It is a point well made and worth repeating.
The central elements of executive government in Australia (Prime Minister and Cabinet) are not mentioned in the Constitution, operating via conventions still closely paralleling those of the British parliamentary model they were originally based on.
Constitutional monarchy ?
No. Because the parliament can get rid of the monarchy , and did so by importing King William, its really a parliamentary creation …
Also, the word “constitutional” implies the monarch has substantial power due to a written constitution which makes it clear. The UK has no written constitution, and the monarch has very very little power besides.
So there’s three reasons the UK is not , and former British Empire countries are not, a “monarchy”. yes we know they keep saying they are. They also keep saying the UK is three countries. But they only claim on seat on the UN, and run one embassy called the British Embassy , etc,etc . Its one country.
The UK is one country, but three-and-a-portion-of-a-fourth nations.
As Americans, we’re in no position to point fingers on that issue.
Utter nonsense. The word “constitutional” does not imply anything to do with a written constitution, or else the UK would have no such thing as constitutional law. Nor does it say anything about “substantial power.” There are lots of government offices which confer substantial power but have no basis in a constitution.
The UK is actually four countries: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. What it is not is four nation-states, a term that is not synonymous with country in international law or in generic usage.
You might as well say that Taiwan isn’t really a “country” because it doesn’t have a UN seat.
Well, for the UK that depends on which statutory instruments you count as part of the constitution.
Thanks Really Not All That Bright
I’d like to be clear on the definition of ‘constitutional’. Is it this definition?
'sanctioned by or consistent with or operating under the law determining the fundamental political principles of a government"
The definition being used here is more like “relating to a law determining the fundamental political principles of a government,” since we are not talking about an act of government (or as the OED puts it, “Relating to an established set of principles governing a state.”).
Point taken (also with respect to the other documents I cited), so I stand corrected on these (with the added twist that in Britain, there are indeed references to the office of Prime Minister in statutes). But I still reiterate the other, more important, point: That irrespective of what the written statutory texts say, it is completely clear in the constitutional practice of the jurisdictions mentioned that (1) the office of Prime Minister exists and (2) that office is by far the most powerful political office, setting the political agenda and standing at the top of the executive branch of government.
That would be a fairer definition of the British idea of a “constitution”. We (mostly) understand a mishmash of concepts and precedents, some of which have from time to time been written down in statute law, some of which are simply ideas, customs and practices that have become ingrained in (most of) the political and governmental institutions and personnel and helpfully summarised by various academics.
We had a kerfuffle here back in 1975 that showed that while the vice-regal diary is usually concerned with opening flower shows and duchessing visiting dignitaries when the chips really are down they run the show.
Combine the elements of being able to dismiss the current government, call elections, determine who gets first dibs at forming a new government, be the head of the military and potentially [were the looney Oz republicans ever to get their shit together] having their own mandate due to being popularly elected that’s the ball game in this jurisdiction anyway.