Why does the UK parliament need a vote on the political declaration? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat would happen if the UK parliment voted through the deal, but blocked the declaration?Will the British Parliament prevent “Brexit”?Why does the UK Parliament still prohibit members from resigning?Why do the leaders of UK political parties need a seat in parliament?What is required to trigger a vote in UK parliament and what makes it ‘binding’?Could the UK Parliament defy the delay on the meaningful vote and simply vote on it?How does “giving way” in the UK parliament work?Does “government” mean something different in British and American English?Could a UK political party place a Three Line Whip on all votes in Parliament?Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionWhat is the difference between Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement and its associated Political Declaration?
Do scriptures give a method to recognize a truly self-realized person/jivanmukta?
vector calculus integration identity problem
Purpose of level-shifter with same in and out voltages
Can you teleport closer to a creature you are Frightened of?
Why did early computer designers eschew integers?
Lucky Feat: How can "more than one creature spend a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll"?
Which one is the true statement?
Computationally populating tables with probability data
Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?
Is there an equivalent of cd - for cp or mv
Why is the US ranked as #45 in Press Freedom ratings, despite its extremely permissive free speech laws?
Do I need to write [sic] when including a quotation with a number less than 10 that isn't written out?
Strange use of "whether ... than ..." in official text
What are the unusually-enlarged wing sections on this P-38 Lightning?
Is there such a thing as a proper verb, like a proper noun?
Is it OK to decorate a log book cover?
Could a dragon use its wings to swim?
Is it convenient to ask the journal's editor for two additional days to complete a review?
Is it ok to trim down a tube patch?
"Eavesdropping" vs "Listen in on"
How to get the last not-null value in an ordered column of a huge table?
TikZ: How to fill area with a special pattern?
Man transported from Alternate World into ours by a Neutrino Detector
Small nick on power cord from an electric alarm clock, and copper wiring exposed but intact
Why does the UK parliament need a vote on the political declaration?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat would happen if the UK parliment voted through the deal, but blocked the declaration?Will the British Parliament prevent “Brexit”?Why does the UK Parliament still prohibit members from resigning?Why do the leaders of UK political parties need a seat in parliament?What is required to trigger a vote in UK parliament and what makes it ‘binding’?Could the UK Parliament defy the delay on the meaningful vote and simply vote on it?How does “giving way” in the UK parliament work?Does “government” mean something different in British and American English?Could a UK political party place a Three Line Whip on all votes in Parliament?Does the UK parliament need to pass secondary legislation to accept the Article 50 extensionWhat is the difference between Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement and its associated Political Declaration?
As reported in the bbc article available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47742395
The UK government has split the 'deal' into the actual agreement and the non-legally binding political declaration - an explanation of which is available here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46303751
Since it seems more like a statement of intent than anything else, why would the government need parliament to vote on it at all? Couldn't they just get the actual agreement through, then say "You've had your meaningful vote. Deal with it."
united-kingdom brexit parliament
add a comment |
As reported in the bbc article available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47742395
The UK government has split the 'deal' into the actual agreement and the non-legally binding political declaration - an explanation of which is available here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46303751
Since it seems more like a statement of intent than anything else, why would the government need parliament to vote on it at all? Couldn't they just get the actual agreement through, then say "You've had your meaningful vote. Deal with it."
united-kingdom brexit parliament
The broader answer is that the whole political system is designed so that no one person has absolute power to make decisions. British history has been directly ruled by the monarch, people didn't like it, there was a civil war. If the leader can make and implement decisions unanimously, the idea of elected representatives is meaningless.
