in order for them to pass into law.

This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.

But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
vehemently disagreed with it?

(Note: this applies to Australia too, except that the GG is giving
assent as a representative of the monarch.)

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of legislation
> in order for them to pass into law.

Only in England.

> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.

It is entirely a cermonial process.

> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
> vehemently disagreed with it?

Nope.

> (Note: this applies to Australia too,

Nope.

> except that the GG is giving assentas a representative of the monarch.)

It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the legislation.

On 14/09/2022 12:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.
>
> Only in England.
>

In Australia as well. The GG has to assent to all laws.

And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch, whereby the
monarch could tell the GG what to do.

There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.

>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.
>
> It is entirely a cermonial process.
>

In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse to
assent.

If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a Hitler
type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.

>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>> vehemently disagreed with it?
>
> Nope.
>
>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,
>
> Nope.
>

See above.

>> except that the GG is giving  assentas a representative of the monarch.)
>
> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the legislation.

There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants to:

"No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill but
there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a bill for
the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent or returned a bill with suggested changes."

https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.

>> Only in England.

> In Australia as well.

Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.

> The GG has to assent to all laws.

Wrong, as always.

> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,

Wrong, as always.

> whereby the monarch could tell the GG what to do.

Wrong, as always.

> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.

There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.

The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.

>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.

>> It is entirely a cermonial process.

> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse to
> assent.

Nope, dope.

> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a Hitler
> type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.

Nope, dope.

And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.

The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.

The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
assented to that or not.

The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
to that or not.

The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
to that or not.

>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>>> vehemently disagreed with it?

>> Nope.

>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,

>> Nope.

> See above.

Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant trollshit.

>
>>> except that the GG is giving assentas a representative of the
>>> monarch.)
>> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the legislation.

> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants to:

Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.

> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill but
> there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a bill for
> the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent

Not in modern times.

> or returned a bill with suggested changes."

And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.

> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill

On 14/09/2022 2:19 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.
>
>>>  Only in England.
>
>> In Australia as well.
>
> Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.
>
>> The GG has to assent to all laws.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> whereby the  monarch could tell the GG what to do.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.

The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.

Section 59 of the constitution:

"The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by
the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when
the disallowance is so made known."

>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.
>
> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.
>

The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court. That
is what the common law is.

> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.
>

Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:

"But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."

>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.
>
>>>  It is entirely a cermonial process.
>
>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>> to assent.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.
>
> Nope, dope.
>
> And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.
>
> The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.
>
> The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
> assented to that or not.
>
> The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
> to that or not.
>
> The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
> to that or not.
>

The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.

This means it is whoever controls the army. Do you think the RA would
do something against the monarch?

>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>>>> vehemently disagreed with it?
>
>>>  Nope.
>
>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,
>
>>>  Nope.
>
>> See above.
>
> Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant trollshit.
>
>>
>>>> except that the GG is giving  assentas a representative of the
>>>> monarch.)
>>>  It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the legislation.
>
>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants to:
>
> Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.
>
>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill
>> but there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a
>> bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent
>
> Not in modern times.
>

The power is available. If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used
again.

>> or returned a bill with suggested  changes."
>
> And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.
>

The GG could take the matter to the high court, then it would be up to
the judges to decide.

>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill
>>

Rod Speed wrote on 14/09/2022 12:53 pm:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

<Snip>

>> except that the GG is giving  assentas a representative of the monarch.)
>
> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the legislation.

"It"?? What?? Are you, Rod, of the opinion that it is actually THE
POSITION that passes the legislation rather than THE PERSON who is
filling said position, Rod??
--
Daniel

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.

>>>> Only in England.

>>> In Australia as well.

>> Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.

>>> The GG has to assent to all laws.

>> Wrong, as always.

>>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,

>> Wrong, as always.

>>> whereby the monarch could tell the GG what to do.

>> Wrong, as always.

> The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.

> The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.

Not in this country they can't, because they don't
even get to assent to any of our laws what so ever.

> Section 59 of the constitution:

> "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
> Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by
> the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the
> Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when
> the disallowance is so made known."

The reality is that no monarch would actually be that stupid.

>>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.

>> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
>> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.

> The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court.

Wrong, as always.

> That is what the common law is.

That is not common law, fuckwit.

>> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.

> Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:

> "But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
> appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."

But that is only what the govt has told it will be the GG.

>>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.

>>>> It is entirely a cermonial process.

>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>>> to assent.

>> Nope, dope.

>>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.

>> Nope, dope.

>> And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
>> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.

>> The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
>> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.

>> The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
>> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
>> assented to that or not.

>> The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>> to that or not.

>> The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>> to that or not.

> The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.

Wrong, as always. Our system has never worked like that.

> This means it is whoever controls the army.

And that is the govt, fuckwit child.

> Do you think the RA would do something against the monarch?

They get no choice on that and they would never be involved anyway.

There is no royal army, for a reason, fuckwit child.

