CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: The parties I state are "against Brexit" were against it before the referendum. Now that the people voted in favor of Brexit, they are for a "soft" Brexit, as opposed to the "hard" Brexit that the Conservatives seem to be in favor of. The difference between the two is complicated, but mostly centers around trade with the EU.
Knowing Better Two things you did wrong. Referred to the British isles some people get really annoyed but hey. Also half of Northern Ireland will "be unhappy" at you calling them British.
You mentioned that each of the countries in the UK have their own devolved parliament - this is true for every country except England, which doesn't have a devolved parliament of its own.
Same - British; but Scottish, not English. And - pre-Brexit - I was equivocal on independence. Post-Brexit, though - given that Brexit kills our current access to the EU - I'm more inclined to independence.
In Italy, the region where Venezia is is called Veneto and if you call a Veneto Italian it may get angry... I'm not saying all of them but most will. In the 90s there was a party largely voted by them which wanted indipendence
Just to correct you as a British citizen, Scotland and Wales have their own governments that are semi autonomous from Parliament. England doesn't have it's own separate government.
Nutty G No, England is simply ruled directly from Westminster rather than having a devolved government like the other constituent countries; imagine a US territory, say D.C, ruled directly by Congress but it’s instead the most populous part of the US.
@@Aliztro Of course it does, it is the biggest by country, in land and in size of population. That is why the snp are constantly moaning about getting the government they never voted for.
It should be pointed out the role the Queen is overly exaggerated, all appointments such as the lords are recommended to the crown by the Prime Minister of the day. The Queen whether limited by law, convention or just a sense of duty will not act without her government's approval. If you look back at the history of the UK government it all came about as a way of limiting the power of monarch. Britain sort of has an unspoken arrangement where the Queen and her family get to rule forever and a day just as long as they do everything the Parliament and the government tells them to do. This means that actually most power is really in the hands of the Prime Minister.
ejcmoorhouse technically speaking the Queen's powers have been devolved to her ministers and thus the powers are still the Queen's she just doesexercise them directly.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 If you want to be really technical, technically speaking Parliament and the government exists to advise the Queen on how to exercise her powers.
ejcmoorhouse excepth that the Queen has exercised her right to veto a government proposal. Back in the days of the nice Mr Cameron it was decided that Civil Servants would lose the Queen's Birthday from their annual leave entitlement. When Her Majesty learnt of this she made Mr Cameron aware that this holiday is in her prerogative to bestow or remove from her civil servants and not the governments. This is a defacto example of the Queen exercising her veto, albeit in a minor way. All government rule at the monarch's pleasure. Their powers are devolved to them by the monarch. The monarch invites the leader of the party with the largest number of seats to form their new government. However, this means that, as you so rightly point out that both the government and Parliament, which includes the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons, advise the monarch. However, the monarch can overrule either house or the government if they decide that it is in the best interest of the country. I can only think of only one time that a British monarch has exercised this right, when Edward VII signed the Parliament Act of 1908, which had been rejected by the House of Lords.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 even then the Parliament Act was supported by the government of the day so that the unelected lords would be unable to block the elected house of commons.
Great video, but I think the power of the Queen is overstated. Most of her powers, such as appointing ambassadors or giving royal assent to laws, are done with 'the advice of Cabinet', which essentially means Cabinet decides and she rubber stamps it. She could technically still exercise these powers independently, but I think realistically if she did there would be a major constitutional crisis.
Yeah, it's all technically within her authority. For example she could fire the PM at any point and be entirely within her legal rights and authority, but that would cause such a constitutional crisis that the government would probably collapse and the monarchy would be over within seconds.
yeah, if she really uses her theoretical power against the parliament, there will be a revolution instantly and a “Republic/Federation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” will be created.
Agree but it's scary how much technical power is still with the monarch 😳 I'm not a fan of the monarchy. Seems to be glossed over in the UK. As a British citizen there was a surprising amount I learnt from this video
Especially considering George III once tried to go against them, only for them to immediately reinstate the former prime minister (whom he replaced) and threaten to abolish the entire monarchy if he tried it again. Since then, no monarch has tried. Reminds me of when the House of Lords vetoed a tax bill so the House of Commons literally abolished them, after the House of Lords pleaded, they lost veto rights instead so now they can only delay or recommend alternatives.
Sorry man, but there are a few but big mistakes: - Labour is not against Brexit, but wants a different approach (the soft Brexit) - This vote wasn't really a re-vote on Brexit but rather a failed attempt to solidify majority of the conservative government as they had an extremely good lead in polls at the time of the announcement of the snap election
+whelpsounds I guess a follow-up question would be was Labour for Brexit before the Brexit vote? Like, now that "we are all leavers" are they for the softer version of leaving just to win over votes...? Because I did do my research, I could've swore I saw that they were against...
Before the referendum they were remain but not that vocal about it. Famously Corbyn said something like he is "3 out of 5" (or something similar) for staying inside the EU. The party was divided. After the referendum they accepted it but again were not taking any sides on hard or soft Brexit, but generally were pro-Brexit. Only the past few weeks they started mentioning that a soft Brexit would be the better solution. Actually there is no larger "anti-Brexit/pro-EU" party in the UK anymore, just soft or hard Brexit
"Ever since the Brexit vote they have been pushing for independence" m8 the Scottish National Party (SNP) are an independence party, they've been pushing for it since they were formed not just since Brexit
Generally very good. But a vote of no confidence is not like impeachment. Constitutionally, an impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors". A vote of no confidence is always about policy, and implies that the government can no longer command a majority in parliament.
Your analogy of the countries in the UK being like States and they are subordinate to the UK Government is slightly inaccurate, because England doesn't have its own parliament - laws for England are made in Westminster, the same as laws that affect the UK as a whole. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own governments or national assemblies that can make laws that have been devolved to them from Westminster.
@Morgan W Rees Pretty much. Although it's worth noting that the main difference between the UK and the US is that in the US, the states give power to the federal government but in the UK, the government gives power to the national assemblies/parliaments through devolution.
@@tomrichards9895 Well, the states GAVE power to the federal government. I think the theory that the states GIVE power to the federal govenment seems to have been 'disproved' by the Civil War. P.S.: Sorry for any Neo-Confederates I attract.
Also two years late the queen has no real power In government while her power still theoretically exist she’s hasn’t exercised that power ever; for example it might be Her Majesty’s Military but the PM has more of a say in military affairs same with embassies and ambassadors they’re in the name of the crown but they work for parliament
You're best taking what Jay says as entertainment, rather than fact. His goal is to be entertaining, so he fudges facts to fit his entertainment narrative.
9:25 Also worth mentioning that the DUP is a Northern Ireland only party and that their main purpose is to represent people who want NI to stay a part of the UK instead of joining the Republic of Ireland.
The Isle of Man shouldn’t be coloured red in the map at the start of the video. It’s not part of England - in fact, it’s not part of the UK at all, merely a Crown Dependency, like Jersey and Guernsey
but the people of the Isle of man and Jersey and Guernsey (channel islands) are British citizens with British passports but are a Crown dependency and not part of the UK
Just a small point. A majority is not actually 326 seats in most elections. It is (650-x)÷2 seats where x is the number of seats won by Sinn Féin (this time 7) because Sinn Féin is an abstentionist party.
I thought this should have been mentioned, along with the fact that the DUP is a Unionist party that only stands in Northern Ireland. The way the video sounded it was like it was just a ultra right wing party that stands all over the UK. Whilst you are technically right on Sinn Fein, and I don't doubt what you say is true, the reason that you don't need 326 seats to form a majority government in the UK is that Sinn Fein MPs will never take their seats in the Westminster parliament because to do so they would have to swear allegiance to the Queen, something they will never do as they don't accept the legitimacy of her rule over the 6 counties of Ulster that form Northern Ireland. Now it may be splitting hairs that you say it is because they are abstentionist party and I say it is because they refuse to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, but it isn't really because they are just abstentionist. If they didn't have to swear this allegiance and could bring about unifying Ireland, if a vote on this was on the cards, then maybe they would take their seats, but I guess we'll never know. Whilst I appreciate their stance I think they are letting their constituents down by not having their say, and by casting their vote, especially with Brexit happening, the Irish border situation, and everything being so tight at the moment. This is a very important time for Northern Ireland, for the whole of the UK so whilst I understand why they take the stance they do, the DUP and Sinn Fein have mopped up all of the seats of Northern Ireland from the likes of the SDLP (which is in effect the Labour party of NI) and the Ulster Unionists so by not taking their seats a huge number of people just aren't represented in Westminster, which I just don't think can ever be a good thing.
@@placeholder1308 a party that abstains from the electoral process on a matter of x principle. In this case what sinn fein views as an illegal occupation of Northern Ireland by the British government is the point of contention. To take ur seat in parliament you must swear an oath of allegiance to the queen, which is fundamentally against what Sinn Fein is for. So they get their seats, but dont actually ever sit in parliament in protest of a non united free irish state
Obviously I'm unsure of you're opinions on the whole matter but I found it rather heartwarming that many Scots were coming out with things like 'you can't get rid of us that easy' and 'we stand together', I've always really quite enjoyed England and Scotland's relationship but I've always felt as if the Scots didn't like England at all what with the perceived constant push for independence, all politics aside it reassured me that some over the border also felt that communion might be better than standing alone
Mark i think you are thinking about this too much. If your a Northerner you mock Southerners and vise versa. I think the main thing with the scot accents, as you pointed out, is that there isn't much difference in the regional accents. I found in my travels of Scotland that some accents are just at a different pitch whereas , again as you pointed out, being from London is vastly different to being from Newcastle. In a way to compare the two, the difference in Scottish accents is similar to the difference in London accents. Would you be able to tell where in London someone is from by listening to them. But then it doesn't matter because northerners wont give a s***, we are all just southern fairies xD.
@Taffy 83: Bah, I too am Welsh, and we mock everyone, equally, including ourselves.... Well... least we do in the Valleys, but the Valleys are, according to everyone who lives outside them, wierd! :P But yes, I do agree, generally the 'rivalry' between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are friendly, at least to the vast majority of us. Of course, there are hardliners and idiots in every nation, and they shout loudest at times.
@@TomatoToMaToes69 Having lived in England long enough to lose my accent, I can say that the way some English people talk about Scotland is really horrible. Some (not a massive number, but quite a few) talk about us like we're unruly serfs or something.
I think your overplaying the queens powers; she basically doesnt have any, and her role is mostly ceremonial and traditional. She certainly cannot declare war independently of government.
Just because she does not use her power it should not be under estimated. Just consider what happened to the Whitlam Government in Australia during the 1970s (and yes I know he was sacked by the Governor General but they have substantially similar powers to the Queen).
The situation of the Monarch's powers is just the opposite of the situation with our current President: it would be unheard of for a British Monarch to rule in violation of all the facts presented by the experts, although it's legally possible; while our President thinks he has absolute power, speaks at rallies and tweets that he has, but is limited by Congress, although at the moment it's unheard of within the majority party to point that out.
Allan Richardson ughh, good god.. Obummer was the worst power hungry president next to Bush ( yes they both suck) Everything is better right now, yet you butt hurt, psychos find things to bitch about. he said this, he said that.. big damn deal, people did not vote for a pope, they voted for a change. If you are not able to see all the corruption that has been going on for years starting to show itself, you are just not wanting to see. Screw the left and the right, different sides of the same coin. They are all corrupt, and that should bother you.
You should speak to a constitutional lawyer about that. Those theoretical powers of the Queen to act outside of the advice of the Government simply don't exist in any real sense. If, for example, she tried to withhold Royal Assent, then that would be quashed by the Supreme Court based on precedence. There is history. Parliament has removed three monarchs and has passed acts when there's been no monarch to give assent. This argument between Parliament and the Monarchy was decided back when James II was kicked out of power.
The big difference between the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom and the federation of state governments in the United States is that the UK Parliament can dissolve the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland by simply passing a law while the US Congress cannot dissolve state governments. The US Constitution prevents Congress from dissolving state governments. The UK government has Parliamentary Sovereignty which holds that the legislative branch has supreme power over the other branches including the judicial branch. In contrast, the US government has Separation of Powers with three separate co-equal branches of government.
It is even goofier than that. Westminster Parliament takes full authority in England for anything English-with it's non-English MP's fully empowered. In simple; Scots and Irish have a say, for example, how the English NHS is run but the Scots and Irish run their own NHS to their taste. It is quite strange to me that devolution can be so selective and unequal.
The worst case of this was when Tony Blair introduced University fees in England and Wales. He needed the Scottish Labour MPs to pass the legislation, even though in Scotland University is devolved and still free. Interestingly enough, Yorkshire has a higher population than Scotland but has 3 less MPs and no devolved parliament and yet the Scottish still have the gall to act like they have less political power than the English.
Of course more English MPs voted on it. The point is that if the Scottish Labour MPs had the decency not to vote on an English only issue, it would not have had a parliamentary majority and the bill would not have passed. The SNP used to respect this and not vote on English issues, but then they won a lot of seats and well, power corrupts. And yes they make the budget argument but they vote on stuff that has no impact on the budget. Again you miss my point.. Yorkshire is 4 county's but that isn't important. It has a larger population of than Scotland but has less MPs therefore they have less representation in parliament than Scotland does per capita. Representation should be based on the amount of people. The power of the voice of the Scottish people should be about equal to that of Yorkshire people because they have very similar populations (about 5.3 million as of the 2011 census) but the political voice of Yorkshire is significantly smaller. So based on what you said it sounds like you think it would be fair for England and Scotland to have the same amount of MPs because they're both equal countries? How is this fair? Their are literally 10 times as many people in England as their are in Scotland therefore unless you think that Scottish people deserve 10 times the say of English people that is clearly unfair. It is a union of equals, each individual is equal, their just happens to be 10 times as many people in England. Yorkshire was never a Kingdom. There was however the Kingdom of Northumberia which at it's peak spread from the Humber to the Firth of Forth. But that is a historical note and not important to the discussion.
I'll try and keep it short because fundamentally I think we both agree, we just got stuck in the mud a little (also my original comment was purposefully antagonistic to a degree). I think I would agree with your potential model of the UK with independent governments running the day to day business of each nation within the Union, then a Union government for foreign affairs, defense, major infrastructure etc. However due to the size of England I think it would need to be split up, potentially using the old 7 Kingdoms as the starting point for the separation. I think I know how you feel about being run by England, here in the North is very much feels like the South East and especially London has control over us. If you look at the spending per capita for the UK regions the disparity is quite shocking. If I recall correctly Scotland does get more money per capita but that is explained by the increased infrastructure costs in the Highlands and Islands so I'm not going to gripe about it. But I do feel that Yorkshire gets the short stick constantly, we have one of the lowest per capita spending and we've had none of the devolution seen in other parts of England with the majors. I genuinely believe a Yorkshire regional government would be a massive boost and trust me we'll agree with you up in Scotland far more than with the Londoners.