– AJFaraday
2 days ago
add a comment |
As reported in the bbc article available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47742395
The UK government has split the 'deal' into the actual agreement and the non-legally binding political declaration - an explanation of which is available here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46303751
Since it seems more like a statement of intent than anything else, why would the government need parliament to vote on it at all? Couldn't they just get the actual agreement through, then say "You've had your meaningful vote. Deal with it."
united-kingdom brexit parliament
As reported in the bbc article available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47742395
The UK government has split the 'deal' into the actual agreement and the non-legally binding political declaration - an explanation of which is available here:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46303751
Since it seems more like a statement of intent than anything else, why would the government need parliament to vote on it at all? Couldn't they just get the actual agreement through, then say "You've had your meaningful vote. Deal with it."
united-kingdom brexit parliament
united-kingdom brexit parliament
asked 2 days ago
DavidDavid
35739
35739
The broader answer is that the whole political system is designed so that no one person has absolute power to make decisions. British history has been directly ruled by the monarch, people didn't like it, there was a civil war. If the leader can make and implement decisions unanimously, the idea of elected representatives is meaningless.
– AJFaraday
2 days ago
add a comment |
The broader answer is that the whole political system is designed so that no one person has absolute power to make decisions. British history has been directly ruled by the monarch, people didn't like it, there was a civil war. If the leader can make and implement decisions unanimously, the idea of elected representatives is meaningless.
– AJFaraday
2 days ago
The broader answer is that the whole political system is designed so that no one person has absolute power to make decisions. British history has been directly ruled by the monarch, people didn't like it, there was a civil war. If the leader can make and implement decisions unanimously, the idea of elected representatives is meaningless.
– AJFaraday
2 days ago
The broader answer is that the whole political system is designed so that no one person has absolute power to make decisions. British history has been directly ruled by the monarch, people didn't like it, there was a civil war. If the leader can make and implement decisions unanimously, the idea of elected representatives is meaningless.
– AJFaraday
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Because the UK domestic law says so, in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018:
13 Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—
(i) a statement that political agreement has been reached,
(ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and
(iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
(b) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future
relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion
moved by a Minister of the Crown,
add a comment |
Article 50, which governs how countries leave the EU, states that in the two years after triggering it the EU will negotiate how that country will leave with consideration given to the future trading relationship.
So the UK tried to include a political declaration about that future relationship.
That failed spectacularly, twice. So now the government is just trying to pass the part that sets up the transition period and trade negotiations, with would technically deliver brexit as the UK would leave the European Union. May has already said she is going and will leave the mess for someone else to clear up, so her focus right now is securing her legacy by being able claim she delivered.
As for the meaningful vote, to avoid a constitutional crisis and further legal action they will have to eventually vote on the future relationship, but that will be somebody else's problem.
Thanks, but I don't understand how this mandates a vote in the UK parliament on the political declaration? I can see how it might mean Europe would need to agree to it (and have done) but I don't see a mechanism by which the PM couldn't pass the actual deal, then tell Parliament to go home. Wasn't the political declaration just a fig leaf to get Parliament to pass the deal in the first place?
– David
2 days ago
@David Gina Miller's legal action and the subsequent legislation created a legal requirement for her to have a meaningful vote on the political declaration.
– user
2 days ago
Yes, I understand, but would that requirement not be fulfilled by voting on the actual deal?
– David
2 days ago
@David It wouldn't because the requirement is on a meaningful vote on the shape of the future relationship. In fact today's vote should be considered a meaningful vote as it does shape that relationship, e.g. the backstop, but the government is trying to make out that it's not.
– user
2 days ago
add a comment |
The Speaker of the House of Commons has said that he won't allow a motion that is substantially the same as a previously defeated motion to be moved by the Government. This is their workaround, splitting it into two motions to be voted on separately.
It may be the case that the government does not need the vote on the political declaration, but they hold the vote anyway as another "advisory" vote. It would certainly look bad that they hold "continuous meaningful votes until one passes" by doing constant fiddles like this.
I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question - can't Theresa let the deal go through and not have a vote on the declaration at all?