>>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>>>>> vehemently disagreed with it?

>>>> Nope.

>>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,

>>>> Nope.

>>> See above.

>> Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant
>> trollshit.

>>>>> except that the GG is giving assentas a representative of the
>>>>> monarch.)

>>>> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the
>>>> legislation.

>>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants
>>> to:

>> Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
>> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.

>>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill
>>> but there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a
>>> bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent

>> Not in modern times.

> The power is available.

Bullshit it is.

> If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used again.

Nope, the High Court would not allow it.

>>> or returned a bill with suggested changes."

>> And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.

> The GG could take the matter to the high court,then it would be up to
> the judges to decide.

Nope, it isn't within the High Court's power.

>>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote on 14/09/2022 12:53 pm:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> except that the GG is giving assentas a representative of the
>>> monarch.)

>> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the legislation.

> "It"?? What?? Are you, Rod, of the opinion that it is actually THE
> POSITION that passes the legislation rather than THE PERSON who is
> filling said position, Rod??

Nope, that the GG can be a man or a woman.

And no GG passes any legislation.

On 14/09/2022 1:46 pm, Max wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 12:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.
>>
>> It is entirely a cermonial process.
>>
>
> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse to
> assent.

Yes. That is a possibility.

Rod Speed wrote on 14/9/22 6:09 pm:
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote on 14/09/2022 12:53 pm:
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>> except that the GG is giving  assentas a representative of the
>>>> monarch.)
>
>>>  It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the legislation.
>
>> "It"?? What?? Are you, Rod, of the opinion that it is actually THE
>> POSITION that passes the legislation rather than THE PERSON who is
>> filling said position, Rod??
>
> Nope, that the GG can be a man or a woman.
>
> And no GG passes any legislation.

Ah!! So your 'It' was used in place of "the GG" then.
--
Daniel

Fran
> Max
>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>> to assent.
>
> Yes.  That is a possibility.

Sadly yes.
And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or their
representatives interfere with the democratic legislative processes.
I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of a national
emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the Whitlam saga has
clearly show how such thing can cause more harm then be actually useful.

If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion until
the political emergency can be resolved with proper democratic processes.

We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th!
The monarchy has completely outlived its usefulness and basically it
only serves as some sort of public display for those riff-raff lower
classes of the to be admired and worshiped rich and and famous in high
society.
I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that kind of
unnecessary circus.

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

Ördög <newsgroup.devil@hell.incorporated.biz> wrote
> Fran wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>>> to assent.

>> Yes. That is a possibility.

> Sadly yes.

> And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or their
> representatives interfere with the democratic legislative processes.
> I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of a national
> emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the Whitlam saga has
> clearly show how such thing can cause more harm then be actually useful.

In fact sacking Whitless allowed a viable parliament to continue
and the voters decided that Whitless has passed his useby date.

> If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
> judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
> orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion until
> the political emergency can be resolved with proper democratic processes.

And it doesn't even need to be resolved, Belgium proves that.

But it is less clear how well that would work in a real
crisis like for example in the Ukraine's current situation.

> We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th!
> The monarchy has completely outlived its usefulness

It is very far from clear that it ever was useful tho it isnt hard
to see how it evolved out of tribal leaders and warlords.

> and basically it only serves as some sort of public display for those
> riff-raff lower classes of the to be admired and worshiped rich and and
> famous in high society.

> I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that kind of
> unnecessary circus.

Yes, but we don't want the stupidity that the USA has instead.

Something like what Ireland has would be better, but then once
you have someone like that instead, what is the point in having
a president at all. Makes more sense to just have formal rules
in the constitution that spell out which party gets to be the govt
and when it has passed its useby date and their needs to be
fresh elections.

But even that arguably doesn't work as the
current Northern Ireland situation proves.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 07:57:13 +1000, Ördög
<newsgroup.devil@Hell.Incorporated.biz> wrote:

>Fran
>> Max
>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>>> to assent.
>>
>> Yes.  That is a possibility.
>
>Sadly yes.
>And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or their
>representatives interfere with the democratic legislative processes.
>I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of a national
>emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the Whitlam saga has
>clearly show how such thing can cause more harm then be actually useful.
>
>If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
>judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
>orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion until
>the political emergency can be resolved with proper democratic processes.
>
>We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th!
>The monarchy has completely outlived its usefulness and basically it
>only serves as some sort of public display for those riff-raff lower
>classes of the to be admired and worshiped rich and and famous in high
>society.
>I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that kind of
>unnecessary circus.
>
Ordog's Albo's type of Goverment
https://youtu.be/xo-lFcMVpPk
Short 2 min Documentary made 60 years ago but happening in USa now!
--
Petzl
'we are a Christian nation' with 'Christian values' to which newcomers
should conform, while enjoying freedom for their own beliefs.
Pauline Hanson.