And by 'advice'; that's just legal shorthand for 'instructions'. If any British sovereign tried to do anything on their own initiative (as you're no doubt absolutely well aware), there'd be a massive overhaul of the entire system.
Oh, by the way, the Scots have been pushing for independence since before Brexit, with a vote on independence in 2014 giving a strong answer of "No", with 55% of the ~3.6 million valid votes (i.e. not ballot papers that had been messed around with, like writing a new option on for example) voting against a split. Since Brexit, however, the SNP (Scottish National Party) have been pushing for a second referendum on whether or not they should split from the UK. Also, if you want to know all 8* parties that won seats, they are (in order of seats won, then location in which they were candidates): Conservatives (317, UK-wide) Labour (262, UK-wide) Scottish National Party (35, Scotland only) Liberal Democrats (12, UK-wide) Democratic Unionist Party (10, Northern Ireland only) Sinn Féin (7, NI only) Plaid Cymru (4, Wales only) Green Party (1, UK-wide) *There was also one independent candidate, Sylvia Hermon (formerly a member of the Ulster Unionist Party), who won in the Northern Ireland constituency of North Down.
Ronster1703, technically the Greens would be England and Wales only as Scotland and Northern Island have their own different Green Parties. For example the Green Party of England and Wales with one seat in Brighton (Caroline Lucas) is led by Johnathon Bartley and Sian Berry. The Green Party of Scotland has no UK wide seats but 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament and is led by Patrick Harvey and Maggie Chapman.
Oh, btw, to anyone interested in the German system: it's mostly the same except all our officials are elected (either directly or indirectly or they are the president whose election is ... weird) and our election system is different (and our army is entirely controlled by parliament). This is because our government was modelled on that of the UK.
I know this point has kind of already been made here, but you really do misunderstand the role of the Queen in UK politics. Yes, she theoretically has all the powers you described, however in reality she doesn't make any of the decisions. The Prime Minister and elected government makes all of those choices (inc. ambassadors, members of the House of Lords and declaring war) and the Queen simply rubber stamps them.
The fact that the prime minister has to continually verbally explain her government to the queen probably has the effect that the government has to do things that make sense, not off the cuff and not without reason - A trump would sound very silly.
1:32 Small correction here, while Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland do have their own devolved parliaments and governments which are subordinate to the UK Parliament and Her Majesty’s Government in Westminster, for a number of reasons England does not. Mainly because 533 of the 650 constituencies that send MP’s to the UK Parliament are English, so it wasn’t seen as necessary for the already dominant English population to have their own parliament alongside the national one.
Something funny: if the government of any commonwealth nation wanted to sue another commonwealth government (or the uk), the lawsuit is titled as the queen of x vs the queen of y. She's basically suing herself.
A slight correction, In parliamentary democracy, the head of state (monarch in the U.K. , President in India) can declare war on the advice of Prime minister and his/her council of minister .In simple term ,it is the head of government's job to do so not the head of state. Similarly while levying taxes on citizens.
@hognoxious comparing our countries to American States definitely triggered me a bit but for the most part he was pretty sound, especially when you keep in mind that he's trying to make it understandable to an American audience.
@@SuperSupermanX1999 Why did it bother you, if I can ask? Aside from England not having its own national government, the comparison is fairly apt. You could compare England to DC (Since, lacking its own devolved government, is at the mercy of the U.S. Federal government,) and Scotland, Wales, and NI being analogous to states.
@@Julianna.Domina England isn't really comparable to DC since we still vote for MPs and, because the majority of the population is English, the government in Westminster basically functions as the English one. Devolution also isn't the same as American states. In the US each state is it's own fairly autonomous entity and there's pretty strict controls on what the federal government can do. That's not thr case in the UK. Our constitution is built on Parliamentary sovereignty, which basically means Parliament can do anything it wants. There is no separation of federal and state authorities. Instead, the Welsh Assembly has limited powers granted to it by Parliament, allowing it to make certain decisions within Wales. But Parliament can withdraw that power whenever it likes (it's limited by politics, not the law). So really that's why. Parliament and the devolved coubtries have a fundamentally different relationship from what States have to the US federal government.
@@lcmeagleton3959 tbf even most of us don't fully understand the extent of the queen's powers. Plus when you start talking about the royal prerogative and how it belongs to the queen but is exercised on her behalf by the PM etc etc etc it's a little beyond the scope of this video haha
The monarch's powers are mostly titular: in theory the Lords are appointed by the crown, in practise it's the government who do so. In theory, the monarch runs the military, in practise it's the government etc. etc. Other than that, this was a really good job at explaining a complicated and difficult system to people not familiar with it. As a footnote, the hereditary lords were removed years ago. Our hereditary aristocracy's political power now extends as far as opening country fairs and complaining about property tax.
Then to make things a little more complicated. The DUP is one of the main parties in Northern Ireland. NI overall wanted to remain in the EU even though the DUP do not. NI's biggest worry about brexit is creating a boarder of any kind between NI and the Republic of Ireland. This would be bad for both Countries. The DUP don't really want this either but not at the cost of being treated differently to the rest of the UK. Ireland (the republic of) as well as the rest of the EU won't let brexit proceed unless there is a guarantee that there will be no boarder on the Island of Ireland. The easy solution would be but the border on the Irish sea. Which is probably what Thersea May would like to do. That would annoy the DUP which wouldn't normally be a problem (pretty much everything annoys them) except that the conservatives now need the DUP to stay in government. So the one solution is no longer an option. I won't even go into the complicated mess of NI where they currently have no government as DUP (the right wing pro union with Britain party) can't come to a power sharing agreement with Sinn Fein (the liberal left wing party who want a united Ireland) as Sinn Fein will want things like Gay Marriage, Abortion Rights and protection for the Irish Language in NI as part of that power sharing agreement.
Brexit will proceed, art.50 has been triggered, but the bespoke deal the UK wants depends on a bespoke deal about the transparency of the border in NI. You can't have one without the other. (NI reminds me to the knights who always say NI!)
The Good Friday Agreement specifically states that the border is free and open. If the UK wants to break this agreement it will undo so many years of negotiations. What also complicates things is the Common Travel Agreement that allows Irish citizens free movement and employment in the UK and vice versa. A hard border would violate this snd a soft border would be difficult to ensure that purely Irish and UK citizens get to cross. The Northern government also does not want a customs zone separate from the UK.
Really enjoyed this vid. Thanks for making it! Even if your description is not 100% for everyone's taste you illuminated the differences and similarities very well. I'm English for the records btw.
Thanks for this video! I am about to start reading The Downing Street Years, Margaret Thatcher's autobiography and wanted a primer on the system of government in the UK and being an American this was very clear and concise.
Her Majesty the Queen is head of state and head of the armed forces as you say. But the convention is that all of her real powers have long since been delegated to Her Majesty's Government. The exceptions are called the reserve powers. She appoints a government but only after the will of the people is known, she can dismiss the government (because you can't leave the government in charge of dismissing themselves) and she appoints ministers including the PM. It is a really strong system as all substantial matters are decided by the Government but the head of government (PM) is denied the highest status. In an emergency the Crown can act. A bit like how your car has high tech power assisted computer controlled hydraulic brakes but if they fail you still have an old school lever attached to a cable you can use. The Queen is the old school backup system of government.
We've only had one of those so far. And the provision for conventions to propose amendments, and conventions to ratify amendments, is very vaguely worded; perhaps the founders intended THAT to be the backup system for proposal by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of existing state legislatures. -- Who would call for organizing a Constitutional Convention? Obviously Congress would not without pressure from some other authority. Maybe resolutions by 3/4 of the state legislatures? -- Who would attend such a convention as delegates? Members of one party only, or a bipartisan group? -- How would delegates to a convention be selected? How many, and how would they be allocated by state? -- Would it be able to propose more than one amendment? Would the delegates be able to vote on each proposal separately, or only on a leadership-proposed package of amendments? And how would that leadership be selected? -- After proposal (or after a proposal from Congress, for that matter), would ratification in some states by legislature and in other states by state conventions count together, or does it require 3/4 (38 as of now) of legislatures regardless of state conventions, or 3/4 of conventions regardless of legislatures? -- Would ratification of an entire package be necessary, or ratification of each individual amendment be acceptable? -- And there would surely be many other questions.
BlueHawkPictures I do, and I was half punning when I said we’ve only had one so far, meaning the one in 1787. The Constitution resulting from that convention allows for two way to propose amendments and two ways to ratify them; we have since had 27 amendments proposed the first way (by Congress) and all 27 ratified the first way (by state legislatures). The instructions for both these processes are precise and simple, since Congress and the state legislatures already exist. The second way of proposing an amendment is by a convention, like the 1787 convention, but its makeup and the procedure for calling it are vague and haven’t yet been determined, hence the questions I raised in my post, which have not yet been answered (by anyone, not by you in this stream). As for ratification by convention, the process is even more vague, but I doubt if the founders intended for the same body to be allowed to ratify amendments that it proposed, since they were careful to split the two phases into Congress or a convention (singular), and the state legislatures or conventions (plural). Hence the questions I raised about the ratification process, to which there are also no answers yet. If you’re talking about a convention to COMPLETELY rewrite the existing Constitution, as the 1787 convention completely rewrote and replaced the Articles of Confederation, most of us would see some problems with that. First of all, since such a convention would be called with the INTENTION to overthrow the Constitution, it would technically be treason, and could only be held safely in another country, which is friendly to Americans as people but doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the United States, and is strong enough to defend the convention from attack by invading US forces (and special ops, like Navy Seals). Would that be Russia by any chance? And secondly, any state legislature that discussed ratification would also be committing treason against the Constitution. Something like that was tried around 1860, and it didn’t work out that well. So yes, I understand both senses in which the phrase may be used. I just chose to focus on the former, already legal, type of convention.
Allan Richardson No, you don't know what constitutional conventions we're talking about. A constitutional convention isn't anything written down in a document. It is more of an unspoken rule with legal consequences if broken. It's a convention in the sense that it's ongoing practice and not in the sense of some kind of gathering or event. Like the original comment, the queen would choose a prime minister. She is able to choose anyone to form a government as long as it's able to command the confidence of the house of commons. However it's a constitutional convention to only choose a member of the party with the most seats. In Canada, we have a constitution similar in principle as the british, so we got plenty of them as well and most conventions center around the governor general's power. He is the one to appoint the ministers to the cabinet, however it is a constitutional convention for him to appoint of the 'advice' of the prime minister, which in practice means the prime minister appoints them. These 'rules' are not written in the constitution or anywhere for that matter, they are just ongoing practices that emerge out of responsible government.
I'm from Italy and here the government work exactly like UK but there's a president of the republic instead of the king (there is a little difference but it's the same, only without all cool adjectives like "royal" or "his majesty"). We have many parties too, which is kind of annoying because nobody is able to win the elections with the majority and we always take months to establish a government which will fall in less than a year. We're so stable...
Loris Ducly I’m half Italian so I can understand where you are coming from and though I have to say that Italy is not particularly unified (culturally speaking) in comparison to its neighbours pre unification Italy was not in anyway better off post unification just look at the way the Jesuits and Papal States imposed a theocracy in the midlands, how the kingdom of the two Sicillies was still stuck in a feudal system where people were literally starving to death or northern Italy practically being dominated by the Austrians, if Italy had not unified it would be simply a collection of failed states and extensions of foreign powers.
@@qv8281 Your answer isn't stupid at all I guess, but the fact is that the main problem of Italy is to keep together many different people. You can see it everywhere: Italy is divided in two. South votes something, north another thing. Interests, morality and thoughts are different 'cause the culture is different. You are right in what you say and I don't totally believe in a politically divided Italy but sometimes you could think it is not a bad idea
Sorry The house of Lords section was wrong. The lords are appointed yes but by the PMs. There are only 80 seats for actual lords, these are elected by the actual lords. Party info was also wrong
Very good indeed and as a Brit I definitely learned some things from this about my own Government. However, the election you were referring to was (although sudden) a standard general election to decide (or should I really say, confirm) parliamentary representation for all the constituencies in the UK and nbt a second Brexit vote (although I wish it was). Theresa May called for this election because she was not the leader of the Conservative party at the time of the last election. Although she was voted in by the people as the MP for Maidenhead (and still is). She believed that this was an opportunity to cement her claim to the PM-ship and to increase her parties majority in parliament. She was wrong, however, because although they remained the largest party they lost a significant number of seats to labour and had to form a coalition government with the DUC to hold onto the majority they needed to form a government. all in all, a bad move by Theresa here. I can't believe she is still hanging on in there to this day.
8:42 - They can also form what's called a "Minority Government" as well, where the government doesn't have the required 326, but can govern by working case by case with different parties on different votes so they have 326 votes on any given vote, without any formal coalitions. Obviously though this arrangement is the least stable since it requires the government to constantly jockey for votes. This is what happened to Boris Johnson for his time as Prime Minister before the 2019 election after a huge amount of his party were kicked out for voting against him.
Nihilistic Arson they are. We are in a hung government and the DUP filled in the seats the tories couldn’t get. Just because they don’t have a cabinet position doesn’t mean they aren’t in a coalition
Leopardr no, it is a minority government. A coalition would mean they were working together to make policy, but that is not the case. The DUP simply agrees to support Conservative bills when they go through. The UK has only had 2 coalitions, 2010 and one in the 1900's, both of which had cabinet members from both parties.
Their agreement contains policy guidelines and the formation of a commitee to coordinate votes in the House of Commons. Sounds like a coalition to me. Maybe a weak one but a minority government would have no such agreement but would depend entirely of case by case allies to fill in the lacking seats for majorities.
mangalores-x_x no, that is a minority government. The parties are not working together on policy, it's more like the DUP are payed a little to get some more say on policy than they would normally have. If they were a coalition, both parties would have a say in all affairs, however that simply isn't the case, just the DUP have a say in a few points of key party policy.
how can you only have around 7700 subs??? your mini documentaries appeal to the way my mind processes information. i know this is on an older video, and i have spent many a rabbit hole evening binging on your content. Keep up the good work!!