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, so they don't need to hold a vote on the declaration, its just optics? What happens if they pass the deal, but not the declaration? though maybe that's another question
– David
2 days ago
add a comment |
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39973%2fwhy-does-the-uk-parliament-need-a-vote-on-the-political-declaration%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Because the UK domestic law says so, in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018:
13 Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—
(i) a statement that political agreement has been reached,
(ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and
(iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
(b) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future
relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion
moved by a Minister of the Crown,
add a comment |
Because the UK domestic law says so, in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018:
13 Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—
(i) a statement that political agreement has been reached,
(ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and
(iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
(b) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future
relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion
moved by a Minister of the Crown,
add a comment |
Because the UK domestic law says so, in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018:
13 Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—
(i) a statement that political agreement has been reached,
(ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and
(iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
(b) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future
relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion
moved by a Minister of the Crown,
Because the UK domestic law says so, in section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018:
13 Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—
(i) a statement that political agreement has been reached,
(ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and
(iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
(b) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future
relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion
moved by a Minister of the Crown,
answered 2 days ago
FizzFizz
12.8k12981
12.8k12981
add a comment |
add a comment |
Article 50, which governs how countries leave the EU, states that in the two years after triggering it the EU will negotiate how that country will leave with consideration given to the future trading relationship.
So the UK tried to include a political declaration about that future relationship.
That failed spectacularly, twice. So now the government is just trying to pass the part that sets up the transition period and trade negotiations, with would technically deliver brexit as the UK would leave the European Union. May has already said she is going and will leave the mess for someone else to clear up, so her focus right now is securing her legacy by being able claim she delivered.
As for the meaningful vote, to avoid a constitutional crisis and further legal action they will have to eventually vote on the future relationship, but that will be somebody else's problem.
Thanks, but I don't understand how this mandates a vote in the UK parliament on the political declaration? I can see how it might mean Europe would need to agree to it (and have done) but I don't see a mechanism by which the PM couldn't pass the actual deal, then tell Parliament to go home. Wasn't the political declaration just a fig leaf to get Parliament to pass the deal in the first place?
– David
2 days ago
@David Gina Miller's legal action and the subsequent legislation created a legal requirement for her to have a meaningful vote on the political declaration.
– user
2 days ago
Yes, I understand, but would that requirement not be fulfilled by voting on the actual deal?
– David
2 days ago
@David It wouldn't because the requirement is on a meaningful vote on the shape of the future relationship. In fact today's vote should be considered a meaningful vote as it does shape that relationship, e.g. the backstop, but the government is trying to make out that it's not.
– user
2 days ago
add a comment |
Article 50, which governs how countries leave the EU, states that in the two years after triggering it the EU will negotiate how that country will leave with consideration given to the future trading relationship.
So the UK tried to include a political declaration about that future relationship.
That failed spectacularly, twice. So now the government is just trying to pass the part that sets up the transition period and trade negotiations, with would technically deliver brexit as the UK would leave the European Union. May has already said she is going and will leave the mess for someone else to clear up, so her focus right now is securing her legacy by being able claim she delivered.
As for the meaningful vote, to avoid a constitutional crisis and further legal action they will have to eventually vote on the future relationship, but that will be somebody else's problem.
Thanks, but I don't understand how this mandates a vote in the UK parliament on the political declaration? I can see how it might mean Europe would need to agree to it (and have done) but I don't see a mechanism by which the PM couldn't pass the actual deal, then tell Parliament to go home. Wasn't the political declaration just a fig leaf to get Parliament to pass the deal in the first place?
– David
2 days ago
@David Gina Miller's legal action and the subsequent legislation created a legal requirement for her to have a meaningful vote on the political declaration.
– user
2 days ago
Yes, I understand, but would that requirement not be fulfilled by voting on the actual deal?
– David
2 days ago
@David It wouldn't because the requirement is on a meaningful vote on the shape of the future relationship. In fact today's vote should be considered a meaningful vote as it does shape that relationship, e.g. the backstop, but the government is trying to make out that it's not.
– user
2 days ago
add a comment |
Article 50, which governs how countries leave the EU, states that in the two years after triggering it the EU will negotiate how that country will leave with consideration given to the future trading relationship.