If you look at Australia it is largely a Christian country with
Christian norms. The things we do, the way our political parties
behave, have, if not an activist Christianity about it, Christian
ideals.
Paul Keating

Petz, the raving loon raving village idiot brings to this newsgroup a
typical third hand dumped TicToc-crap presentation:

> Ördög
>
>> Fran
>>> Max
>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>>>> to assent.
>>>
>>> Yes.  That is a possibility.
>>
>> Sadly yes.
>> And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or their
>> representatives interfere with the democratic legislative processes.
>> I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of a national
>> emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the Whitlam saga has
>> clearly show how such thing can cause more harm then be actually useful.
>>
>> If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
>> judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
>> orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion until
>> the political emergency can be resolved with proper democratic processes.
>>
>> We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th!
>> The monarchy has completely outlived its usefulness and basically it
>> only serves as some sort of public display for those riff-raff lower
>> classes of the to be admired and worshiped rich and and famous in high
>> society.
>> I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that kind of
>> unnecessary circus.
>>
> Ordog's Albo's type of Goverment

WTF... don't you ever follow any discussions before you barge in with
some non-sequitur insane commentary?

> https://youtu.be/xo-lFcMVpPk
> Short 2 min Documentary made 60 years ago

60 years ago? Is this where you've got stuck mentally, Petz dear, while
the rest of us have moved on into the 21st Century?

Typical brain dead cartoon Cold War Era "Reds under your Beds" US style
scare propaganda visual crap/verbal vomit?

Don't you have better imagination than having to resort to that kind of
scare mongering alt-right TicToc trash?

> but happening in USa now!

Bullshit it does!
BTW we ain't discussing in this thread the US which is so far NOT a
monarchy (even if your golden showered orange hero wants to be crowned
as Emperor Donald, the First of His Name as soon as possible)

~~
Note: As per usual your retard sig was cyber incinerated w/o reading.
Stick that fact up your raving loon rightard arse!

--
The ever present and ever vigilant newsgroup devil at your service.

On 14/09/2022 4:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.
>
>>>>>  Only in England.
>
>>>> In Australia as well.
>
>>>  Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.
>
>>>> The GG has to assent to all laws.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> whereby the  monarch could tell the GG what to do.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>> The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.
>
>> The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.
>
> Not in this country they can't, because they don't
> even  get to assent to any of our laws what so ever.
>
>> Section 59 of the constitution:
>
>> "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
>> Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known
>> by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of
>> the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day
>> when the disallowance is so made known."
>
> The reality is that no monarch would actually be that stupid.
>
>>>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.
>
>>> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
>>> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.
>
>> The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> That  is what the common law is.
>
> That is not common law, fuckwit.
>
>>> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.
>
>> Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:
>
>> "But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
>> appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."
>
> But that is only what the govt has told it will be the GG.
>
>>>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.
>
>>>>>  It is entirely a cermonial process.
>
>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>> refuse to assent.
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>>>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>>>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>>>  And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
>>> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.
>
>>>  The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
>>> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.
>
>>>  The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
>>> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
>>> assented to that or not.
>
>>>  The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>> to that or not.
>
>>>  The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>> to that or not.
>
>> The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.
>
> Wrong, as always. Our system has never worked like that.
>
>> This means it is whoever controls the army.
>
> And that is the govt, fuckwit child.
>
>> Do you think the RA would  do something against the monarch?
>
> They get no choice on that and they would never be involved anyway.
>
> There is no royal army, for a reason, fuckwit child.
>
>>>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>>>>>> vehemently disagreed with it?
>
>>>>>  Nope.
>
>>>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,
>
>>>>>  Nope.
>
>>>> See above.
>
>>>  Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant
>>> trollshit.
>
>>>>>> except that the GG is giving  assentas a representative of the
>>>>>> monarch.)
>
>>>>>  It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the
>>>>> legislation.
>
>>>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants
>>>> to:
>
>>>  Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
>>> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.
>
>>>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill
>>>> but there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a
>>>> bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent
>
>>>  Not in modern times.
>
>> The power is available.
>
> Bullshit it is.
>
>> If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used  again.
>
> Nope, the High Court would not allow it.
>
>>>> or returned a bill with suggested  changes."
>
>>>  And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.
>
>> The GG could take the matter to the high court,then it would be up to
>> the judges to decide.
>
> Nope, it isn't within the High Court's power.
>

The High Court has original jurisdiction for constitutional matters.