As much as I enjoy your videos generally, I’d say there’s enough incorrect information in here as to be (unintentionally) misleading. If it were me, I’d pull this video down and create a corrected version. Though your channel, your video obviously.
England doesn't have its own government. Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland have their own parliament or assembly and are able to have their own power over certain devolved powers, with the rest being controlled by the UK government. In England we only have the UK government. It's called the West Lothian question and concerns the matter of if it's right that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs have the ability to vote and influence matters that only effect England, when English MPs aren't able to vote on devolved matters that effect Scotland, Wales and NI.
The democratic unionist party only runs in Northern Ireland and isn't the 'tea party' of the UK. It represents Northern Irish protestants who want to remain part of the UK instead of being part of Ireland.
MP's are rarely voted by a majority of any kind. It is "first past the post" which means members are voted in by a plurality. It is the same for the US Representatives but since there is rarely any viable choice in the US candidates win with a majority.
Yes, they only need a plurality, same as in the US with congressional districts, senate seats, or the winner-takes-all of most states' electors and nearly all single-seat elections the US has. Because of the single-seat constituencies and First Past the Post, the UK is *barely* a multi-party system either: that's much more accurate when referring to most countries on the European continent, which tend to have at least some method of achieving proportional representation. That the UK manages to have roughly 10% of MP seats that don't go to the two main parties doesn't really make it a full multi-party system. Compare e.g. to Scandinavian or Benelux countries or even Germany, where government coalitions are the norm and majority rule by a single party hasn't happened since the 19th century in some countries. I guess the why and/or how the UK has some minority party representation anyway is a) tradition of voting for other parties too, and b) small enough constituencies that in some places, smaller parties (especially regional ones like the Irish, Scottish and Welsh ones) stand a chance, both points being quite unlike the US.
You forgot to mention basically no one in Great Britain knew anything about the DUP before the coalition cause the DUP only runs in Northern Ireland, and they were better off not knowing.
While the monarch does theoretically have all the power you just mentioned; the monarch hasnt actually used them since around the 1700s and all the power they do have is in practice given to an advisor, which is appointed by the prime minister
There's a lot of confusion here. What are described as powers of the Queen are often powers under the Royal Prerogative. That's a number of sovereign powers which have been, over history, vested in the government (often in the executive arm). One of those powers is declaring war. If the UK government declared war, then it would be under the Royal Prerogative, and if the Queen attempted to declare war, then it would create an enormous constitutional crisis and would most certainly be deemed illegal by the UK Supreme Court (who interpret UK constitutional law). At the very least it would involve the Queen being forced out out of the role of monarch, and very possibly the end of the institution of the monarchy. Also, all executive powers over the armed services are with the Government. With ambassadors, they are nominated by the Foreign Office acting as an executive arm of the government. Whilst it's true that these appointments have to be approved by the monarchy in principle (as the ambassador represents both the Crown and the government), in practice it's largely a rubber stamp job as nobody is going to be nominate who might embarrass the Queen. What certainly does not happen is the Queen selecting an nominating ambassadors. As far as the institution of the Crown goes, it's the embodiment of the state. When people declare allegiance to the Crown it is to the state and not the particular person who happens to be sitting on the throne. Pretty well any discretionary powers that the monarch might retain are only exercised under advice from the Prime Minister. For example, it's theoretically possible for Royal Assent to be withheld, but that would only be under ministerial advice, and as ministers are always answerable to Parliament, that is never going to happen. In addition, it's Parliament that is supreme and it has the power to remove a monarch. That's happened three times. Once during the civil war when Charles I was executed following a special court set up by Parliament, then when James II was forced off the throne and was deemed to have abdicated by fleeing the country. Then Edward VIII was forced by the government to abdicate in the 20th century. The often archaic language and historical references ought not hide the position that in the UK it's Parliament that is supreme and any powers the Queen retains are not independent ones.
Yet another. Members of the House of Lords are only appointed in the name of the Queen. It's another rubber stamp job. The real power of appointment is via nominations from parties in the House of Commons roughly in line with their proportional representation in Parliament with some independents thrown in. Not very satisfactory, but then the House of Lords has limited powers. The Queen has nor real power of veto. Any attempt to exercise such a veto would cause a constitutional crisis and would not be sustained.
Another. The loss of a vote of confidence is absolutely nothing like an Impeachment. An Impeachment is (at least in theory) a legal procedure levelling a charge of some sort of misconduct against a high official of government (up to the level of President). A vote of confidence is nothing or the sort. It's simply a vote than is nominated as important enough that if the Prime Minister loses it, then he/she has effectively lost the confidence of Parliament. It's normally reserved to particularly important pieces of critical legislation or specifically tabled by the opposition to try an oust a Prime Minister. This hasn't happened since 1979, but it's always possible. What is not required is any form of misconduct by the Prime Minister (such things are either dealt with be criminal law in the normal way, or if it involves breeches of Parliamentary or ministerial conduct, by way of Parliamentary procedures). Note that the fall of a Prime Minister through the loss of a vote of confidence does not necessarily involve a new General Election. In the past a new government might be formed headed by somebody who could get votes passed in Parliament. However, that's very unlikely these days given stronger party discipline, but in Victorian and Georgian times it happened frequently when party and personal alignments were more fluid.
Very good explained. I'm from Germany and for me it was also an explanation of the American system. You've explained complex politic issues in easy english. Thank you for that. I need this to pass my exam here to be able to study. (Sorry for any errors. ;-) )
Look the tories forced budget cuts on the working class and expected to get away with it without paying so everyone else pulled them down as they're heartlands are VERY dependent on European trade all they had to do was leave us alone, the english tories are the reason why i am a scotish natiolalist they have inflicted so much damage folk will never let them be.
Also, Theresa did not call this election to affirm Brexit, it was largely to crush the labour party that had been polling poorly, though when the actual election happened labour support held and they actually took seats, with the Tories losing their majority in the commons and having to do a deal with the democratic unionist party
As a Brit I do get mildly annoyed when my fellow Brits say something like "I didn't vote for (Insert PM's name here)!". You're right, you didn't; no one did. Only the PM's constituents voted for - currently - her, and then only as their constituency representative. They may be be aware that if her party wins she'll more than likely become PM, but they shouldn't be, and I'm guessing many won't be, voting for her on that basis that their mp will also be PM.
What if you have a really bad representative, but you want to have that party have the Prime Minister position? This is the problem in the British system, YOU HAVE NO LOCAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T DETERMINE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE BASED ON GOOD THEY ARE FOR YOUR CONSTITUENCY. It be a lot better if the prime minister was independentely elected, to be more fair
To be fair, most people do seem to vote based on party rather than the character of the candidates themselves. An MP would have to do something really bad (but not necessarily illegal - a sex scandal for instance, or an undeclared conflict of interest) for their constituents to vote away from their MP's party. Saying that, if an MP breaks away from their party and runs as an independent, or joins another party, but has been a force of good for their constituency, the voters will by and large stay with that MP regardless; look at Douglas Carswell when he left the Conservative party to join UKIP and ran a by-election as the UKIP candidate, and won (though I'm not sure how much good he'd done his constituency, and maybe his political shift merely represented the mood of his constituents). As for your final point, directly voting for the head of government in the UK sounds a lot like a presidential system, and even if that was deemed to be a better way it would still necessitate getting rid of the monarchy, and if you say pictures of the royal weddings and births in recent years, you'd understand that there's not a widespread desire to do that. And I say this as a republican...
What if a Labour PM is elected but parliament has a conservative majority? Why are members of the government still MP's? Like a butcher checking his own meat. Separation of powers is an enormous problem within the UK.
We don't directly elect the Prime Minister in the UK. The PM - or potential PM - is the leader of the single largest party in the House of Commons. If this party has an overall majority of the seats in the Commons, then that party's leader is the de-facto PM. What you're describing is the result of a hung parliament,which actually happened at our last election, where the Conservatives were a little short of an overall majority, but still had the most seats held by a single party. Because of this, they had the first chance of forming a government, either by forming some sort of coalition/alliance with another party (which they did by wooing the Northern Irish DUP), or by forming a minority government. If they had failed to form a government, then the chance would have passed to the largest of the opposition parties, in this case Labour. If they too had failed, or their their government didn't last long, then another general election would have happened. Not all MP's that belong to the party that has formed the government are in the government. They are known as the backbenches, while the MP's that are in government are known as either Cabinet or Junior Ministers, depending on their positions. Backbench MPs are expected to vote with their government, but they don't always (and are known as rebels), and can swing votes on legislation against the government. I'd rather have this than some sort of US system where the Head of Government and State can bring in whoever the hell they like into their government
Separation of powers is lost in this way. The executive power (government) is part of the lawgiving power (parliament) and can even appoint judges (juridical power). This leads to the problems the UK is in now. Also Poland is in trouble with the EU because of this. Of course the UK has, at entry to the EU, asked and gotten an exception for this conflict that in other EU members is strictly forbidden. They got this because they were considered 'democratic' enough, not to be forced to change this. Now they them self show that separation of powers is necessary. Together with the district system in elections, the democracy in the UK fails to EU standards. The USA system is even worse, there the president is the one that has executive power, makes laws, and appoints judges. The powers of congress are very limited. They can only use budget control in case of conflict. The vote for Brexit was a clear message to their own government for reforms, and much less a true desire to leave the EU. Because a referendum can be 'kidnapped' in this way, most European countries want to ban referendums.
This is a really great video. Though, I noticed a small error which is that the labour party are not against brexit but would prefer to retain a few key features of EU membership such as retaining membership to the single market and customs union, as well as immediately allowing all EU nationals in the UK to officially become british citizens and not potentially face deportation. :D
The United Kingdom is a sovereign state composed of three countries. Two kingdoms (England and Scotland) and one principality (Wales). Northern Ireland is a _sui generis_ administrative division that, while it is described as a country, is more accurately described as an autonomous province of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Then there are the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey that are the Crown dependencies, autonomous administrative divisions of the United Kingdom, and the British Overseas Territories, last remnants of the British Empire, listed as non-self-governing territories by the United Nations (i.e., colonies).
The House of Lords isn’t just hereditary anymore. The Queen can appoint new Knighthoods and Lordships to anyone. It’s bestowed as an honour to people in the commonwealth (including outside the UK) who excel at their field of expertise. This is why some famous British people are addressed as “Sir” or “Dame”, “Lord” or “Lady”. It’s not politeness, it’s their title like Prof, Dr, Ms. The House of Lords includes people with no hereditary nobility but expertise in a particular field such as Science or Education.
Point of order: To say that the SNP "only ever win in Scotland" is misleading, since they only stand in Scotland anyway, and there are a lot of people in other parts of the UK who would vote for them if they stood in their constituencies (i.e. they are in favour of their policies which need not only apply to Scotland)
Very true, they are a left wing party that has policies; more socialist than the Lib Dems, and less authoritarian than Labour, & more practical than the Greens. They would apeal to a lot of people if not for their obsesion with breaking the county appart.
Even the SNP know they could only ever win in Scotland. It kinda comes with the name, Scottish Nationalist Paty. That's why they don't bother standing in constituencies outside of Scotland
@@AdamBartlett93 True enough, though this is largely because first past the post is frankly terrible. If we actually had a more proportional system though then they would likely gain far more seats then again so would other minor parties in fact probably more than the current results would suggest because first past the post encourages tactical voting that masks voters true preferences by making a vote for a minor party about as effective as a spoiled ballot. Frankly the UK has a diverse enough selection of parties that PR would make more sense, or at the very least if we had actually implemented automatic runoff voting (Alternative Vote as it was called) which is still pretty bad as it has many of the same issues as first past the post and only really fixes the issue of suppressing votes for the more minor parties by eliminating the perverse incentives for tactical voting. Properly proportional representation is really the only way to ensure that all voices get a fair hearing I don't see why a group of peoples voices should count for less because they don't want to ideologically segregate themselves into communes that concentrate their support into a small area where in the nation someone lives shouldn't be relevant to whether their vote counts towards representation of their views in parliament.
The best part is when Theresa May called a snap election thinking it would be a shoo-in, and it ended up being way closer than the Tories expected, which significantly weakened her in the public eye.
I don't think it's particularly fair to call the dup the right wing party "like the tea party" as it's only voted in in northern ireland and you didn't mention shinfein who refuse their seats and alot of members were in someway involved in the IRA...
I don't think it was unfair (the DUP are very right-wing) but inaccurate - he definitely should have said that they were solely Northern Irish. Also, you omitted to mention that the DUP has links to the UVF, UDA etc - organisations which claim any Catholic as a legitimate military target - and oppose the peace process.
In a bunch of ways, referring to the DUP as "being like the Tea Party" is being far too generous to the DUP: they're *deeply* conservative, and a significant part of their support base consists of religious fundamentalists.
I know i'm posting on a 2017 video in 2019 buuuuut. In Canada, the Queen still holds as much power as she holds in Great Britain. The difference is what she does in the UK is done by the Governor General, who acts on her behalf. She still holds the power to call us into wars, and everything else she can do in the UK. The only difference is, at least in Canada, the moment she tries to use her powers is the moment the country will seriously start considering if we really want a monarch.
Well thats not actually much different to the UK, if the Queen ever acts on her own or tries to force our goverment to do something then our parliment has the right to abolish our monarchy.
Fwiw, the section specifically explaining the House of Commons and how MPs are elected and operate in parliament is largely the same in Canada (and many other commonwealth countries that adopted the "Westminster parliament" model)
I don't understand how you were making this level of content for a year and were at less than a thousand subs. I haven't binged your videos in a while, and I don't really read dates too often, but I don't remember seeing a bad one. Doing that for a year and only getting a thousand subs is a travesty. Thanks for sticking through it.
From this explanation of the House of Reps you're pretty close to understanding Australia's system, main difference is we have a Senate instead of the House of Lords that is somewhat similar to the US Senate as districts vote for house of Reps while entire states vote for senators, who serve longer terms. Also we have first past the post instead of simple majority, basically votes are counted then least voted candidate is eliminated and votes recounted with votes for them moved to 2nd preference those voters gave until only winning candidate remains or has received more than 50% of the vote in any round.
