shivashakti: Good. Remove all vestiges of monarchy. It's ridiculous that this person should have an overriding veto over things the people want simply because he was born into a certain family.

This is 2012.

And it's a constitutional monarchy....in 2012. The veto should not be overridden. If the people of Metzengerstein, or wherever, don't want the princely veto, then alter or abolish the constitution. Same with the institution of monarchy; you seem to advocate revolution, which TFA indicates is the LAST thing the people of this nation want. The trouble is, like people here, there, and everywhere, they want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want the comfort of their storybook monarchy and their nice fat little economy, which are tied together in their minds....and they may well be right. You want something gone, abolish it legally, anything else just sets the stage for an open breach of the social contract, and when that happens, you might as well just take all the empty bottles down to the gas station and fill 'em up, barricade the streets, and party down. And everybody loses.

shivashakti: Good. Remove all vestiges of monarchy. It's ridiculous that this person should have an overriding veto over things the people want simply because he was born into a certain family.

This is 2012.

.
.
God damn, would you neanderthals stop with wanting to impose your narrow views on everyone and go crawl back under your rocks. What concern is it of yours how people you never met on the other side of the planet choose to live? According to TFA those people are living pretty damn well.

shivashakti: Good. Remove all vestiges of monarchy. It's ridiculous that this person should have an overriding veto over things the people want simply because he was born into a certain family.

This is 2012.

Because democratically elected leaders *never* do anything that isnt in the people's best interest....

I'd rather have a benevolent monarch than an elected war criminal.

Yeah, so, apparently Lichtenstein has a prince, who knew?

Everyone that understands there life outside of the good old US of A.

Good for him for putting the issue in the correct light. Either he's a real monarch or a private person. They have to choose. None of this farcical cosplay circus act they do in England.

shivashakti: Good. Remove all vestiges of monarchy. It's ridiculous that this person should have an overriding veto over things the people want simply because he was born into a certain family.

This is 2012.

Because popularity of the fickle mob is better?

Good. Remove all vestiges of monarchy. It's ridiculous that this person should have an overriding veto over things the people want simply because he was born into a certain family.

This is 2012.

Tillmaster: dugrik: Good for him for putting the issue in the correct light. Either he's a real monarch or a private person. They have to choose. None of this farcical cosplay circus act they do in England.

Actually, I believe that the British Monarchy retains the Royal Veto, at least in theory.
In principle, it's a useful check and balance against the nuttier actions of the Government.

The Queen not only retains the royal veto in Britain, she has the power of veto in certain Commonwealth countries including Canada and Australia. She's just never used it. But we also have Governor-Generals as local representatives of the Queen, and they ALSO have veto powers (though the Queen could theoretically veto their veto).

I don't think any GG has veto'd a specific bill in modern times, but they do occassionally use reserve powers to act against the elected parliament. For example, the GG in Oz dissolved parliament in 1975 when the Senate delayed approving a supply bill (basically what you'd call a "budget crisis" in the US, like your government shutdown of 95/96). Instead of a prolonged stand-off where public servants don't get paid, the GG just goes "if you can't play nicely, you can all go home ... everyone's up for re-election!" and we have to vote for all the seats again.

That part of it works very well. Aussie pollies don't grandstand over supply bills these days.

Tillmaster: dugrik: Good for him for putting the issue in the correct light. Either he's a real monarch or a private person. They have to choose. None of this farcical cosplay circus act they do in England.

Actually, I believe that the British Monarchy retains the Royal Veto, at least in theory.
In principle, it's a useful check and balance against the nuttier actions of the Government.

If the monarch ever exercised the veto (ie refused the Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament) there would be a constitutional crisis. That's why it will never happen.

shivashakti: Good. Remove all vestiges of monarchy. It's ridiculous that this person should have an overriding veto over things the people want simply because he was born into a certain family.

This is 2012.

He's the leader of their country whether you agree with their form of government or not. What is being proposed is the equivalent of the people of the US removing the power of veto from the President.

I've never really thought much about Liechtenstein as a country. It's like Idaho, I know it's a state, I just don't THINK about it very much. So I read over wikipedia and came across some stuff that made me lol.

The Liechtenstein National Police is responsible for keeping order within the country. It consists of 87 field officers and 38 civilian staff, totaling 125 employes. Liechtenstein follows a policy of neutrality and is one of the few countries in the world that maintains no military. The army was abolished soon after the Austro-Prussian War, in which Liechtenstein fielded an army of 80 men, although they were not involved in any fighting.

I know it's a tiny, neutral country and very safe, so it shouldn't have made me laugh, but it did.

Prince Liechtenstein: "Citizens of Liechtenstein, we are at war! We will send half of our military to the front line and half will stay behind and defend the homefront. Michel, Gunter and Jurgen ship out tomorrow. Frank, Al and Hanz will stay behind."
People of Liechtenstein: "But who will direct traffic?"