>>>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill
>>>>

On 15/09/2022 6:02 pm, Max wrote:
> On 14/09/2022 4:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.
>>
>>>>>>  Only in England.
>>
>>>>> In Australia as well.
>>
>>>>  Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>> The GG has to assent to all laws.
>>
>>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>
>>>>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,
>>
>>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>
>>>>> whereby the  monarch could tell the GG what to do.
>>
>>>>  Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.
>>
>>> The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.
>>
>> Not in this country they can't, because they don't
>> even  get to assent to any of our laws what so ever.
>>
>>> Section 59 of the constitution:
>>
>>> "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
>>> Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known
>>> by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of
>>> the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day
>>> when the disallowance is so made known."
>>
>> The reality is that no monarch would actually be that stupid.
>>
>>>>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.
>>
>>>> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
>>>> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.
>>
>>> The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> That  is what the common law is.
>>
>> That is not common law, fuckwit.
>>
>>>> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.
>>
>>> Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:
>>
>>> "But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
>>> appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."
>>
>> But that is only what the govt has told it will be the GG.
>>
>>>>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.
>>
>>>>>>  It is entirely a cermonial process.
>>
>>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>>> refuse to assent.
>>
>>>>  Nope, dope.
>>
>>>>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>>>>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.
>>
>>>>  Nope, dope.
>>
>>>>  And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
>>>> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>  The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
>>>> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.
>>
>>>>  The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
>>>> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
>>>> assented to that or not.
>>
>>>>  The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>> to that or not.
>>
>>>>  The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>> to that or not.
>>
>>> The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.
>>
>> Wrong, as always. Our system has never worked like that.
>>
>>> This means it is whoever controls the army.
>>
>> And that is the govt, fuckwit child.
>>
>>> Do you think the RA would  do something against the monarch?
>>
>> They get no choice on that and they would never be involved anyway.
>>
>> There is no royal army, for a reason, fuckwit child.
>>
>>>>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if
>>>>>>> they vehemently disagreed with it?
>>
>>>>>>  Nope.
>>
>>>>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,
>>
>>>>>>  Nope.
>>
>>>>> See above.
>>
>>>>  Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant
>>>> trollshit.
>>
>>>>>>> except that the GG is giving  assentas a representative of the
>>>>>>> monarch.)
>>
>>>>>>  It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the
>>>>>> legislation.
>>
>>>>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he
>>>>> wants to:
>>
>>>>  Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
>>>> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.
>>
>>>>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a
>>>>> bill but there have been times when the Governor-General has
>>>>> reserved a bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent
>>
>>>>  Not in modern times.
>>
>>> The power is available.
>>
>> Bullshit it is.
>>
>>> If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used  again.
>>
>> Nope, the High Court would not allow it.
>>
>>>>> or returned a bill with suggested  changes."
>>
>>>>  And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.
>>
>>> The GG could take the matter to the high court,then it would be up to
>>> the judges to decide.
>>
>> Nope, it isn't within the High Court's power.
>>
>
> The High Court has original jurisdiction for constitutional matters.
>

Anyone who wants to raise a constitutional matter, including the GG, can
take it the High Court.

>
>
>>>>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill
>>>>>
>

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.

>>>>>> Only in England.

>>>>> In Australia as well.

>>>> Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.

>>>>> The GG has to assent to all laws.

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>>>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>>>> whereby the monarch could tell the GG what to do.

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>> The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.

>>> The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.

>> Not in this country they can't, because they don't
>> even get to assent to any of our laws what so ever.

>>> Section 59 of the constitution:

>>> "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
>>> Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known
>>> by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of
>>> the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day
>>> when the disallowance is so made known."

>> The reality is that no monarch would actually be that stupid.

>>>>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.

>>>> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
>>>> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.

>>> The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court.

>> Wrong, as always.

>>> That is what the common law is.

>> That is not common law, fuckwit.

>>>> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.

>>> Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:

>>> "But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
>>> appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."

>> But that is only what the govt has told it will be the GG.

>>>>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.

>>>>>> It is entirely a cermonial process.

>>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>>> refuse to assent.

>>>> Nope, dope.

>>>>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>>>>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.

>>>> Nope, dope.

>>>> And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
>>>> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.

>>>> The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
>>>> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.

>>>> The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
>>>> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
>>>> assented to that or not.

>>>> The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>> to that or not.

>>>> The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>> to that or not.

>>> The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.

>> Wrong, as always. Our system has never worked like that.

>>> This means it is whoever controls the army.

>> And that is the govt, fuckwit child.

>>> Do you think the RA would do something against the monarch?

>> They get no choice on that and they would never be involved anyway.

>> There is no royal army, for a reason, fuckwit child.

>>>>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>>>>>>> vehemently disagreed with it?

>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,

>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>> See above.

>>>> Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant
>>>> trollshit.

>>>>>>> except that the GG is giving assentas a representative of the
>>>>>>> monarch.)

>>>>>> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the
>>>>>> legislation.

>>>>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants
>>>>> to:

>>>> Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
>>>> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.

>>>>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill
>>>>> but there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a
>>>>> bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent

>>>> Not in modern times.

>>> The power is available.

>> Bullshit it is.

>>> If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used again.

>> Nope, the High Court would not allow it.

>>>>> or returned a bill with suggested changes."

>>>> And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.

>>> The GG could take the matter to the high court,then it would be up to
>>> the judges to decide.

>> Nope, it isn't within the High Court's power.

> The High Court has original jurisdiction for constitutional matters.