Pls do a vid on northern Irish politics, things are very different and you will see why the DUP are not “ultra right wing” and really just represent he views of the Protestant/unionist culture. They are the polar opposites of Sein Fein who boycott Parliament and their main policy is for Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. Although some policy’s of the dup may seem very backwards to non northern Irish people you need to remember that Northern Ireland is a very complicated place with two separate culture split by religion and history and we had to set up a special system in order to end the troubles (sounds not too bad, was actually a 30 year civil conflict between the two cultures. In the past the two party joint ruling system has worked but with votes switching from the less extreme uup and sdlp parties to the more extreme dup and sein fein the system has failed and the northern Irish assembly has not met for 1 and a half years now. Our system is unlike any other and is the best possible in the context, to show what things are really like Northern Ireland was shown to be around 93% Christian while the UK as a whole only around 50% (wider range there) so straight away you can see that Northern Ireland is super religious next you add the factor that the Christians here are split pretty much in half with only a one or two percent edge to the various Protestant churches. So yeah I wholly believe that Northern Ireland needs a video or five ( that’s only the present) p.s my first try uploading this comment crashed youtube
@@TomatoToMaToes69 Not a criticism just elaborating on the use of "Protestant culture" to describe the people of NI or Great Britain. NI has a culture which is a result of the original gerrymandering necessary to create a Protestant majority in any of the Irish provinces. Ulster didn't look like this before partition. The DUP don't represent views of Great Britain, which is far more liberal on the abortion and gay rights issues; these views also isolate them in the island of Ireland, as the current liberal voting trends in the Republic show; social pressure to choose from the two polarities of Sinn Fein and DUP is more important than civil liberties apparently. Ask people in England if they are Protestant, and they won't get it.
There is nooooo way in hell the DUP could be called ‘far-right’. Oh and they’re not in a coalition they are in a confidence and supply agreement apart from that and a few minor errors it was a very good video about foreign politics.
A few points of order.... The Tories/Labour = Republicans/Democrats analogy is far from a perfect fit. From a UK perspective, I'd say that both DNC and GOP are right-of-centre. Even during the neoliberal Blair/Brown years, Labour was Left of centre and has moved properly to the Left under Corbyn. Following the result of GE2017, The Conservative Party did not go into "coalition" with the DUP. The DUP agreed to a "Confidence & supply" deal. This means that the DUP will prop up the Tories on crucial votes but, unlike the Liberal Democrats, are not part of the current government. A Government is appointed by the leader of the winning party. However, they are not obliged to fill their cabinet and other government roles exclusively from their own ranks. Obviously most positions are filled from within the winnning party but a PM is also free to appoint MPs/Lords from any party to government posts. In fact a PM can look outside parliament to fill posts but it is customary for such individuals to be parachuted into a safe parliamentary seat or to be awarded the necessary accolades to get them into the Lords. The Cabinet is only the inner circle of government and there are more ministerial posts outside the Cabinet than in it.
But uh... the tories and the DUP never formed a coalition. They did a deal in which the DUP voted for Tory bills in parliament in exchange for investment in Northern Ireland, but the DUP are not in a coalition and their leader is not deputy prime minister.
I think alot of what you said is true , but in practice very different, especially the Queen's powers , as in theory you are right, but if she ever used them it would be the end of the monarchy and we would most probably go down the lines of becoming a Republic of individual states
I'm British (and a Conservative, although that's not relevant to what I'm going to say.) But the DUP are only really in Northern Ireland and haven't won any seats on Great Britain, so this makes it even more controversial because now you've got the loyalist, pro-hard Brexit party having a larger say in Brexit which is an issue that will greatly affect Northern Ireland as it shares the UK's only land border with the Republic of Ireland.
I meant that they hadn't won any constituencies on the island of Great Britain, only in Northern Ireland, which is true, they have not. I see your point but it's not what I meant.
As much as everything you said about the Queen is *technically* true, shes always just done what the PM has 'advised'. Technically she commands most Commonwealth armies (e.g. UK, Canada, Australia), but if she ever actually tried to use this, say commanded them all to invade france, she knows shed very quickly find herself living in a republic. Well maybe not France actually.
Temporal means secular in this case. Lords Spiritual means bishops of the Anglican Church (formerly, as we know, biships of the Catholic Church), and Lords Temporal means the non-clerical members of the House of Lords, whether hereditary (possibly by an earlier monarch, maybe centuries earlier) or appointed for life by the monarch (but unable to pass the title on to their heirs).
Most of the Lords Temporal are life peers i.e. appointed to the House of Lords for life but unable to pass the title on to their eldest son, but when the composition of the Lords was reformed about 15 years ago they didn’t get rid of all the hereditary peers - there are still 92 places in the Lords for them, when one of them dies all the other hereditary peers (there used to be about a thousand of them) hold an election to fill the vacancy. The House of Lords is still the second-largest legislative chamber in the world, second only to the Chinese National Peoples’ Congress.
It's so good to see someone explain the difference between Britain and the UK! [I live in Wales & many from other countries think it's just England or UK!]
Also, when having a coalition you also have to have a similar ideology. So the SNP, Plaid cymru, Sinn Fein and Labour could form a massive coalition (as all are left wing parties, and 3 of them are secessionist parties)
1:30 The Isle of Man (in the middle of the Irish sea) shouldn't be coloured in with England. It is a separate entity with its own Government that whilst being under the United Kingdom for foreign affairs and defence is not part of it, it is a Crown Dependency I would also say that it was massively misleading that you talked about the powers that Her Majesty has without making the point that in modern times she does nothing without advice to do it from Government.
There are no Counts in the UK. There are, however, Viscounts. Counts are found in continental Europe. The goverment's opposition is call Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We had a civil war, once. between republicans and royalists. It wasn't pretty.
Because it's not relevant to the discussion, the magna carta while still being part of the constitution doesn't exactly hold up much with modern law and the War of the Roses was about a succession crisis.
@@jayteegamble those wars were about claimants to the same throne or for one side to change something. The civil war was literally between Parliament and the King.
@@thetroyboneBut don't forget that there is no written constitution in the UK. There's a lot of case law and and a lot of convention (a sort of that's how it's always been done).
Also slight nitpick: as regards the Commonwealth Realms -that is, the states that the Queen is also Head of State in-like Canada and Australia, etc., technically speaking, those are separate crowns in a 'personal union'. So, basically, the same person just happens to be Queen of Canada and Queen of Australia at the same time, and none of them (there are 15 in total) are in any way subject to one another, and not to Britain. This is something that was established with the 1931 Act of Westminster. One person, several offices. This creates the rather odd situation that the Queen has, on several occasions, had to make statements in support of one of her governments that may contradict one another. This hasn't happened very often, but it has occasionally: for example she has made statements in favour of her Australian government that have contradicted that of her British government. It has been even weirder in the past: because in most monarchies (whether constitutional or absolute), declarations of war are made in the name of the monarch, this created the very odd situation in 1947-48 during the Indo-Pakistan war over Kashmir that her father, King George VI, as King of the newly independent Dominion of India, was simultaneously at war with himself, as King of the also newly independent Dominion of Pakistan. The armed forces of both countries both had sworn oaths of allegiance to him, in respect of the two separate crowns. The present Queen also had a similar situation during the American invasion of Grenada: as she was (and still is) Queen of Grenada, and several Caribbean states of which she was also Queen supported and took part in the invasion, (Barbados, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, St Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis), as well as several states that diplomatically condemned the invasion (including most notably, Britain). Which meant that, technically speaking, she was at the same time taking part in the invasion, resisting it, and condemning it, or people were in her name, all at the same time.
Isle of Man isn't in England or the UK. The Conservatives aren't in Coalition with DUP. Leader of the Opposition has some more powers with Opposition's Day. The Queen has very little power too and less than you said both in a de jure sense and moreso in de facto.
The push for Brexit was not purely to win UKIP voters. It was largely because David Cameron saw his party was massively divided over the EU so he pushed for the referendum in the expectation we would stay in the EU and this would silence the anti eu voices within his party. You also massively overstate the power of the Queen especially when it comes to certain prerogative powers (such as deployment of armed forces) which were passed down to westminster.
Also - England does not have its own parliament. The parliament in Westminster is for UK law and that is it. Which ends up with the Scots, Irish, and Welsh voting on laws for themselves *and* laws that affect the English without the English having an ability to vote on their own laws
KnowingBetter Just to clarify a few things... the DUP is not strictly right wing. They have some extreme views on things like abortion, but their financial policies are quite left wing. However, this is not why they are controversial. The party is closely linked to Irish Unionist terrorist groups (the opposite of the IRA). The UK is supposed to remain neutral to facilitate power sharing in Northern Ireland. If they form a coalition with one party, then they cannot be seen as neutral. The peace in Ireland is fragile. something like this could cause a return to the troubles. of the recent past.
Also, Labour are supporting Brexit. The election was called as the polls showed Labour were weak and the Conservatives were expecting to win a landslide victory. So, neither main party supports Brexit (although Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader is in favour of leaving the EU). The question of the election was supposedly whether we have a hard or soft Brexit. Hard meaning to leave the EU with no trade deal. Soft meaning to leave the EU, but with access to the single market. Labour however, transformed the discussion. They made a case for a fairer society, with emphasis on education and healthcare. Here is where the UK deviates from the US. We are far more open to socialist ideals. Free healthcare, well funded schools and good public services are all important to British people. The Conservatives had been making lots of cuts and while initially these were accepted as necessary following the recession, 7 years on people wanted change.
why dont you try to explain the voting process in one of the countries america has interfeered with, 'which one' i hear you ask, 'there are SO MANY to choose from'. try iran first you will be able to get all the details from the cia as they overthrew the democraticly elected government there. yeah give us a break down on IRAN
Couple of problems. Your comparison between the DUP and the tea party doesn’t hold up. Yes, they are ultra religious conservatives but their base is not necessarily so. They are a northern Irish party and their politics is split between generally Catholic republicans(who want to be part of Ireland) and Protestant unionists (who want to be part of Britain). So votes are more complex than social issues and are based on generations of conflict. The Right in this country is more like Democrat in the Us the DUP are mainstream republican. Our politics skews left. Secondly, the role of the monarch. We have an unwritten constitution and You are getting hung up on writing and technicality. An unwritten constitution is also based on precedent, so tradition. The law may have not changed in 200 years but the precedent has constitutionally changed the role of the monarch. So as you see, names are in the name of the crown. It’s tradition, going back hundreds of years. We don’t change that, nor the armies pledges. But precedent tells us that ambassadors are appointed by the government with the queen giving her stamp. The government decides to go to war, the queen gives her stamp. Precedent has made her a figurehead and precedent is a key aspect of the unwritten constitution. Thirdly the role of the Lords. There are few hereditary Lords in the Lords anymore. They are life peers appointed by the government based on their expertise. Their title does not go to their kids. It has been pointed out that this can be abused under the donations for peerages scandal
Yep! Pretty spot on. When I entered the Canadian Army in 2008 I swore allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada and to her heirs and successors. Love the commonwealth. Here in Canada our Senate is appointed by the governor general, who is appointed the pseudo stand in for Queen Elizabeth II, and it pulls from our elected house of commons parliament. Pretty similar function.
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: The parties I state are "against Brexit" were against it before the referendum. Now that the people voted in favor of Brexit, they are for a "soft" Brexit, as opposed to the "hard" Brexit that the Conservatives seem to be in favor of. The difference between the two is complicated, but mostly centers around trade with the EU.
Yeah, or will you ever?
Thank you for the correction! Was going to storm down to the comments to demand an apology ;)
Knowing Better Two things you did wrong. Referred to the British isles some people get really annoyed but hey. Also half of Northern Ireland will "be unhappy" at you calling them British.
You mentioned that each of the countries in the UK have their own devolved parliament - this is true for every country except England, which doesn't have a devolved parliament of its own.
Lib Dems are still staunchly pro European
Im Scottish (we are british)
Did you vote for independence?
Melody Clark No, I do not want independence
Same - British; but Scottish, not English.
And - pre-Brexit - I was equivocal on independence.
Post-Brexit, though - given that Brexit kills our current access to the EU - I'm more inclined to independence.
In Italy, the region where Venezia is is called Veneto and if you call a Veneto Italian it may get angry... I'm not saying all of them but most will. In the 90s there was a party largely voted by them which wanted indipendence
Torchwood takes place in Wales, and one of the women gets quite violent in an episode when she's called English.
Edit: It's a Dr. Who spin-off.
Just to correct you as a British citizen, Scotland and Wales have their own governments that are semi autonomous from Parliament. England doesn't have it's own separate government.
So does that make England the main ruling body of the UK?
Nutty G No, England is simply ruled directly from Westminster rather than having a devolved government like the other constituent countries; imagine a US territory, say D.C, ruled directly by Congress but it’s instead the most populous part of the US.
@@Aliztro Of course it does, it is the biggest by country, in land and in size of population. That is why the snp are constantly moaning about getting the government they never voted for.
@@brokoblin6284 No because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can make laws for themselves. England can't make laws for itself.
@@robincard1548 oh, ok thanks!
It should be pointed out the role the Queen is overly exaggerated, all appointments such as the lords are recommended to the crown by the Prime Minister of the day. The Queen whether limited by law, convention or just a sense of duty will not act without her government's approval. If you look back at the history of the UK government it all came about as a way of limiting the power of monarch. Britain sort of has an unspoken arrangement where the Queen and her family get to rule forever and a day just as long as they do everything the Parliament and the government tells them to do. This means that actually most power is really in the hands of the Prime Minister.
well the Queen (and royal family) are also the face if great Britain and its colony's (they didnt rebel (stupid US))
ejcmoorhouse technically speaking the Queen's powers have been devolved to her ministers and thus the powers are still the Queen's she just doesexercise them directly.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 If you want to be really technical, technically speaking Parliament and the government exists to advise the Queen on how to exercise her powers.
ejcmoorhouse excepth that the Queen has exercised her right to veto a government proposal. Back in the days of the nice Mr Cameron it was decided that Civil Servants would lose the Queen's Birthday from their annual leave entitlement. When Her Majesty learnt of this she made Mr Cameron aware that this holiday is in her prerogative to bestow or remove from her civil servants and not the governments. This is a defacto example of the Queen exercising her veto, albeit in a minor way.
All government rule at the monarch's pleasure. Their powers are devolved to them by the monarch. The monarch invites the leader of the party with the largest number of seats to form their new government. However, this means that, as you so rightly point out that both the government and Parliament, which includes the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons, advise the monarch. However, the monarch can overrule either house or the government if they decide that it is in the best interest of the country. I can only think of only one time that a British monarch has exercised this right, when Edward VII signed the Parliament Act of 1908, which had been rejected by the House of Lords.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 even then the Parliament Act was supported by the government of the day so that the unelected lords would be unable to block the elected house of commons.
Great video, but I think the power of the Queen is overstated. Most of her powers, such as appointing ambassadors or giving royal assent to laws, are done with 'the advice of Cabinet', which essentially means Cabinet decides and she rubber stamps it.
