British Parliament - what does "I beg to move" mean?
I believe it has to do with parliamentary procedure and the speaker wishes to make a motion.
I want to know what Mr President (Barak Obama)meant by the following passage in his address to UK parliament?
The last sentence of this excerpt means nothing to me!!!!??? I have known few greater honors than the opportunity to address the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster Hall. I'm told the last three speakers here have been The Pope, Her Majesty the Queen, and Nelson Mandela, which is either a very high bar or the beginning of a very funny joke.
Why does the British Parliament think they have a right to interfere with United States elections?
They haven’t, really. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is anxious not to intervene because he wants to ensure that he is on good terms with whoever is the next US President.The only thing that the UK Parliament has done is to hold a debate on whether Donald Trump should be banned from entering the UK. To be fair, that was in response to a petition signed by half a million people — it was not something insisted upon by politicians.The argument that most Brits would make, however, is that there is no reason why British MPs shouldn’t be allowed to express their views on US elections if Barack Obama can come over to Britain and interfere with Britain’s EU referendum.
Would you describe the rise of parliament in England as an evolution or a revolution?
It was a revolution when the Nobles forced King John to sign the document around 1236? AD. Do a history search for King John of England and the documentation that he had to sign giving more control to the Nobles. Out of this came parliament.
Is the British Parliament more powerful than the royal family?
I'm just trying understand what real power (as in political power) does the Royal Family possess? Why in a modern day democracy does England even have a royal family? I ask because I've heard several schools of thought on this, some say they do retain a lot of power, but won't exercise it because it would "political suicide". And, there are others who say that, they possess virtually no power, and the political power rests with parliament, and in the decision making process the queen is consulted out of "respect and tradition"; and if parliament wanted could overthrow the monarchy. Is that true? Could someone tell me? I'm just curious has to why Prince Charles is so anxious to be king if he'd have virtually no real power which in some people's eyes contradicts the idea of being royalty? Thanks a lot! I hope I didn't offend anyone!
Has a US President or official ever appeared in front of British Parliament to face questioning?
Benjamin Franklin spoke before Parliament in 1766 in opposition to the Stamp Act (transcript). Parliament subsequently (though perhaps not consequently) stepped back their taxation policy and tensions were lessened for a few years. Franklin was acting as an official representative of four of the colonies: Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Georgia.President Ronald Reagan spoke before Parliament on 8 Jun 1982 (video+transcript) on the capitalist west vs. the Marxist-Leninist east. Spoilers: he favors the former.President Bill Clinton spoke before Parliament in 1995 (video). He spoke about the US/UK friendship and the unrest in Bosnia.President Barack Obama spoke before Parliament in 25 May 2011 (transcript). He spoke about the common aspects of the two nations' nature and interest, and also of their teamwork in promoting the development of developing nations, the ongoing situation in Middle East and the rights of people worldwide.The three Presidents were giving speeches (ie, one-way communication), but Franklin was interviewed and questioned in an attempt by Parliament to understand the colonies' grievances regarding the Stamp Act.
If Barack Obama was British and ran for office in the UK, would people vote for him?
In short, yes.But the Barack Obama who was in England would be categorically different, coming from the background of a welfare state and so on, what is seen as idealism and anti consumerism in the US is, well, par for the course. To give some more development, if you put who he is today into the system, he'd be a Tory, and he'd probably be fighting Cameron for party leadership, because, well he just exudes competence in a way that most British politicians really don't do, and this would be something the party would be looking for coming to the elections in may. If we put his background into the British development, he'd be very much a member of the old boys club that runs the conservstive party, top tier schools, lawyer, etc, and he wouldn't have any issues there.If however, you assumed that he actually developed in England, and you take how being in this system would affect him, he'd probably be in Labour. I say this because he does come across as an idealistic person, and unlike in America, he wouldn't have to tone down these ideas, and step back on them to not get ripped apart by partisan politics, in fact, quite a lot of it is, as I said earlier, par for the course.Oh and either way, he'd get more done because unlike Congress, the British parliament actually doesn't spend all its time fucking around.