That isnt a constitutional matter, fuckwit child.

>>>>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Max wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>>>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.
>>>
>>>>>>> Only in England.
>>>
>>>>>> In Australia as well.
>>>
>>>>> Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>>>> The GG has to assent to all laws.
>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>>>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,
>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>>>> whereby the monarch could tell the GG what to do.
>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.
>>>
>>>> The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.
>>>
>>> Not in this country they can't, because they don't
>>> even get to assent to any of our laws what so ever.
>>>
>>>> Section 59 of the constitution:
>>>
>>>> "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
>>>> Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known
>>>> by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of
>>>> the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day
>>>> when the disallowance is so made known."
>>>
>>> The reality is that no monarch would actually be that stupid.
>>>
>>>>>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.
>>>
>>>>> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
>>>>> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>>> That is what the common law is.
>>>
>>> That is not common law, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>>> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:
>>>
>>>> "But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
>>>> appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."
>>>
>>> But that is only what the govt has told it will be the GG.
>>>
>>>>>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.
>>>
>>>>>>> It is entirely a cermonial process.
>>>
>>>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>>>> refuse to assent.
>>>
>>>>> Nope, dope.
>>>
>>>>>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>>>>>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.
>>>
>>>>> Nope, dope.
>>>
>>>>> And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
>>>>> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>>> The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
>>>>> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.
>>>
>>>>> The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
>>>>> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
>>>>> assented to that or not.
>>>
>>>>> The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
>>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>>> to that or not.
>>>
>>>>> The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
>>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>>> to that or not.
>>>
>>>> The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always. Our system has never worked like that.
>>>
>>>> This means it is whoever controls the army.
>>>
>>> And that is the govt, fuckwit child.
>>>
>>>> Do you think the RA would do something against the monarch?
>>>
>>> They get no choice on that and they would never be involved anyway.
>>>
>>> There is no royal army, for a reason, fuckwit child.
>>>
>>>>>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if
>>>>>>>> they vehemently disagreed with it?
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,
>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>> See above.
>>>
>>>>> Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant
>>>>> trollshit.
>>>
>>>>>>>> except that the GG is giving assentas a representative of the
>>>>>>>> monarch.)
>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the
>>>>>>> legislation.
>>>
>>>>>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he
>>>>>> wants to:
>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
>>>>> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.
>>>
>>>>>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a
>>>>>> bill but there have been times when the Governor-General has
>>>>>> reserved a bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent
>>>
>>>>> Not in modern times.
>>>
>>>> The power is available.
>>>
>>> Bullshit it is.
>>>
>>>> If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used again.
>>>
>>> Nope, the High Court would not allow it.
>>>
>>>>>> or returned a bill with suggested changes."
>>>
>>>>> And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.
>>>
>>>> The GG could take the matter to the high court,then it would be up to
>>>> the judges to decide.
>>>
>>> Nope, it isn't within the High Court's power.
>>>
>> The High Court has original jurisdiction for constitutional matters.
>>
>
> Anyone who wants to raise a constitutional matter, including the GG, can
> take it the High Court.

It isnt a constutional matter, fuckwit child.

So much for your mindless shit about violence too.

>>>>>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill
>>

Rod Speed wrote on 15/9/22 8:31 am:
> Ördög <newsgroup.devil@hell.incorporated.biz> wrote
>> Fran wrote
>>> Max wrote
>
>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>> refuse to assent.
>
>>> Yes. That is a possibility.
>
>> Sadly yes.
>
>> And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or
>> their representatives interfere with the democratic legislative
>> processes. I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of
>> a national emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the
>> Whitlam saga has clearly show how such thing can cause more harm
>> then be actually useful.
>
> In fact sacking Whitless allowed a viable parliament to continue and
> the voters decided that Whitless has passed his useby date.
>
>> If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
>> judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
>> orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion
>> until the political emergency can be resolved with proper
>> democratic processes.
>
> And it doesn't even need to be resolved, Belgium proves that.
>
> But it is less clear how well that would work in a real crisis like
> for example in the Ukraine's current situation.
>
>> We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th! The monarchy has
>> completely outlived its usefulness
>
> It is very far from clear that it ever was useful tho it isnt hard to
> see how it evolved out of tribal leaders and warlords.
>
>> and basically it only serves as some sort of public display for
>> those riff-raff lower classes of the to be admired and worshiped
>> rich and and famous in high society.
>
>> I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that
>> kind of unnecessary circus.
>
> Yes, but we don't want the stupidity that the USA has instead.
>
> Something like what Ireland has would be better, but then once you
> have someone like that instead, what is the point in having a
> president at all. Makes more sense to just have formal rules in the
> constitution that spell out which party gets to be the govt and when
> it has passed its useby date and their needs to be fresh elections.
>
> But even that arguably doesn't work as the current Northern Ireland
> situation proves.