She could technically still exercise these powers independently, but I think realistically if she did there would be a major constitutional crisis.
Yeah, it's all technically within her authority. For example she could fire the PM at any point and be entirely within her legal rights and authority, but that would cause such a constitutional crisis that the government would probably collapse and the monarchy would be over within seconds.
yeah, if she really uses her theoretical power against the parliament, there will be a revolution instantly and a “Republic/Federation of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” will be created.
and Royal Mail will likely be changed into “Federation Mail” or “National Post System” or “People's Post” lol.
Agree but it's scary how much technical power is still with the monarch 😳 I'm not a fan of the monarchy. Seems to be glossed over in the UK. As a British citizen there was a surprising amount I learnt from this video
Especially considering George III once tried to go against them, only for them to immediately reinstate the former prime minister (whom he replaced) and threaten to abolish the entire monarchy if he tried it again. Since then, no monarch has tried.
Reminds me of when the House of Lords vetoed a tax bill so the House of Commons literally abolished them, after the House of Lords pleaded, they lost veto rights instead so now they can only delay or recommend alternatives.
Sorry man, but there are a few but big mistakes:
- Labour is not against Brexit, but wants a different approach (the soft Brexit)
- This vote wasn't really a re-vote on Brexit but rather a failed attempt to solidify majority of the conservative government as they had an extremely good lead in polls at the time of the announcement of the snap election
+whelpsounds No need to apologize, I'm the one who made the mistake. I should have clarified the difference between hard and soft Brexit.
no worries. Good video other than that :)
+whelpsounds I guess a follow-up question would be was Labour for Brexit before the Brexit vote? Like, now that "we are all leavers" are they for the softer version of leaving just to win over votes...?
Because I did do my research, I could've swore I saw that they were against...
Before the referendum they were remain but not that vocal about it. Famously Corbyn said something like he is "3 out of 5" (or something similar) for staying inside the EU. The party was divided. After the referendum they accepted it but again were not taking any sides on hard or soft Brexit, but generally were pro-Brexit. Only the past few weeks they started mentioning that a soft Brexit would be the better solution. Actually there is no larger "anti-Brexit/pro-EU" party in the UK anymore, just soft or hard Brexit
+whelpsounds Thanks for the clarification. :)
"Ever since the Brexit vote they have been pushing for independence" m8 the Scottish National Party (SNP) are an independence party, they've been pushing for it since they were formed not just since Brexit
The democratic unionist description was also somewhat missing the point.
Generally very good. But a vote of no confidence is not like impeachment. Constitutionally, an impeachment is for "high crimes and misdemeanors". A vote of no confidence is always about policy, and implies that the government can no longer command a majority in parliament.
Your analogy of the countries in the UK being like States and they are subordinate to the UK Government is slightly inaccurate, because England doesn't have its own parliament - laws for England are made in Westminster, the same as laws that affect the UK as a whole. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own governments or national assemblies that can make laws that have been devolved to them from Westminster.
@Morgan W Rees Pretty much. Although it's worth noting that the main difference between the UK and the US is that in the US, the states give power to the federal government but in the UK, the government gives power to the national assemblies/parliaments through devolution.
@@tomrichards9895 Well, the states GAVE power to the federal government. I think the theory that the states GIVE power to the federal govenment seems to have been 'disproved' by the Civil War.
P.S.: Sorry for any Neo-Confederates I attract.
@@Mr.Nichan I was just talking about the theory behind it. Obviously reality is never that cut and clear.
Also two years late the queen has no real power In government while her power still theoretically exist she’s hasn’t exercised that power ever; for example it might be Her Majesty’s Military but the PM has more of a say in military affairs same with embassies and ambassadors they’re in the name of the crown but they work for parliament
I recommend watching Jay Foreman if people want to know a little more, he's funny, education and his videos are to the point
Jay is so funny. I second this.
@@neilwilson5785 I third
Other jay content includes maps and stealing food
You're best taking what Jay says as entertainment, rather than fact. His goal is to be entertaining, so he fudges facts to fit his entertainment narrative.
Map men, map men, we're the men... and this is the map...
9:25 Also worth mentioning that the DUP is a Northern Ireland only party and that their main purpose is to represent people who want NI to stay a part of the UK instead of joining the Republic of Ireland.
The Isle of Man shouldn’t be coloured red in the map at the start of the video. It’s not part of England - in fact, it’s not part of the UK at all, merely a Crown Dependency, like Jersey and Guernsey
but the people of the Isle of man and Jersey and Guernsey (channel islands) are British citizens with British passports but are a Crown dependency and not part of the UK
Paul A I don’t understand your point. I’m saying they shouldn’t be coloured the same as England because they’re not part of England.
Tom Parry-Jones Still Not Independent but British subjects.
Robert Kelly Who’s arguing about independence? I’m saying the Isle of Man isn’t part of England and shouldn’t be coloured the same
Hale Hardy You know people live there, right?
2017- almost 1k subscribers
2019- almost 430k subscribers
Solid growth
Just a small point.
A majority is not actually 326 seats in most elections.
It is (650-x)÷2 seats where x is the number of seats won by Sinn Féin (this time 7) because Sinn Féin is an abstentionist party.
I thought this should have been mentioned, along with the fact that the DUP is a Unionist party that only stands in Northern Ireland. The way the video sounded it was like it was just a ultra right wing party that stands all over the UK. Whilst you are technically right on Sinn Fein, and I don't doubt what you say is true, the reason that you don't need 326 seats to form a majority government in the UK is that Sinn Fein MPs will never take their seats in the Westminster parliament because to do so they would have to swear allegiance to the Queen, something they will never do as they don't accept the legitimacy of her rule over the 6 counties of Ulster that form Northern Ireland. Now it may be splitting hairs that you say it is because they are abstentionist party and I say it is because they refuse to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, but it isn't really because they are just abstentionist. If they didn't have to swear this allegiance and could bring about unifying Ireland, if a vote on this was on the cards, then maybe they would take their seats, but I guess we'll never know. Whilst I appreciate their stance I think they are letting their constituents down by not having their say, and by casting their vote, especially with Brexit happening, the Irish border situation, and everything being so tight at the moment. This is a very important time for Northern Ireland, for the whole of the UK so whilst I understand why they take the stance they do, the DUP and Sinn Fein have mopped up all of the seats of Northern Ireland from the likes of the SDLP (which is in effect the Labour party of NI) and the Ulster Unionists so by not taking their seats a huge number of people just aren't represented in Westminster, which I just don't think can ever be a good thing.
Technically a "majority" is getting more than 50%. Getting the most votes less than 50% is a plurality.
there are other mps that don’t vote like the speaker of the house
What is an abstentionist party?
@@placeholder1308 a party that abstains from the electoral process on a matter of x principle. In this case what sinn fein views as an illegal occupation of Northern Ireland by the British government is the point of contention. To take ur seat in parliament you must swear an oath of allegiance to the queen, which is fundamentally against what Sinn Fein is for. So they get their seats, but dont actually ever sit in parliament in protest of a non united free irish state
scotland has been pushing for independence since looooong before brexit. they had their own referendum about it and everything
Obviously I'm unsure of you're opinions on the whole matter but I found it rather heartwarming that many Scots were coming out with things like 'you can't get rid of us that easy' and 'we stand together', I've always really quite enjoyed England and Scotland's relationship but I've always felt as if the Scots didn't like England at all what with the perceived constant push for independence, all politics aside it reassured me that some over the border also felt that communion might be better than standing alone
@mark,i could just change where you placed scotland in your paragraphs with wales and it would be exactly the same,have a good day my celtic cousin
Mark i think you are thinking about this too much. If your a Northerner you mock Southerners and vise versa. I think the main thing with the scot accents, as you pointed out, is that there isn't much difference in the regional accents. I found in my travels of Scotland that some accents are just at a different pitch whereas , again as you pointed out, being from London is vastly different to being from Newcastle. In a way to compare the two, the difference in Scottish accents is similar to the difference in London accents. Would you be able to tell where in London someone is from by listening to them. But then it doesn't matter because northerners wont give a s***, we are all just southern fairies xD.
@Taffy 83: Bah, I too am Welsh, and we mock everyone, equally, including ourselves....
Well... least we do in the Valleys, but the Valleys are, according to everyone who lives outside them, wierd! :P
But yes, I do agree, generally the 'rivalry' between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are friendly, at least to the vast majority of us. Of course, there are hardliners and idiots in every nation, and they shout loudest at times.
@@TomatoToMaToes69 Having lived in England long enough to lose my accent, I can say that the way some English people talk about Scotland is really horrible. Some (not a massive number, but quite a few) talk about us like we're unruly serfs or something.
I think your overplaying the queens powers; she basically doesnt have any, and her role is mostly ceremonial and traditional. She certainly cannot declare war independently of government.
Just because she does not use her power it should not be under estimated. Just consider what happened to the Whitlam Government in Australia during the 1970s (and yes I know he was sacked by the Governor General but they have substantially similar powers to the Queen).
Technically he is right but the government nominates and suggest all these judges/ lords/ ambassadors/ whatever to the crown
The situation of the Monarch's powers is just the opposite of the situation with our current President: it would be unheard of for a British Monarch to rule in violation of all the facts presented by the experts, although it's legally possible; while our President thinks he has absolute power, speaks at rallies and tweets that he has, but is limited by Congress, although at the moment it's unheard of within the majority party to point that out.
Allan Richardson
ughh, good god.. Obummer was the worst power hungry president next to Bush ( yes they both suck) Everything is better right now, yet you butt hurt, psychos find things to bitch about. he said this, he said that.. big damn deal, people did not vote for a pope, they voted for a change. If you are not able to see all the corruption that has been going on for years starting to show itself, you are just not wanting to see. Screw the left and the right, different sides of the same coin. They are all corrupt, and that should bother you.
You should speak to a constitutional lawyer about that. Those theoretical powers of the Queen to act outside of the advice of the Government simply don't exist in any real sense. If, for example, she tried to withhold Royal Assent, then that would be quashed by the Supreme Court based on precedence. There is history. Parliament has removed three monarchs and has passed acts when there's been no monarch to give assent. This argument between Parliament and the Monarchy was decided back when James II was kicked out of power.
The big difference between the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom and the federation of state governments in the United States is that the UK Parliament can dissolve the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland by simply passing a law while the US Congress cannot dissolve state governments. The US Constitution prevents Congress from dissolving state governments. The UK government has Parliamentary Sovereignty which holds that the legislative branch has supreme power over the other branches including the judicial branch. In contrast, the US government has Separation of Powers with three separate co-equal branches of government.
England does not have it's own parliament.
Should though
It is even goofier than that. Westminster Parliament takes full authority in England for anything English-with it's non-English MP's fully empowered. In simple; Scots and Irish have a say, for example, how the English NHS is run but the Scots and Irish run their own NHS to their taste. It is quite strange to me that devolution can be so selective and unequal.
The worst case of this was when Tony Blair introduced University fees in England and Wales. He needed the Scottish Labour MPs to pass the legislation, even though in Scotland University is devolved and still free. Interestingly enough, Yorkshire has a higher population than Scotland but has 3 less MPs and no devolved parliament and yet the Scottish still have the gall to act like they have less political power than the English.
Of course more English MPs voted on it. The point is that if the Scottish Labour MPs had the decency not to vote on an English only issue, it would not have had a parliamentary majority and the bill would not have passed. The SNP used to respect this and not vote on English issues, but then they won a lot of seats and well, power corrupts. And yes they make the budget argument but they vote on stuff that has no impact on the budget.
Again you miss my point.. Yorkshire is 4 county's but that isn't important. It has a larger population of than Scotland but has less MPs therefore they have less representation in parliament than Scotland does per capita. Representation should be based on the amount of people. The power of the voice of the Scottish people should be about equal to that of Yorkshire people because they have very similar populations (about 5.3 million as of the 2011 census) but the political voice of Yorkshire is significantly smaller.
So based on what you said it sounds like you think it would be fair for England and Scotland to have the same amount of MPs because they're both equal countries? How is this fair? Their are literally 10 times as many people in England as their are in Scotland therefore unless you think that Scottish people deserve 10 times the say of English people that is clearly unfair. It is a union of equals, each individual is equal, their just happens to be 10 times as many people in England.
Yorkshire was never a Kingdom. There was however the Kingdom of Northumberia which at it's peak spread from the Humber to the Firth of Forth. But that is a historical note and not important to the discussion.
I'll try and keep it short because fundamentally I think we both agree, we just got stuck in the mud a little (also my original comment was purposefully antagonistic to a degree). I think I would agree with your potential model of the UK with independent governments running the day to day business of each nation within the Union, then a Union government for foreign affairs, defense, major infrastructure etc. However due to the size of England I think it would need to be split up, potentially using the old 7 Kingdoms as the starting point for the separation.
I think I know how you feel about being run by England, here in the North is very much feels like the South East and especially London has control over us. If you look at the spending per capita for the UK regions the disparity is quite shocking. If I recall correctly Scotland does get more money per capita but that is explained by the increased infrastructure costs in the Highlands and Islands so I'm not going to gripe about it. But I do feel that Yorkshire gets the short stick constantly, we have one of the lowest per capita spending and we've had none of the devolution seen in other parts of England with the majors. I genuinely believe a Yorkshire regional government would be a massive boost and trust me we'll agree with you up in Scotland far more than with the Londoners.
It's worth noting that every power you attributed to the queen (appointing life peers etc) is only done on governments (or prime minister's) advice
Like how congress does stuff with the president's advice(by completly ignoring them)
She's there to stop us having an over-powerful, autocratic president, which sadly happens in some countries.
Yeah, people thinks that she's actually uses her power, even everything she does is officially and literally on the advice of the prime minister.
And by 'advice'; that's just legal shorthand for 'instructions'.
If any British sovereign tried to do anything on their own initiative (as you're no doubt absolutely well aware), there'd be a massive overhaul of the entire system.
@@neilwilson5785 No we have that, we just call them Prime Minister instead.
Oh, by the way, the Scots have been pushing for independence since before Brexit, with a vote on independence in 2014 giving a strong answer of "No", with 55% of the ~3.6 million valid votes (i.e. not ballot papers that had been messed around with, like writing a new option on for example) voting against a split. Since Brexit, however, the SNP (Scottish National Party) have been pushing for a second referendum on whether or not they should split from the UK.