So the UK tried to include a political declaration about that future relationship.
That failed spectacularly, twice. So now the government is just trying to pass the part that sets up the transition period and trade negotiations, with would technically deliver brexit as the UK would leave the European Union. May has already said she is going and will leave the mess for someone else to clear up, so her focus right now is securing her legacy by being able claim she delivered.
As for the meaningful vote, to avoid a constitutional crisis and further legal action they will have to eventually vote on the future relationship, but that will be somebody else's problem.
Article 50, which governs how countries leave the EU, states that in the two years after triggering it the EU will negotiate how that country will leave with consideration given to the future trading relationship.
So the UK tried to include a political declaration about that future relationship.
That failed spectacularly, twice. So now the government is just trying to pass the part that sets up the transition period and trade negotiations, with would technically deliver brexit as the UK would leave the European Union. May has already said she is going and will leave the mess for someone else to clear up, so her focus right now is securing her legacy by being able claim she delivered.
As for the meaningful vote, to avoid a constitutional crisis and further legal action they will have to eventually vote on the future relationship, but that will be somebody else's problem.
answered 2 days ago
useruser
10.1k32240
10.1k32240
Thanks, but I don't understand how this mandates a vote in the UK parliament on the political declaration? I can see how it might mean Europe would need to agree to it (and have done) but I don't see a mechanism by which the PM couldn't pass the actual deal, then tell Parliament to go home. Wasn't the political declaration just a fig leaf to get Parliament to pass the deal in the first place?
– David
2 days ago
@David Gina Miller's legal action and the subsequent legislation created a legal requirement for her to have a meaningful vote on the political declaration.
– user
2 days ago
Yes, I understand, but would that requirement not be fulfilled by voting on the actual deal?
– David
2 days ago
@David It wouldn't because the requirement is on a meaningful vote on the shape of the future relationship. In fact today's vote should be considered a meaningful vote as it does shape that relationship, e.g. the backstop, but the government is trying to make out that it's not.
– user
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks, but I don't understand how this mandates a vote in the UK parliament on the political declaration? I can see how it might mean Europe would need to agree to it (and have done) but I don't see a mechanism by which the PM couldn't pass the actual deal, then tell Parliament to go home. Wasn't the political declaration just a fig leaf to get Parliament to pass the deal in the first place?
– David
2 days ago
@David Gina Miller's legal action and the subsequent legislation created a legal requirement for her to have a meaningful vote on the political declaration.
– user
2 days ago
Yes, I understand, but would that requirement not be fulfilled by voting on the actual deal?
– David
2 days ago
@David It wouldn't because the requirement is on a meaningful vote on the shape of the future relationship. In fact today's vote should be considered a meaningful vote as it does shape that relationship, e.g. the backstop, but the government is trying to make out that it's not.
– user
2 days ago
Thanks, but I don't understand how this mandates a vote in the UK parliament on the political declaration? I can see how it might mean Europe would need to agree to it (and have done) but I don't see a mechanism by which the PM couldn't pass the actual deal, then tell Parliament to go home. Wasn't the political declaration just a fig leaf to get Parliament to pass the deal in the first place?
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, but I don't understand how this mandates a vote in the UK parliament on the political declaration? I can see how it might mean Europe would need to agree to it (and have done) but I don't see a mechanism by which the PM couldn't pass the actual deal, then tell Parliament to go home. Wasn't the political declaration just a fig leaf to get Parliament to pass the deal in the first place?
– David
2 days ago
@David Gina Miller's legal action and the subsequent legislation created a legal requirement for her to have a meaningful vote on the political declaration.
– user
2 days ago
@David Gina Miller's legal action and the subsequent legislation created a legal requirement for her to have a meaningful vote on the political declaration.
– user
2 days ago
Yes, I understand, but would that requirement not be fulfilled by voting on the actual deal?
– David
2 days ago
Yes, I understand, but would that requirement not be fulfilled by voting on the actual deal?