Does anyone know ..... Apparently both South Africa are Republics but
are still (or again) Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

How far do they different to the U.S. of A. model?? Might one or other
of those two models of Republic suit Australia??
--
Daniel

Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Ördög <newsgroup.devil@hell.incorporated.biz> wrote
>>> Fran wrote
>>>> Max wrote

>>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>>> refuse to assent.

>>>> Yes. That is a possibility.

>>> Sadly yes.

>>> And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or
>>> their representatives interfere with the democratic legislative
>>> processes. I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of
>>> a national emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the
>>> Whitlam saga has clearly show how such thing can cause more harm
>>> then be actually useful.

>> In fact sacking Whitless allowed a viable parliament to continue and
>> the voters decided that Whitless has passed his useby date.

>>> If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
>>> judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
>>> orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion
>>> until the political emergency can be resolved with proper
>>> democratic processes.

>> And it doesn't even need to be resolved, Belgium proves that.

>> But it is less clear how well that would work in a real crisis like
>> for example in the Ukraine's current situation.

>>> We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th! The monarchy has
>>> completely outlived its usefulness

>> It is very far from clear that it ever was useful tho it isnt hard to
>> see how it evolved out of tribal leaders and warlords.

>>> and basically it only serves as some sort of public display for those
>>> riff-raff lower classes of the to be admired and worshiped rich and
>>> and famous in high society.

>>> I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that kind
>>> of unnecessary circus.

>> Yes, but we don't want the stupidity that the USA has instead.

>> Something like what Ireland has would be better, but then once you
>> have someone like that instead, what is the point in having a president
>> at all. Makes more sense to just have formal rules in the constitution
>> that spell out which party gets to be the govt and when
>> it has passed its useby date and their needs to be fresh elections.

>> But even that arguably doesn't work as the current Northern Ireland
>> situation proves.

> Does anyone know ..... Apparently both South Africa are Republics but
> are still (or again) Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Yes, there are a number of countrys in the commonwealth that are republics.
Some even have their own kings or queens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations#Current_members

> How far do they different to the U.S. of A. model??

No one else has anything like the USA model.

> Might one or other of those two models of Republic suit Australia??

The RSA is a fucked approach with their president being utterly corrupt.

On 15/09/2022 9:27 am, Ördög wrote:
> Petz, the raving loon raving village idiot brings to this newsgroup a
> typical third hand dumped TicToc-crap presentation:
>
>> Ördög
>>
>>> Fran
>>>> Max
>>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>>>>> to assent.
>>>>
>>>> Yes.  That is a possibility.
>>>
>>> Sadly yes.
>>> And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or their
>>> representatives interfere with the democratic legislative processes.
>>> I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of a national
>>> emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the Whitlam saga has
>>> clearly show how such thing can cause more harm then be actually useful.
>>>
>>> If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
>>> judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
>>> orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion until
>>> the political emergency can be resolved with proper democratic
>>> processes.
>>>
>>> We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th!
>>> The monarchy has completely outlived its usefulness and basically it
>>> only serves as some sort of public display for those riff-raff lower
>>> classes of the to be admired and worshiped rich and and famous in high
>>> society.
>>> I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that kind of
>>> unnecessary circus.
>>>
>> Ordog's Albo's type of Goverment
>
> WTF... don't you ever follow any discussions before you barge in with
> some non-sequitur insane commentary?
>
>> https://youtu.be/xo-lFcMVpPk
>> Short 2 min Documentary made 60 years ago
>
> 60 years ago? Is this where you've got stuck mentally, Petz dear, while
> the rest of us have moved on into the 21st Century?
>
> Typical brain dead cartoon Cold War Era "Reds under your Beds" US style
> scare propaganda visual crap/verbal vomit?
>
> Don't you have better imagination than having to resort to that kind of
> scare mongering alt-right TicToc trash?

Did you notice that the person who put up that Youtube video has TWO
subcribers. TWO!!! What's the bet our resident village idiot is one of
those subscribers?

But seriously, our resident retard would have had to hunt really hard to
find such a piece of ancient and idiotic crap. We should give him
brownie points for that. To be so committed to find such ancient, weird
shit, he's obviously very dedicated. Insane and obsessed, and without
any analytical ability at all, but dedicated.

On 15/09/2022 9:06 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote on 15/9/22 8:31 am:

>>
>> But even that arguably doesn't work as the current Northern Ireland
>> situation proves.
>
> Does anyone know ..... Apparently both South Africa are Republics

????? What do you mean here? I only know of one place called South Africa.

but
> are still (or again) Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

And yes, Seth Efrica is a member of the Commonwealth. Whatever the
other place you're asking/thinking about can be checked here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

> How far do they different to the U.S. of A. model?? Might one or other
> of those two models of Republic suit Australia??