Also, if you want to know all 8* parties that won seats, they are (in order of seats won, then location in which they were candidates):
Conservatives (317, UK-wide)
Labour (262, UK-wide)
Scottish National Party (35, Scotland only)
Liberal Democrats (12, UK-wide)
Democratic Unionist Party (10, Northern Ireland only)
Sinn Féin (7, NI only)
Plaid Cymru (4, Wales only)
Green Party (1, UK-wide)
*There was also one independent candidate, Sylvia Hermon (formerly a member of the Ulster Unionist Party), who won in the Northern Ireland constituency of North Down.
Ronster1703, technically the Greens would be England and Wales only as Scotland and Northern Island have their own different Green Parties. For example the Green Party of England and Wales with one seat in Brighton (Caroline Lucas) is led by Johnathon Bartley and Sian Berry. The Green Party of Scotland has no UK wide seats but 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament and is led by Patrick Harvey and Maggie Chapman.
Oh, btw, to anyone interested in the German system: it's mostly the same except all our officials are elected (either directly or indirectly or they are the president whose election is ... weird) and our election system is different (and our army is entirely controlled by parliament). This is because our government was modelled on that of the UK.
I know this point has kind of already been made here, but you really do misunderstand the role of the Queen in UK politics.
Yes, she theoretically has all the powers you described, however in reality she doesn't make any of the decisions. The Prime Minister and elected government makes all of those choices (inc. ambassadors, members of the House of Lords and declaring war) and the Queen simply rubber stamps them.
The fact that the prime minister has to continually verbally explain her government to the queen probably has the effect that the government has to do things that make sense, not off the cuff and not without reason - A trump would sound very silly.
maybe if they had a young less senile monarch he/she could take back the power
Because the Queen doesn't want to take any blame for any of the government's action hence she just try to be neutral in politics
@@yadfaraidoon9977 They wouldn't able to unless they'd want our parliment to abolish the monarchy which it has the power to do.
@@yadfaraidoon9977 they is shorter
1:32 Small correction here, while Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland do have their own devolved parliaments and governments which are subordinate to the UK Parliament and Her Majesty’s Government in Westminster, for a number of reasons England does not.
Mainly because 533 of the 650 constituencies that send MP’s to the UK Parliament are English, so it wasn’t seen as necessary for the already dominant English population to have their own parliament alongside the national one.
u had only a thousand subs 1 year ago? wow!
Stfu
Welp a comment from a verified UA-cam channel which doesn’t have more then 1k likes a rare site indeed
@Aaron Heych u
@@reversetape6984 He's brazilian, don't think many ppl of english internet would know him
@@VieiraFi true
Something funny: if the government of any commonwealth nation wanted to sue another commonwealth government (or the uk), the lawsuit is titled as the queen of x vs the queen of y. She's basically suing herself.
Yes, the Queen appoints people but the PM tells her who to appoint.
You totally over exaggerated the queens role and made the uk seem like a dictatorship😅
It basically is. Only the PM exercises the power of the Crown, not the reigning monarch.
Theoretically yes. In practice, no. They can easily overpower any decision a monarch makes. It's just a puppet title atp. @@Gerishnakov
A slight correction, In parliamentary democracy, the head of state (monarch in the U.K. , President in India) can declare war on the advice of Prime minister and his/her council of minister .In simple term ,it is the head of government's job to do so not the head of state. Similarly while levying taxes on citizens.
Hello from Germany👋
This video helps me much more than the one, our English teacher gave us to make our tasks
Can't help but feel like you should have consulted with/collaborated with a British person when making this video..
@hognoxious comparing our countries to American States definitely triggered me a bit but for the most part he was pretty sound, especially when you keep in mind that he's trying to make it understandable to an American audience.
@@SuperSupermanX1999 Why did it bother you, if I can ask? Aside from England not having its own national government, the comparison is fairly apt. You could compare England to DC (Since, lacking its own devolved government, is at the mercy of the U.S. Federal government,) and Scotland, Wales, and NI being analogous to states.
@@Julianna.Domina England isn't really comparable to DC since we still vote for MPs and, because the majority of the population is English, the government in Westminster basically functions as the English one.
Devolution also isn't the same as American states. In the US each state is it's own fairly autonomous entity and there's pretty strict controls on what the federal government can do. That's not thr case in the UK. Our constitution is built on Parliamentary sovereignty, which basically means Parliament can do anything it wants. There is no separation of federal and state authorities. Instead, the Welsh Assembly has limited powers granted to it by Parliament, allowing it to make certain decisions within Wales. But Parliament can withdraw that power whenever it likes (it's limited by politics, not the law).
So really that's why. Parliament and the devolved coubtries have a fundamentally different relationship from what States have to the US federal government.
@@SuperSupermanX1999 He did massively exaggerate the Queens powers though.
@@lcmeagleton3959 tbf even most of us don't fully understand the extent of the queen's powers. Plus when you start talking about the royal prerogative and how it belongs to the queen but is exercised on her behalf by the PM etc etc etc it's a little beyond the scope of this video haha
The monarch's powers are mostly titular: in theory the Lords are appointed by the crown, in practise it's the government who do so. In theory, the monarch runs the military, in practise it's the government etc. etc. Other than that, this was a really good job at explaining a complicated and difficult system to people not familiar with it.
As a footnote, the hereditary lords were removed years ago. Our hereditary aristocracy's political power now extends as far as opening country fairs and complaining about property tax.
Then to make things a little more complicated. The DUP is one of the main parties in Northern Ireland. NI overall wanted to remain in the EU even though the DUP do not. NI's biggest worry about brexit is creating a boarder of any kind between NI and the Republic of Ireland. This would be bad for both Countries. The DUP don't really want this either but not at the cost of being treated differently to the rest of the UK. Ireland (the republic of) as well as the rest of the EU won't let brexit proceed unless there is a guarantee that there will be no boarder on the Island of Ireland. The easy solution would be but the border on the Irish sea. Which is probably what Thersea May would like to do. That would annoy the DUP which wouldn't normally be a problem (pretty much everything annoys them) except that the conservatives now need the DUP to stay in government. So the one solution is no longer an option.
I won't even go into the complicated mess of NI where they currently have no government as DUP (the right wing pro union with Britain party) can't come to a power sharing agreement with Sinn Fein (the liberal left wing party who want a united Ireland) as Sinn Fein will want things like Gay Marriage, Abortion Rights and protection for the Irish Language in NI as part of that power sharing agreement.
Great videos by the way. I guess you now have a bunch of Irish followers since your last video
Brexit will proceed, art.50 has been triggered, but the bespoke deal the UK wants depends on a bespoke deal about the transparency of the border in NI. You can't have one without the other.
(NI reminds me to the knights who always say NI!)
Sinn Fein are many things but they are not liberals.
The Good Friday Agreement specifically states that the border is free and open. If the UK wants to break this agreement it will undo so many years of negotiations.
What also complicates things is the Common Travel Agreement that allows Irish citizens free movement and employment in the UK and vice versa. A hard border would violate this snd a soft border would be difficult to ensure that purely Irish and UK citizens get to cross. The Northern government also does not want a customs zone separate from the UK.
@@dutchman7623 exactly!!!
Really enjoyed this vid. Thanks for making it! Even if your description is not 100% for everyone's taste you illuminated the differences and similarities very well. I'm English for the records btw.
Thanks for this video! I am about to start reading The Downing Street Years, Margaret Thatcher's autobiography and wanted a primer on the system of government in the UK and being an American this was very clear and concise.
Her Majesty the Queen is head of state and head of the armed forces as you say. But the convention is that all of her real powers have long since been delegated to Her Majesty's Government. The exceptions are called the reserve powers. She appoints a government but only after the will of the people is known, she can dismiss the government (because you can't leave the government in charge of dismissing themselves) and she appoints ministers including the PM. It is a really strong system as all substantial matters are decided by the Government but the head of government (PM) is denied the highest status. In an emergency the Crown can act. A bit like how your car has high tech power assisted computer controlled hydraulic brakes but if they fail you still have an old school lever attached to a cable you can use. The Queen is the old school backup system of government.
Yeah I'm surprised he never talked about Constitutional Conventions. I suppose the americans don't recognise that aspect of politics.
We've only had one of those so far. And the provision for conventions to propose amendments, and conventions to ratify amendments, is very vaguely worded; perhaps the founders intended THAT to be the backup system for proposal by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of existing state legislatures.
-- Who would call for organizing a Constitutional Convention? Obviously Congress would not without pressure from some other authority. Maybe resolutions by 3/4 of the state legislatures?
-- Who would attend such a convention as delegates? Members of one party only, or a bipartisan group?
-- How would delegates to a convention be selected? How many, and how would they be allocated by state?
-- Would it be able to propose more than one amendment? Would the delegates be able to vote on each proposal separately, or only on a leadership-proposed package of amendments? And how would that leadership be selected?
-- After proposal (or after a proposal from Congress, for that matter), would ratification in some states by legislature and in other states by state conventions count together, or does it require 3/4 (38 as of now) of legislatures regardless of state conventions, or 3/4 of conventions regardless of legislatures?
-- Would ratification of an entire package be necessary, or ratification of each individual amendment be acceptable?
-- And there would surely be many other questions.
Allan Richardson I don't think you understand what a constitutional convention is
BlueHawkPictures I do, and I was half punning when I said we’ve only had one so far, meaning the one in 1787. The Constitution resulting from that convention allows for two way to propose amendments and two ways to ratify them; we have since had 27 amendments proposed the first way (by Congress) and all 27 ratified the first way (by state legislatures). The instructions for both these processes are precise and simple, since Congress and the state legislatures already exist.
The second way of proposing an amendment is by a convention, like the 1787 convention, but its makeup and the procedure for calling it are vague and haven’t yet been determined, hence the questions I raised in my post, which have not yet been answered (by anyone, not by you in this stream).
As for ratification by convention, the process is even more vague, but I doubt if the founders intended for the same body to be allowed to ratify amendments that it proposed, since they were careful to split the two phases into Congress or a convention (singular), and the state legislatures or conventions (plural). Hence the questions I raised about the ratification process, to which there are also no answers yet.
If you’re talking about a convention to COMPLETELY rewrite the existing Constitution, as the 1787 convention completely rewrote and replaced the Articles of Confederation, most of us would see some problems with that. First of all, since such a convention would be called with the INTENTION to overthrow the Constitution, it would technically be treason, and could only be held safely in another country, which is friendly to Americans as people but doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the United States, and is strong enough to defend the convention from attack by invading US forces (and special ops, like Navy Seals). Would that be Russia by any chance?
And secondly, any state legislature that discussed ratification would also be committing treason against the Constitution. Something like that was tried around 1860, and it didn’t work out that well.
So yes, I understand both senses in which the phrase may be used. I just chose to focus on the former, already legal, type of convention.
Allan Richardson No, you don't know what constitutional conventions we're talking about. A constitutional convention isn't anything written down in a document. It is more of an unspoken rule with legal consequences if broken. It's a convention in the sense that it's ongoing practice and not in the sense of some kind of gathering or event. Like the original comment, the queen would choose a prime minister. She is able to choose anyone to form a government as long as it's able to command the confidence of the house of commons. However it's a constitutional convention to only choose a member of the party with the most seats. In Canada, we have a constitution similar in principle as the british, so we got plenty of them as well and most conventions center around the governor general's power. He is the one to appoint the ministers to the cabinet, however it is a constitutional convention for him to appoint of the 'advice' of the prime minister, which in practice means the prime minister appoints them. These 'rules' are not written in the constitution or anywhere for that matter, they are just ongoing practices that emerge out of responsible government.
I'm from Italy and here the government work exactly like UK but there's a president of the republic instead of the king (there is a little difference but it's the same, only without all cool adjectives like "royal" or "his majesty"). We have many parties too, which is kind of annoying because nobody is able to win the elections with the majority and we always take months to establish a government which will fall in less than a year. We're so stable...
I feel like Italy should have kept its monarchy.
@@jayteegamble I feel like Italy should have kept divided
Yes but us keeps the rest of europe entertained as we watch it all happen.
Loris Ducly I’m half Italian so I can understand where you are coming from and though I have to say that Italy is not particularly unified (culturally speaking) in comparison to its neighbours pre unification Italy was not in anyway better off post unification just look at the way the Jesuits and Papal States imposed a theocracy in the midlands, how the kingdom of the two Sicillies was still stuck in a feudal system where people were literally starving to death or northern Italy practically being dominated by the Austrians, if Italy had not unified it would be simply a collection of failed states and extensions of foreign powers.
@@qv8281 Your answer isn't stupid at all I guess, but the fact is that the main problem of Italy is to keep together many different people. You can see it everywhere: Italy is divided in two. South votes something, north another thing. Interests, morality and thoughts are different 'cause the culture is different. You are right in what you say and I don't totally believe in a politically divided Italy but sometimes you could think it is not a bad idea
Sorry
The house of Lords section was wrong.
The lords are appointed yes but by the PMs. There are only 80 seats for actual lords, these are elected by the actual lords.
Party info was also wrong
A lot of British people do not understand how our own government works. This was incredibly helpful so thank you
Very good indeed and as a Brit I definitely learned some things from this about my own Government. However, the election you were referring to was (although sudden) a standard general election to decide (or should I really say, confirm) parliamentary representation for all the constituencies in the UK and nbt a second Brexit vote (although I wish it was). Theresa May called for this election because she was not the leader of the Conservative party at the time of the last election. Although she was voted in by the people as the MP for Maidenhead (and still is). She believed that this was an opportunity to cement her claim to the PM-ship and to increase her parties majority in parliament. She was wrong, however, because although they remained the largest party they lost a significant number of seats to labour and had to form a coalition government with the DUC to hold onto the majority they needed to form a government. all in all, a bad move by Theresa here. I can't believe she is still hanging on in there to this day.
8:42 - They can also form what's called a "Minority Government" as well, where the government doesn't have the required 326, but can govern by working case by case with different parties on different votes so they have 326 votes on any given vote, without any formal coalitions. Obviously though this arrangement is the least stable since it requires the government to constantly jockey for votes. This is what happened to Boris Johnson for his time as Prime Minister before the 2019 election after a huge amount of his party were kicked out for voting against him.
The Conservatives and DUP are not in a coalition. If this was a case, there would be DUP members in the cabinet
Nihilistic Arson they are. We are in a hung government and the DUP filled in the seats the tories couldn’t get. Just because they don’t have a cabinet position doesn’t mean they aren’t in a coalition
Leopardr no, it is a minority government. A coalition would mean they were working together to make policy, but that is not the case. The DUP simply agrees to support Conservative bills when they go through. The UK has only had 2 coalitions, 2010 and one in the 1900's, both of which had cabinet members from both parties.