– David
2 days ago
@David It wouldn't because the requirement is on a meaningful vote on the shape of the future relationship. In fact today's vote should be considered a meaningful vote as it does shape that relationship, e.g. the backstop, but the government is trying to make out that it's not.
– user
2 days ago
@David It wouldn't because the requirement is on a meaningful vote on the shape of the future relationship. In fact today's vote should be considered a meaningful vote as it does shape that relationship, e.g. the backstop, but the government is trying to make out that it's not.
– user
2 days ago
add a comment |
The Speaker of the House of Commons has said that he won't allow a motion that is substantially the same as a previously defeated motion to be moved by the Government. This is their workaround, splitting it into two motions to be voted on separately.
It may be the case that the government does not need the vote on the political declaration, but they hold the vote anyway as another "advisory" vote. It would certainly look bad that they hold "continuous meaningful votes until one passes" by doing constant fiddles like this.
I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question - can't Theresa let the deal go through and not have a vote on the declaration at all?
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, so they don't need to hold a vote on the declaration, its just optics? What happens if they pass the deal, but not the declaration? though maybe that's another question
– David
2 days ago
add a comment |
The Speaker of the House of Commons has said that he won't allow a motion that is substantially the same as a previously defeated motion to be moved by the Government. This is their workaround, splitting it into two motions to be voted on separately.
It may be the case that the government does not need the vote on the political declaration, but they hold the vote anyway as another "advisory" vote. It would certainly look bad that they hold "continuous meaningful votes until one passes" by doing constant fiddles like this.
I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question - can't Theresa let the deal go through and not have a vote on the declaration at all?
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, so they don't need to hold a vote on the declaration, its just optics? What happens if they pass the deal, but not the declaration? though maybe that's another question
– David
2 days ago
add a comment |
The Speaker of the House of Commons has said that he won't allow a motion that is substantially the same as a previously defeated motion to be moved by the Government. This is their workaround, splitting it into two motions to be voted on separately.
It may be the case that the government does not need the vote on the political declaration, but they hold the vote anyway as another "advisory" vote. It would certainly look bad that they hold "continuous meaningful votes until one passes" by doing constant fiddles like this.
The Speaker of the House of Commons has said that he won't allow a motion that is substantially the same as a previously defeated motion to be moved by the Government. This is their workaround, splitting it into two motions to be voted on separately.
It may be the case that the government does not need the vote on the political declaration, but they hold the vote anyway as another "advisory" vote. It would certainly look bad that they hold "continuous meaningful votes until one passes" by doing constant fiddles like this.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
CalethCaleth
79659
79659
I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question - can't Theresa let the deal go through and not have a vote on the declaration at all?
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, so they don't need to hold a vote on the declaration, its just optics? What happens if they pass the deal, but not the declaration? though maybe that's another question
– David
2 days ago
add a comment |
I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question - can't Theresa let the deal go through and not have a vote on the declaration at all?
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, so they don't need to hold a vote on the declaration, its just optics? What happens if they pass the deal, but not the declaration? though maybe that's another question
– David
2 days ago
I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question - can't Theresa let the deal go through and not have a vote on the declaration at all?
– David
2 days ago
I understand that, but it still doesn't answer the question - can't Theresa let the deal go through and not have a vote on the declaration at all?
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, so they don't need to hold a vote on the declaration, its just optics? What happens if they pass the deal, but not the declaration? though maybe that's another question
– David
2 days ago
Thanks, so they don't need to hold a vote on the declaration, its just optics? What happens if they pass the deal, but not the declaration? though maybe that's another question
– David
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f39973%2fwhy-does-the-uk-parliament-need-a-vote-on-the-political-declaration%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
The broader answer is that the whole political system is designed so that no one person has absolute power to make decisions. British history has been directly ruled by the monarch, people didn't like it, there was a civil war. If the leader can make and implement decisions unanimously, the idea of elected representatives is meaningless.
– AJFaraday
2 days ago