On 16/09/2022 9:27 am, Fran wrote:
> On 15/09/2022 9:27 am, Ördög wrote:
>> Petz, the raving loon raving village idiot brings to this newsgroup a
>> typical third hand dumped TicToc-crap presentation:
>>
>>> Ördög
>>>
>>>> Fran
>>>>> Max
>>>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could refuse
>>>>>> to assent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.  That is a possibility.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly yes.
>>>> And hence this is a very good reason NOT to have any "monarchs" or
>>>> their
>>>> representatives interfere with the democratic legislative processes.
>>>> I seriously doubt that such interference even in case of a national
>>>> emergency would be useful to anyone. I think that the Whitlam saga has
>>>> clearly show how such thing can cause more harm then be actually
>>>> useful.
>>>>
>>>> If the country has an independent (i.e. politically un-compromised)
>>>> judiciary and well functioning public service they can maintain the
>>>> orderly day to day running of the country in a caretaker fashion until
>>>> the political emergency can be resolved with proper democratic
>>>> processes.
>>>>
>>>> We now live in the 21st Century not in the 18th!
>>>> The monarchy has completely outlived its usefulness and basically it
>>>> only serves as some sort of public display for those riff-raff lower
>>>> classes of the to be admired and worshiped rich and and famous in high
>>>> society.
>>>> I can safely assume we could still live and prosper without that
>>>> kind of
>>>> unnecessary circus.
>>>>
>>> Ordog's Albo's type of Goverment
>>
>> WTF... don't you ever follow any discussions before you barge in with
>> some non-sequitur insane commentary?
>>
>>> https://youtu.be/xo-lFcMVpPk
>>> Short 2 min Documentary made 60 years ago
>>
>> 60 years ago? Is this where you've got stuck mentally, Petz dear,
>> while the rest of us have moved on into the 21st Century?
>>
>> Typical brain dead cartoon Cold War Era "Reds under your Beds" US
>> style scare propaganda visual crap/verbal vomit?
>>
>> Don't you have better imagination than having to resort to that kind
>> of scare mongering alt-right TicToc trash?
>
> Did you notice that the person who put up that Youtube video has TWO
> subcribers.  TWO!!!  What's the bet our resident village idiot is one of
> those subscribers?
>
> But seriously, our resident retard would have had to hunt really hard to
> find such a piece of ancient and idiotic crap.  We should give him
> brownie points for that.  To be so committed to find such ancient, weird
> shit, he's obviously very dedicated.  Insane and obsessed, and without
> any analytical ability at all, but dedicated.

Why are you so mean to Petzl? He is an interesting character that digs
up lots of quotes, videos and information for us.

On 14/09/2022 4:53 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.
>
>>>>>  Only in England.
>
>>>> In Australia as well.
>
>>>  Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.
>
>>>> The GG has to assent to all laws.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> whereby the  monarch could tell the GG what to do.
>
>>>  Wrong, as always.
>
>> The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.
>
>> The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.
>
> Not in this country they can't, because they don't
> even  get to assent to any of our laws what so ever.
>
>> Section 59 of the constitution:
>
>> "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
>> Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known
>> by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of
>> the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day
>> when the disallowance is so made known."
>
> The reality is that no monarch would actually be that stupid.
>
>>>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.
>
>>> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
>>> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.
>
>> The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> That  is what the common law is.
>
> That is not common law, fuckwit.
>
>>> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.
>
>> Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:
>
>> "But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
>> appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."
>
> But that is only what the govt has told it will be the GG.
>

That is the convention, but under the constitution the monarch has the
right to appoint the GG.

The monarch could take the matter to the high court if the government
did something different.

>>>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.
>
>>>>>  It is entirely a cermonial process.
>
>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>> refuse to assent.
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>>>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>>>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.
>
>>>  Nope, dope.
>
>>>  And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
>>> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.
>
>>>  The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
>>> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.
>
>>>  The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
>>> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
>>> assented to that or not.
>
>>>  The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>> to that or not.
>
>>>  The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>> to that or not.
>
>> The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.
>
> Wrong, as always. Our system has never worked like that.
>
>> This means it is whoever controls the army.
>
> And that is the govt, fuckwit child.
>
>> Do you think the RA would  do something against the monarch?
>
> They get no choice on that and they would never be involved anyway.
>

The army could do what it want if it wanted. How do you think the
military junta in Thailand started, fuckwit?

You have no idea how the state and governments actually start and remain
in power, fuckwit clown.

> There is no royal army, for a reason, fuckwit child.
>
>>>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>>>>>> vehemently disagreed with it?
>
>>>>>  Nope.
>
>>>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,
>
>>>>>  Nope.
>
>>>> See above.
>
>>>  Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant
>>> trollshit.
>
>>>>>> except that the GG is giving  assentas a representative of the
>>>>>> monarch.)
>
>>>>>  It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the
>>>>> legislation.
>
>>>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants
>>>> to:
>
>>>  Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
>>> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.
>
>>>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill
>>>> but there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a
>>>> bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent
>
>>>  Not in modern times.
>
>> The power is available.
>
> Bullshit it is.
>
>> If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used  again.
>
> Nope, the High Court would not allow it.
>
>>>> or returned a bill with suggested  changes."
>
>>>  And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.
>
>> The GG could take the matter to the high court,then it would be up to
>> the judges to decide.
>
> Nope, it isn't within the High Court's power.
>
>>>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill
>>>>

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>>>> The British monarch is required to give assent to pieces of
>>>>>>> legislation in order for them to pass into law.