DUP will support the Tories in supply and confidence issues because the Tories gave them 'Thirty Pieces of Silver'
Their agreement contains policy guidelines and the formation of a commitee to coordinate votes in the House of Commons.
Sounds like a coalition to me. Maybe a weak one but a minority government would have no such agreement but would depend entirely of case by case allies to fill in the lacking seats for majorities.
mangalores-x_x no, that is a minority government. The parties are not working together on policy, it's more like the DUP are payed a little to get some more say on policy than they would normally have.
If they were a coalition, both parties would have a say in all affairs, however that simply isn't the case, just the DUP have a say in a few points of key party policy.
how can you only have around 7700 subs??? your mini documentaries appeal to the way my mind processes information. i know this is on an older video, and i have spent many a rabbit hole evening binging on your content. Keep up the good work!!
As much as I enjoy your videos generally, I’d say there’s enough incorrect information in here as to be (unintentionally) misleading. If it were me, I’d pull this video down and create a corrected version. Though your channel, your video obviously.
England doesn't have its own government. Scotland, Wales and northern Ireland have their own parliament or assembly and are able to have their own power over certain devolved powers, with the rest being controlled by the UK government. In England we only have the UK government. It's called the West Lothian question and concerns the matter of if it's right that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs have the ability to vote and influence matters that only effect England, when English MPs aren't able to vote on devolved matters that effect Scotland, Wales and NI.
The democratic unionist party only runs in Northern Ireland and isn't the 'tea party' of the UK. It represents Northern Irish protestants who want to remain part of the UK instead of being part of Ireland.
As a Canadian, I can't help but wonder why you used Yellow to colour in Scotland and Blue to colour in Wales
MP's are rarely voted by a majority of any kind. It is "first past the post" which means members are voted in by a plurality. It is the same for the US Representatives but since there is rarely any viable choice in the US candidates win with a majority.
Yes, they only need a plurality, same as in the US with congressional districts, senate seats, or the winner-takes-all of most states' electors and nearly all single-seat elections the US has. Because of the single-seat constituencies and First Past the Post, the UK is *barely* a multi-party system either: that's much more accurate when referring to most countries on the European continent, which tend to have at least some method of achieving proportional representation. That the UK manages to have roughly 10% of MP seats that don't go to the two main parties doesn't really make it a full multi-party system. Compare e.g. to Scandinavian or Benelux countries or even Germany, where government coalitions are the norm and majority rule by a single party hasn't happened since the 19th century in some countries. I guess the why and/or how the UK has some minority party representation anyway is a) tradition of voting for other parties too, and b) small enough constituencies that in some places, smaller parties (especially regional ones like the Irish, Scottish and Welsh ones) stand a chance, both points being quite unlike the US.
Was going to depend on this video for an exam, really thankful for the comments.
You forgot to mention basically no one in Great Britain knew anything about the DUP before the coalition cause the DUP only runs in Northern Ireland, and they were better off not knowing.
While the monarch does theoretically have all the power you just mentioned; the monarch hasnt actually used them since around the 1700s and all the power they do have is in practice given to an advisor, which is appointed by the prime minister
There's a lot of confusion here. What are described as powers of the Queen are often powers under the Royal Prerogative. That's a number of sovereign powers which have been, over history, vested in the government (often in the executive arm). One of those powers is declaring war. If the UK government declared war, then it would be under the Royal Prerogative, and if the Queen attempted to declare war, then it would create an enormous constitutional crisis and would most certainly be deemed illegal by the UK Supreme Court (who interpret UK constitutional law). At the very least it would involve the Queen being forced out out of the role of monarch, and very possibly the end of the institution of the monarchy. Also, all executive powers over the armed services are with the Government.
With ambassadors, they are nominated by the Foreign Office acting as an executive arm of the government. Whilst it's true that these appointments have to be approved by the monarchy in principle (as the ambassador represents both the Crown and the government), in practice it's largely a rubber stamp job as nobody is going to be nominate who might embarrass the Queen. What certainly does not happen is the Queen selecting an nominating ambassadors.
As far as the institution of the Crown goes, it's the embodiment of the state. When people declare allegiance to the Crown it is to the state and not the particular person who happens to be sitting on the throne.
Pretty well any discretionary powers that the monarch might retain are only exercised under advice from the Prime Minister. For example, it's theoretically possible for Royal Assent to be withheld, but that would only be under ministerial advice, and as ministers are always answerable to Parliament, that is never going to happen.
In addition, it's Parliament that is supreme and it has the power to remove a monarch. That's happened three times. Once during the civil war when Charles I was executed following a special court set up by Parliament, then when James II was forced off the throne and was deemed to have abdicated by fleeing the country. Then Edward VIII was forced by the government to abdicate in the 20th century.
The often archaic language and historical references ought not hide the position that in the UK it's Parliament that is supreme and any powers the Queen retains are not independent ones.
Yet another. Members of the House of Lords are only appointed in the name of the Queen. It's another rubber stamp job. The real power of appointment is via nominations from parties in the House of Commons roughly in line with their proportional representation in Parliament with some independents thrown in. Not very satisfactory, but then the House of Lords has limited powers.
The Queen has nor real power of veto. Any attempt to exercise such a veto would cause a constitutional crisis and would not be sustained.
Another. The loss of a vote of confidence is absolutely nothing like an Impeachment. An Impeachment is (at least in theory) a legal procedure levelling a charge of some sort of misconduct against a high official of government (up to the level of President). A vote of confidence is nothing or the sort. It's simply a vote than is nominated as important enough that if the Prime Minister loses it, then he/she has effectively lost the confidence of Parliament. It's normally reserved to particularly important pieces of critical legislation or specifically tabled by the opposition to try an oust a Prime Minister. This hasn't happened since 1979, but it's always possible. What is not required is any form of misconduct by the Prime Minister (such things are either dealt with be criminal law in the normal way, or if it involves breeches of Parliamentary or ministerial conduct, by way of Parliamentary procedures).
Note that the fall of a Prime Minister through the loss of a vote of confidence does not necessarily involve a new General Election. In the past a new government might be formed headed by somebody who could get votes passed in Parliament. However, that's very unlikely these days given stronger party discipline, but in Victorian and Georgian times it happened frequently when party and personal alignments were more fluid.
This is some GOOD INFORMATION, this clears up so many questions I had before I begin to research this even deeper. Thank you, for such a useful video.
Dude - the Royal Court of the UK is The Court of St James's - note the possessive.
Nice London Underground grammar there 😉
Very good explained. I'm from Germany and for me it was also an explanation of the American system. You've explained complex politic issues in easy english. Thank you for that. I need this to pass my exam here to be able to study. (Sorry for any errors. ;-) )
Want to have some real fun? Talk about Australian preferential voting! (it was preferred system by Kim Stanley Robinson in "Mars Trilogy")
Look the tories forced budget cuts on the working class and expected to get away with it without paying so everyone else pulled them down as they're heartlands are VERY dependent on European trade all they had to do was leave us alone, the english tories are the reason why i am a scotish natiolalist they have inflicted so much damage folk will never let them be.
1:27 While Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own legislatures, England does not.
That was an excellent video - like your others, which is why you’ve gone from 1K subscribers to 633K. You deserve all you’ve achieved man!
Cameron didn't call the Brexit referendum for UKIP, he did it to pacify Tory back benchers.
Also, Theresa did not call this election to affirm Brexit, it was largely to crush the labour party that had been polling poorly, though when the actual election happened labour support held and they actually took seats, with the Tories losing their majority in the commons and having to do a deal with the democratic unionist party
This is why it was controversial, it was a huge public embarrassment for May
As a Brit I do get mildly annoyed when my fellow Brits say something like "I didn't vote for (Insert PM's name here)!". You're right, you didn't; no one did. Only the PM's constituents voted for - currently - her, and then only as their constituency representative. They may be be aware that if her party wins she'll more than likely become PM, but they shouldn't be, and I'm guessing many won't be, voting for her on that basis that their mp will also be PM.
What if you have a really bad representative, but you want to have that party have the Prime Minister position? This is the problem in the British system, YOU HAVE NO LOCAL REPRESENTATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T DETERMINE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE BASED ON GOOD THEY ARE FOR YOUR CONSTITUENCY. It be a lot better if the prime minister was independentely elected, to be more fair
To be fair, most people do seem to vote based on party rather than the character of the candidates themselves. An MP would have to do something really bad (but not necessarily illegal - a sex scandal for instance, or an undeclared conflict of interest) for their constituents to vote away from their MP's party. Saying that, if an MP breaks away from their party and runs as an independent, or joins another party, but has been a force of good for their constituency, the voters will by and large stay with that MP regardless; look at Douglas Carswell when he left the Conservative party to join UKIP and ran a by-election as the UKIP candidate, and won (though I'm not sure how much good he'd done his constituency, and maybe his political shift merely represented the mood of his constituents).
As for your final point, directly voting for the head of government in the UK sounds a lot like a presidential system, and even if that was deemed to be a better way it would still necessitate getting rid of the monarchy, and if you say pictures of the royal weddings and births in recent years, you'd understand that there's not a widespread desire to do that. And I say this as a republican...
What if a Labour PM is elected but parliament has a conservative majority?
Why are members of the government still MP's?
Like a butcher checking his own meat.
Separation of powers is an enormous problem within the UK.
We don't directly elect the Prime Minister in the UK. The PM - or potential PM - is the leader of the single largest party in the House of Commons. If this party has an overall majority of the seats in the Commons, then that party's leader is the de-facto PM. What you're describing is the result of a hung parliament,which actually happened at our last election, where the Conservatives were a little short of an overall majority, but still had the most seats held by a single party. Because of this, they had the first chance of forming a government, either by forming some sort of coalition/alliance with another party (which they did by wooing the Northern Irish DUP), or by forming a minority government. If they had failed to form a government, then the chance would have passed to the largest of the opposition parties, in this case Labour. If they too had failed, or their their government didn't last long, then another general election would have happened.
Not all MP's that belong to the party that has formed the government are in the government. They are known as the backbenches, while the MP's that are in government are known as either Cabinet or Junior Ministers, depending on their positions. Backbench MPs are expected to vote with their government, but they don't always (and are known as rebels), and can swing votes on legislation against the government. I'd rather have this than some sort of US system where the Head of Government and State can bring in whoever the hell they like into their government
Separation of powers is lost in this way.
The executive power (government) is part of the lawgiving power (parliament) and can even appoint judges (juridical power). This leads to the problems the UK is in now. Also Poland is in trouble with the EU because of this.
Of course the UK has, at entry to the EU, asked and gotten an exception for this conflict that in other EU members is strictly forbidden. They got this because they were considered 'democratic' enough, not to be forced to change this.
Now they them self show that separation of powers is necessary.
Together with the district system in elections, the democracy in the UK fails to EU standards.
The USA system is even worse, there the president is the one that has executive power, makes laws, and appoints judges. The powers of congress are very limited. They can only use budget control in case of conflict.
The vote for Brexit was a clear message to their own government for reforms, and much less a true desire to leave the EU. Because a referendum can be 'kidnapped' in this way, most European countries want to ban referendums.
I love "Knowing Better"! Greetings from 🇩🇪
This is a really great video. Though, I noticed a small error which is that the labour party are not against brexit but would prefer to retain a few key features of EU membership such as retaining membership to the single market and customs union, as well as immediately allowing all EU nationals in the UK to officially become british citizens and not potentially face deportation. :D
Now if only I knew my solicitor from my barrister…
The United Kingdom is a sovereign state composed of three countries. Two kingdoms (England and Scotland) and one principality (Wales). Northern Ireland is a _sui generis_ administrative division that, while it is described as a country, is more accurately described as an autonomous province of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Then there are the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey that are the Crown dependencies, autonomous administrative divisions of the United Kingdom, and the British Overseas Territories, last remnants of the British Empire, listed as non-self-governing territories by the United Nations (i.e., colonies).
The House of Lords isn’t just hereditary anymore. The Queen can appoint new Knighthoods and Lordships to anyone. It’s bestowed as an honour to people in the commonwealth (including outside the UK) who excel at their field of expertise. This is why some famous British people are addressed as “Sir” or “Dame”, “Lord” or “Lady”. It’s not politeness, it’s their title like Prof, Dr, Ms. The House of Lords includes people with no hereditary nobility but expertise in a particular field such as Science or Education.
Point of order: To say that the SNP "only ever win in Scotland" is misleading, since they only stand in Scotland anyway, and there are a lot of people in other parts of the UK who would vote for them if they stood in their constituencies (i.e. they are in favour of their policies which need not only apply to Scotland)
Very true, they are a left wing party that has policies; more socialist than the Lib Dems, and less authoritarian than Labour, & more practical than the Greens.
They would apeal to a lot of people if not for their obsesion with breaking the county appart.
Even the SNP know they could only ever win in Scotland. It kinda comes with the name, Scottish Nationalist Paty. That's why they don't bother standing in constituencies outside of Scotland
The DUP are only in Northern Ireland , but the Tories gave them 1 billion to prop them up ,
@@AdamBartlett93 True enough, though this is largely because first past the post is frankly terrible. If we actually had a more proportional system though then they would likely gain far more seats then again so would other minor parties in fact probably more than the current results would suggest because first past the post encourages tactical voting that masks voters true preferences by making a vote for a minor party about as effective as a spoiled ballot. Frankly the UK has a diverse enough selection of parties that PR would make more sense, or at the very least if we had actually implemented automatic runoff voting (Alternative Vote as it was called) which is still pretty bad as it has many of the same issues as first past the post and only really fixes the issue of suppressing votes for the more minor parties by eliminating the perverse incentives for tactical voting. Properly proportional representation is really the only way to ensure that all voices get a fair hearing I don't see why a group of peoples voices should count for less because they don't want to ideologically segregate themselves into communes that concentrate their support into a small area where in the nation someone lives shouldn't be relevant to whether their vote counts towards representation of their views in parliament.
The best part is when Theresa May called a snap election thinking it would be a shoo-in, and it ended up being way closer than the Tories expected, which significantly weakened her in the public eye.
I don't think it's particularly fair to call the dup the right wing party "like the tea party" as it's only voted in in northern ireland and you didn't mention shinfein who refuse their seats and alot of members were in someway involved in the IRA...
I don't think it was unfair (the DUP are very right-wing) but inaccurate - he definitely should have said that they were solely Northern Irish. Also, you omitted to mention that the DUP has links to the UVF, UDA etc - organisations which claim any Catholic as a legitimate military target - and oppose the peace process.