Just something about a country that has 1/2 the population of an average NFL game makes me chuckle.

A final obstacle: even if the referendum passed, the prince would have the power to veto it -- though analysts say it's more likely he would resign his duties and retire from politics.

Head of Parliament: "The referendum to remove the royal power of veto is passed unanimously."

Prince: "Vetoed."

Parliament: "Dammit."

Prince: [troll_face.jpg]

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm MORE okay with monarchy given that historical context.

"Who said you get to be king?"
"Grandpa bought this damn land. He and dad are dead, so I'm king."

Moreso with this?: Alois' father Hans-Adam II, who transferred sovereignty to his eldest son in 2004 but officially remains head of state...

If you could buy 62 square miles of land and declare your land a separate country and yourself king, wouldn't you do it? And wouldn't you be pissed if the uppity people who lived on your land started telling you what you could and couldn't do in your country?

shivashakti: Good. Remove all vestiges of monarchy. It's ridiculous that this person should have an overriding veto over things the people want simply because he was born into a certain family.

This is 2012.

In a 2003 referendum the people voted to redo the constitution. They retained they princely veto, and extended him more power.

Hell, women only got the vote in 1984

dugrik: Good for him for putting the issue in the correct light. Either he's a real monarch or a private person. They have to choose. None of this farcical cosplay circus act they do in England.

Actually, I believe that the British Monarchy retains the Royal Veto, at least in theory.
In principle, it's a useful check and balance against the nuttier actions of the Government.

I knew Liechtenstein had a prince because it is a principality. Monaco is the same thing, though it's constitution was modified in 1962 giving the prince only limited powers (he sits on a council with 18 other elected members).

Lichtenstein really is Western Europe's last dictatorship.

Copper Spork: The monarch can also refuse to allow bills to be read in parliament. The current Queen did that once, for a private bill giving sole control of the armed forces over to the Prime Minister.

Lol, they tried wut? I hadn't heard about that one, thanks for sharing :)

I did read some interview from an ex-PM about his first private meeting with the Queen after his election. He'd basically been thinking "oh this'll be a nice genteel chat with the old duck", but what happened was:

Queen: Would you like a cup of tea?
PM: Yes ma'am, thank you.
Queen: So, what do you think about [complex issue of the day]
PM (struggling because he'd been focused on the election and had no real knowledge of the issue): Um ... well ...
Queen: [detailed and sophisticated analysis of the topic and its political implications]
PM: Er ... yes ... I completely agree.
Queen: *pause as she realises he's struggling*
*politely swaps to chit-chat*
....
PM (to staff after interview finished): WTF just happened?!?
Staff: Well sir, she actually reads all the reports we send her.
PM: All of them? Oh god!

/even funnier if you imagine the latter conversation as playing out between characters in Yes, Minister.

Holy crap, I didn't know Liechtenstein was one of the last principalities to the Holy Roman Empire

Trance750: I don't know much about British political system, but I have heard the Queen can remove the Prime Minister via Royal Decree

Is that true?

The Queen picks the Prime Minister, and can get rid of him whenever she wants to. Having said that, the last time that the monarch picked a Prime Minister who wasn't either leader of the majority or leader of a coalition with the most votes was over a century ago.

The monarch can also refuse to accept bills passed by parliament into law. The last time that happened was about three hundred years ago, and involved giving Scotland its own army.

The monarch can also refuse to allow bills to be read in parliament. The current Queen did that once, for a private bill giving sole control of the armed forces over to the Prime Minister.

SirEattonHogg: However, I did know that Nepal had a monarchy and switched over to a Maoist govt a few years ago, so I suppose that gives me points for trivial information of almost no bearing to 99.9% of American's lives.

do you know that because they were all gunned down by a family member?

Honest Bender: The tiny principality of Liechtenstein has been rattled by a war of words between activists who want to revoke the royal veto and the hereditary prince, who has threatened to quit if they do.

people: "We want to fire you."
Prince: "If you fire me, I'll quit!"

Where's the conflict here?

I think they want him to stay around and be a (more of a) figure head. He wants to be relevant in the government.

dugrik: Good for him for putting the issue in the correct light. Either he's a real monarch or a private person. They have to choose. None of this farcical cosplay circus act they do in England.

About that...

"Yeah, so, apparently Lichtenstein has a prince, who knew?"

Everyone with an IQ over 100?

A truly benevolent kingdom is probably the best government we could hope for. The selfishness and the intelligence bell-curve ensures Democracy's failure.

UsikFark: Speechless:
[i48.tinypic.com image 319x213]

Dammit, you beat me to it.

dugrik: None of this farcical cosplay circus act they do in England.

I still believe that they're only around just to give the tabloids something to write about.

Sort of a subsidy to the newspaper industry if you will...

Good, maybe they can become a real country instead of some guy's private country club.