>>>>>> Only in England.

>>>>> In Australia as well.

>>>> Nope, no monarch does anything like that here, fuckwit.

>>>>> The GG has to assent to all laws.

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>>>> And the GG is merely a representative of the monarch,

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>>>> whereby the monarch could tell the GG what to do.

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>> The monarch doesn't even need to tell the GG.

>>> The monarch can disallow laws at their own discretion.

>> Not in this country they can't, because they don't
>> even get to assent to any of our laws what so ever.

>>> Section 59 of the constitution:

>>> "The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the
>>> Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known
>>> by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of
>>> the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day
>>> when the disallowance is so made known."

>> The reality is that no monarch would actually be that stupid.

>>>>> There is no law saying the monarch can't do that.

>>>> There has to be a law that allows the monarch to tell
>>>> the GG what it has to do, and there isn't, fuckwit.

>>> The law is what the courts decide if the matter is taken to court.

>> Wrong, as always.

>>> That is what the common law is.

>> That is not common law, fuckwit.

>>>> The monarch doesn't even get to decide who the GG is, fuckwit.

>>> Section 3 of the constitution, fuckwit:

>>> "But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation,
>>> appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth."

>> But that is only what the govt has told it will be the GG.

> That is the convention, but under the constitutionthe monarch has the
> right to appoint the GG.

The reality is that that never happens.

> The monarch could take the matter to the highcourt if the government
> did something different.

Wrong, as always.

>>>>>>> This is regarded as a largely ceremonial process.

>>>>>> It is entirely a cermonial process.

That little shit Edward didnt even get to marry anyone he wanted to.

>>>>> In a case of a dire political emergency then the monarch could
>>>>> refuse to assent.

>>>> Nope, dope.

>>>>> If you had a government who was doing something crazy, such as a
>>>>> Hitler type thing, then the monarch could refuse to assent.

>>>> Nope, dope.

>>>> And the govt doesnt need legislation to do something the monarch
>>>> doesnt like anyway, fuckwit.

>>>> The govt can abolish the monarchy and it wouldn't matter
>>>> a damn if the monach refused to assent to that.

>>>> The govt could fuck over Randy Andy for his criminal
>>>> activity and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch
>>>> assented to that or not.

>>>> The govt could strip the monarch of its stolen property
>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>> to that or not.

>>>> The govt could strip the monarch of its cash handouts
>>>> and it wouldn't matter a damn if the monarch assented
>>>> to that or not.

>>> The entity in power, is whoever has the proponderance of violence.
>> Wrong, as always. Our system has never worked like that.

>>> This means it is whoever controls the army.

>> And that is the govt, fuckwit child.

>>> Do you think the RA would do something against the monarch?

>> They get no choice on that and they would never be involved anyway.

> The army could do what it want if it wanted.

Nope, not in this country or Britain.

> How do you think the military junta in Thailand started

Different country that not only doesnt have the british
monarch, isnt even a commonwealth country, fuckwit.

Same with russia, what happens there is nothing
whatever to do with what happens here.

> You have no idea how the state and governments actually start and remain
> in power

You are so fucking stupid you haven't even managed
to work out that Thailand isnt Oz, fuckwit child.

>> There is no royal army, for a reason, fuckwit child.

>>>>>>> But could the monarch refuse to give assent to legislation if they
>>>>>>> vehemently disagreed with it?

>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>>>> (Note: this applies to Australia too,

>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>> See above.

>>>> Completely useless, as always with your mindless pig ignorant
>>>> trollshit.

>>>>>>> except that the GG is giving assentas a representative of the
>>>>>>> monarch.)

>>>>>> It doesn't get to refuse to do that if it doesnt like the
>>>>>> legislation.

>>>>> There is room in our system for the GG to withold assent if he wants
>>>>> to:

>>>> Wrong, as always, most obviously if the govt chooses to sack
>>>> a stupid fuckwit like Kerr of his job.

>>>>> "No Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent to a bill
>>>>> but there have been times when the Governor-General has reserved a
>>>>> bill for the Queen’s (or King’s) Assent

>>>> Not in modern times.

>>> The power is available.

>> Bullshit it is.

>>> If a nutcase PM got elected then it may be used again.

>> Nope, the High Court would not allow it.

>>>>> or returned a bill with suggested changes."

>>>> And the govt is free to tell the GG to like it or lump it.

>>> The GG could take the matter to the high court,then it would be up to
>>> the judges to decide.

>> Nope, it isn't within the High Court's power.

>>>>> https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/can-the-governor-general-refuse-to-sign-a-bill