In a bunch of ways, referring to the DUP as "being like the Tea Party" is being far too generous to the DUP: they're *deeply* conservative, and a significant part of their support base consists of religious fundamentalists.
this is the only video that actually made sense to me about the british political system thank you!
I know i'm posting on a 2017 video in 2019 buuuuut.
In Canada, the Queen still holds as much power as she holds in Great Britain. The difference is what she does in the UK is done by the Governor General, who acts on her behalf. She still holds the power to call us into wars, and everything else she can do in the UK. The only difference is, at least in Canada, the moment she tries to use her powers is the moment the country will seriously start considering if we really want a monarch.
So she could put you guys on an enemy of the UK for extra help?
Technically, yes. But the Canadian PM has the power to fire the governor general and appoint a new one if they ever try to do this.
Well thats not actually much different to the UK, if the Queen ever acts on her own or tries to force our goverment to do something then our parliment has the right to abolish our monarchy.
Fwiw, the section specifically explaining the House of Commons and how MPs are elected and operate in parliament is largely the same in Canada (and many other commonwealth countries that adopted the "Westminster parliament" model)
I don't understand how you were making this level of content for a year and were at less than a thousand subs. I haven't binged your videos in a while, and I don't really read dates too often, but I don't remember seeing a bad one. Doing that for a year and only getting a thousand subs is a travesty. Thanks for sticking through it.
From this explanation of the House of Reps you're pretty close to understanding Australia's system, main difference is we have a Senate instead of the House of Lords that is somewhat similar to the US Senate as districts vote for house of Reps while entire states vote for senators, who serve longer terms. Also we have first past the post instead of simple majority, basically votes are counted then least voted candidate is eliminated and votes recounted with votes for them moved to 2nd preference those voters gave until only winning candidate remains or has received more than 50% of the vote in any round.
Pls do a vid on northern Irish politics, things are very different and you will see why the DUP are not “ultra right wing” and really just represent he views of the Protestant/unionist culture. They are the polar opposites of Sein Fein who boycott Parliament and their main policy is for Northern Ireland to join the Republic of Ireland. Although some policy’s of the dup may seem very backwards to non northern Irish people you need to remember that Northern Ireland is a very complicated place with two separate culture split by religion and history and we had to set up a special system in order to end the troubles (sounds not too bad, was actually a 30 year civil conflict between the two cultures. In the past the two party joint ruling system has worked but with votes switching from the less extreme uup and sdlp parties to the more extreme dup and sein fein the system has failed and the northern Irish assembly has not met for 1 and a half years now. Our system is unlike any other and is the best possible in the context, to show what things are really like Northern Ireland was shown to be around 93% Christian while the UK as a whole only around 50% (wider range there) so straight away you can see that Northern Ireland is super religious next you add the factor that the Christians here are split pretty much in half with only a one or two percent edge to the various Protestant churches. So yeah I wholly believe that Northern Ireland needs a video or five ( that’s only the present) p.s my first try uploading this comment crashed youtube
@@TomatoToMaToes69 Not a criticism just elaborating on the use of "Protestant culture" to describe the people of NI or Great Britain.
NI has a culture which is a result of the original gerrymandering necessary to create a Protestant majority in any of the Irish provinces. Ulster didn't look like this before partition.
The DUP don't represent views of Great Britain, which is far more liberal on the abortion and gay rights issues; these views also isolate them in the island of Ireland, as the current liberal voting trends in the Republic show; social pressure to choose from the two polarities of Sinn Fein and DUP is more important than civil liberties apparently.
Ask people in England if they are Protestant, and they won't get it.
2:46 The Union Flag is the wrong way around lol
It is as well haha
As an Australian, where we use the British system, I would dare say you explained the system very well!
There is nooooo way in hell the DUP could be called ‘far-right’. Oh and they’re not in a coalition they are in a confidence and supply agreement apart from that and a few minor errors it was a very good video about foreign politics.
Thanks man im trying to study for my Exam and this video really helped me refresh my memory. This video is well made and it is easy to understand.
You probably failed your exam
"For Dummies, and Americans"
British people watching this video: Well what's the bloody difference then?
Didn't know the Queen was head of the military, now i do, thanks for the info KB
A few points of order.... The Tories/Labour = Republicans/Democrats analogy is far from a perfect fit. From a UK perspective, I'd say that both DNC and GOP are right-of-centre. Even during the neoliberal Blair/Brown years, Labour was Left of centre and has moved properly to the Left under Corbyn. Following the result of GE2017, The Conservative Party did not go into "coalition" with the DUP. The DUP agreed to a "Confidence & supply" deal. This means that the DUP will prop up the Tories on crucial votes but, unlike the Liberal Democrats, are not part of the current government. A Government is appointed by the leader of the winning party. However, they are not obliged to fill their cabinet and other government roles exclusively from their own ranks. Obviously most positions are filled from within the winnning party but a PM is also free to appoint MPs/Lords from any party to government posts. In fact a PM can look outside parliament to fill posts but it is customary for such individuals to be parachuted into a safe parliamentary seat or to be awarded the necessary accolades to get them into the Lords. The Cabinet is only the inner circle of government and there are more ministerial posts outside the Cabinet than in it.
The modern GOP isn't right of centre, it's right of anything including human reason.
But uh... the tories and the DUP never formed a coalition. They did a deal in which the DUP voted for Tory bills in parliament in exchange for investment in Northern Ireland, but the DUP are not in a coalition and their leader is not deputy prime minister.
I think alot of what you said is true , but in practice very different, especially the Queen's powers , as in theory you are right, but if she ever used them it would be the end of the monarchy and we would most probably go down the lines of becoming a Republic of individual states
I'm British (and a Conservative, although that's not relevant to what I'm going to say.) But the DUP are only really in Northern Ireland and haven't won any seats on Great Britain, so this makes it even more controversial because now you've got the loyalist, pro-hard Brexit party having a larger say in Brexit which is an issue that will greatly affect Northern Ireland as it shares the UK's only land border with the Republic of Ireland.
I meant that they hadn't won any constituencies on the island of Great Britain, only in Northern Ireland, which is true, they have not. I see your point but it's not what I meant.
As much as everything you said about the Queen is *technically* true, shes always just done what the PM has 'advised'. Technically she commands most Commonwealth armies (e.g. UK, Canada, Australia), but if she ever actually tried to use this, say commanded them all to invade france, she knows shed very quickly find herself living in a republic. Well maybe not France actually.
"Lords Temporal"... Time Lords? :)
Yep
technically no it just means they are temporary lords its like if dr who was a time lord for only one regeneration
Temporal means secular in this case. Lords Spiritual means bishops of the Anglican Church (formerly, as we know, biships of the Catholic Church), and Lords Temporal means the non-clerical members of the House of Lords, whether hereditary (possibly by an earlier monarch, maybe centuries earlier) or appointed for life by the monarch (but unable to pass the title on to their heirs).
Temporal means pertaining to space/time, as opposed to spiritual with concerns things that are not restricted by our physical reality.
Most of the Lords Temporal are life peers i.e. appointed to the House of Lords for life but unable to pass the title on to their eldest son, but when the composition of the Lords was reformed about 15 years ago they didn’t get rid of all the hereditary peers - there are still 92 places in the Lords for them, when one of them dies all the other hereditary peers (there used to be about a thousand of them) hold an election to fill the vacancy. The House of Lords is still the second-largest legislative chamber in the world, second only to the Chinese National Peoples’ Congress.
It's so good to see someone explain the difference between Britain and the UK! [I live in Wales & many from other countries think it's just England or UK!]
Also, when having a coalition you also have to have a similar ideology. So the SNP, Plaid cymru, Sinn Fein and Labour could form a massive coalition (as all are left wing parties, and 3 of them are secessionist parties)
Sinn Fein don't take their seats in Westminster, however, and never will, so counting them is rather pointless.
@@talideon that is true, however if a deal for a united Ireland was on the table, they might take the seat.
1:30 The Isle of Man (in the middle of the Irish sea) shouldn't be coloured in with England. It is a separate entity with its own Government that whilst being under the United Kingdom for foreign affairs and defence is not part of it, it is a Crown Dependency
I would also say that it was massively misleading that you talked about the powers that Her Majesty has without making the point that in modern times she does nothing without advice to do it from Government.
There are no Counts in the UK. There are, however, Viscounts. Counts are found in continental Europe. The goverment's opposition is call Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We had a civil war, once. between republicans and royalists. It wasn't pretty.
I feel like you had way more than 1 civil war. Why do The Baron's Wars and The Wars of the Roses not count? (I'm American so forgive me)
Because it's not relevant to the discussion, the magna carta while still being part of the constitution doesn't exactly hold up much with modern law and the War of the Roses was about a succession crisis.
@@jayteegamble those wars were about claimants to the same throne or for one side to change something. The civil war was literally between Parliament and the King.
I guess i don't understand how that makes them not civil wars tho, other than you just don't label them as such?
@@thetroyboneBut don't forget that there is no written constitution in the UK. There's a lot of case law and and a lot of convention (a sort of that's how it's always been done).
Also slight nitpick: as regards the Commonwealth Realms -that is, the states that the Queen is also Head of State in-like Canada and Australia, etc., technically speaking, those are separate crowns in a 'personal union'.
So, basically, the same person just happens to be Queen of Canada and Queen of Australia at the same time, and none of them (there are 15 in total) are in any way subject to one another, and not to Britain. This is something that was established with the 1931 Act of Westminster.
One person, several offices.
This creates the rather odd situation that the Queen has, on several occasions, had to make statements in support of one of her governments that may contradict one another. This hasn't happened very often, but it has occasionally: for example she has made statements in favour of her Australian government that have contradicted that of her British government.
It has been even weirder in the past: because in most monarchies (whether constitutional or absolute), declarations of war are made in the name of the monarch, this created the very odd situation in 1947-48 during the Indo-Pakistan war over Kashmir that her father, King George VI, as King of the newly independent Dominion of India, was simultaneously at war with himself, as King of the also newly independent Dominion of Pakistan. The armed forces of both countries both had sworn oaths of allegiance to him, in respect of the two separate crowns.
The present Queen also had a similar situation during the American invasion of Grenada: as she was (and still is) Queen of Grenada, and several Caribbean states of which she was also Queen supported and took part in the invasion, (Barbados, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, St Lucia and St. Kitts and Nevis), as well as several states that diplomatically condemned the invasion (including most notably, Britain).
Which meant that, technically speaking, she was at the same time taking part in the invasion, resisting it, and condemning it, or people were in her name, all at the same time.
Isle of Man isn't in England or the UK. The Conservatives aren't in Coalition with DUP. Leader of the Opposition has some more powers with Opposition's Day. The Queen has very little power too and less than you said both in a de jure sense and moreso in de facto.
The push for Brexit was not purely to win UKIP voters. It was largely because David Cameron saw his party was massively divided over the EU so he pushed for the referendum in the expectation we would stay in the EU and this would silence the anti eu voices within his party. You also massively overstate the power of the Queen especially when it comes to certain prerogative powers (such as deployment of armed forces) which were passed down to westminster.
Also - England does not have its own parliament. The parliament in Westminster is for UK law and that is it. Which ends up with the Scots, Irish, and Welsh voting on laws for themselves *and* laws that affect the English without the English having an ability to vote on their own laws
As 80% of the population and MPs are in England, that point is moot0
Thanks a lot from Italy for your useful video !
Learn anything new about our friends across the pond? What other countries should I explain?
KnowingBetter Just to clarify a few things... the DUP is not strictly right wing. They have some extreme views on things like abortion, but their financial policies are quite left wing.
However, this is not why they are controversial. The party is closely linked to Irish Unionist terrorist groups (the opposite of the IRA).
The UK is supposed to remain neutral to facilitate power sharing in Northern Ireland. If they form a coalition with one party, then they cannot be seen as neutral. The peace in Ireland is fragile. something like this could cause a return to the troubles. of the recent past.
Also, Labour are supporting Brexit. The election was called as the polls showed Labour were weak and the Conservatives were expecting to win a landslide victory.
So, neither main party supports Brexit (although Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader is in favour of leaving the EU). The question of the election was supposedly whether we have a hard or soft Brexit. Hard meaning to leave the EU with no trade deal. Soft meaning to leave the EU, but with access to the single market.
Labour however, transformed the discussion. They made a case for a fairer society, with emphasis on education and healthcare.
Here is where the UK deviates from the US. We are far more open to socialist ideals. Free healthcare, well funded schools and good public services are all important to British people. The Conservatives had been making lots of cuts and while initially these were accepted as necessary following the recession, 7 years on people wanted change.
why dont you try to explain the voting process in one of the countries america has interfeered with, 'which one' i hear you ask, 'there are SO MANY to choose from'. try iran first you will be able to get all the details from the cia as they overthrew the democraticly elected government there. yeah give us a break down on IRAN
I dare you to explain Israeli goverment mate, I'm from there and it's freaking complex
Germany
The title is fantastic
Couple of problems. Your comparison between the DUP and the tea party doesn’t hold up. Yes, they are ultra religious conservatives but their base is not necessarily so. They are a northern Irish party and their politics is split between generally Catholic republicans(who want to be part of Ireland) and Protestant unionists (who want to be part of Britain). So votes are more complex than social issues and are based on generations of conflict. The Right in this country is more like Democrat in the Us the DUP are mainstream republican. Our politics skews left.
Secondly, the role of the monarch. We have an unwritten constitution and You are getting hung up on writing and technicality. An unwritten constitution is also based on precedent, so tradition. The law may have not changed in 200 years but the precedent has constitutionally changed the role of the monarch. So as you see, names are in the name of the crown. It’s tradition, going back hundreds of years. We don’t change that, nor the armies pledges. But precedent tells us that ambassadors are appointed by the government with the queen giving her stamp. The government decides to go to war, the queen gives her stamp. Precedent has made her a figurehead and precedent is a key aspect of the unwritten constitution.
Thirdly the role of the Lords. There are few hereditary Lords in the Lords anymore. They are life peers appointed by the government based on their expertise. Their title does not go to their kids. It has been pointed out that this can be abused under the donations for peerages scandal
Yep! Pretty spot on. When I entered the Canadian Army in 2008 I swore allegiance to HM Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada and to her heirs and successors. Love the commonwealth. Here in Canada our Senate is appointed by the governor general, who is appointed the pseudo stand in for Queen Elizabeth II, and it pulls from our elected house of commons parliament. Pretty similar function.
Same Queen, different Crown.