myata

Yeah right. Just as we were about to melt down in the warm memories of our PM leading Canada's team to their doubtlessly starry peformances with his regular inspiring appearances, and thus forgive and forget his ealier self inflicted mishaps, such a giveaway!

Confidence motion can (be delayed) and has been Investigation of government acts by Parliament can be obstructed and delayed and has been Questioning of government by the Parliment can and has been. Accountability of the government has been suspended. Let's admit it finally, despite what we read in the books our Parliament is not an independent and sovereign democratic institution not to say, "supreme". It can and has been pushed and trumped by the government in pretty much whatever way it'd feel like. This is a travesty and ridicule of accountable and responsible democracy. As a matter of fact, we here should be thankful to Mr Harper for laying it out as clear as can possibly be. I wonder if his acting out is an attempt (conscious or not) to pay back for all the abuses of Parliamentary sovreignty (prorogations, shut downs, theatrics in the Question Period) of Chretien's majority years. If we don't heed him now, we're blind and deaf for all what matters, politically.

I see, like another poster here you're starting to pass your visions of the future for valid arguments in a discussion. Could it be because you're running short of the real ones? The bottom line is that the system we have allows him to get away with it as it allows the government to obstruct this investigation at will and the Parliament cannot do a thing about it because it cannot even meet other than by an order from the government. Gotcha. A law is good - if you (government) likes it. No surprise that these laws, constitutional processes always allow the government an easy out in case they don't like something - not in the least through the use of prerogatives and special powers (want to have election now, rather than three years on - call my appointee GG to set it up; don't like this investigation by the Parliament committee - call my GG to shut it down). So, the question: do we want to continue playing at democracy, or actually have it, by making all branches of government operate strictly within their constitutional domain and obey laws always and on principle? Wrong, no matter how many times you say it. As we have found on the example of at least two parliamentary system (Ireland and Netherlands), government there does not have exclusive control over the political process and there are real checks and balances preventing any one branch of power from dominating it. One more time and slowly, if in your view "parliamentary" is synonimous with "dominance of political process by the executive branch of government" then I'm sorry to say it, all those mega hours of hystory were lost on you. Good that we're at least starting to explore these questions, that means that one day we may actually question whether it's really right to allow one branch of power to call all shots in the political process, the idea that unchecked power is always wrong being so novel to us. Of course as we deepen our studies we find out that checks and balances are there exactly to prevent political powers from overreaching their constitutional domains of responsibility. Really, has it happen while you were asleep? On your suggestion we closely examined two of such systems, and found that neither allows unrestricted interference of government with the work of the Parliament a la what we have here. Have you perhaps missed that part? You'll be surprised. Some people here think that it's OK to grant unelected appointee the powers to stop passage of laws, suspend and dissolve the Parliament, dismiss the government, etc. Is it really that far different from "absolutism". And then, as somebody here has stated the Monarch embodies democratics aspirations of the nation via Constitution, yada, how's that not entirely 100% democratics, if we want it to be so? Wow, a definite achievement! Who cares that all around you the Parliament is actually a fully independent democratic institution operating by its own schedule, within its own constitutional domain and keeping government in check, right? Looks like I'll have to give up here. No matter how many times I write it in plain English including detailed argumentation why I believe it to be more efficient and why most advanced democracies have adopted some form of it, for you it'll always be about the unfortunate December coalition. Doesn't seem like there's much more I could do here. Well, we can't have another "populace" here but with the system that is so obviously flawed and outdated wouldn't the only logical and rational choice be to attempt to update it, even despite disbelief and resistence of those who directly benefit from backwardness, lack of transparency and competition? Here, got it for you. Of course it's the whole bloody point - in an absolute monarchy. In a democracy each branch of power operates within its own constitutional domain, under check from other independent democratic institutions. Petit confusion, I understand. Now listen, my boy, Daddy, he's been to many places and he knows BEST. Change is DANGEROUS, we may all DIE! Better sit back enjoy what you have (that is, had since 1867) and don't even dream of tweaking with it.

Still it sucks as h... that a government would spend this amount of our money for no other reason than to cover its own blunder (with prorogation) and create a more positive view of itself. I.e. as per regular course of affairs in our transparent democracy, "I screwed - you pay".

Bad, bad McKay! How could he dare to disobey our Parliament supremacy respecting, democracy loving Prime Minister, does he deserve spanking! (direct from Castle Anthrax, courtesy of Monty Python). But you're right, everybody here has yet to see those "fixed election dates" written as they are into our law books. Surprise, isn't it? The book says, "fixed", the government says - "now!" The book says "Supreme!", the PM - "that's enough, go on vacation and don't come back till I tell you". What you read in that (shiny history book) isn't exactly what you get here, eh? No, I just happen to think that there are better ways for the government to operate than under the duress of the ultimate and self destruct button of "supremacy". Where each branch of government operates within its own area of constitutional responsibilities and does not need to or permitted to interfere with the work of other institution. Already understood and used in democracies all around you, so no need to invent the wheel. But of course can't be found in that centuries old book of final and ultimate wisdom we happen to live our (political) lives by, here. Dutch parliament has been in session since January 11, if I'm not mistaken. And some may think that absolute monarchy is democratic too. May just be a matter of vision, which being private I wouldn't bring out to the public forum. And is the chief reason to not make any, even obvious, improvements in ours? The "self destruct" solution? Sounds smart, doesn't it? Just like dropping thing dead and coming back to pick it up a few months later, just because our government happens to think that it's not the best time for this investigation. You can't admit it, can you, that this ultimate power of the government to shut down the only body that can see over it and hold it to any standard of accountability simply has no place in the modern age? Politically, we still operate in the glorious times of Prince Charles and such. No, I stated the rules I want to see and those I think don't belong in this reality and need to be changed, and I did it so many times already that I could only attribute that statement to a reading or comprehension disability. No, you haven't explained why and how the removal of outdated and unnecessary executive powers of federal government could undermine "regional situation" or any other bs like that. I think it's much more about our duopoly situation where none of the two owners of the political process interested in a meaningful change because they could just wait for their turn and have it all to themselves. OK we should start counting the faulties already: 1. The regional situation 2. The Electorate 3. (see below) Other political parties I.e. almost anything but that dusty peace of paper that tells a PM who's interested to know that he can dominate the political process in the country regardless of his support and just by picking up the phone. And no, it's the only one thing of the above that cannot be changed ever because it was written perfect and final by Queen Mary (OK put another name if you want) herself! Booga, booga boo! Change is bad! It's risky and it's DANGEROUS! We may all DIE! Let's not even go there and leave things just as they are (i.e. were since 1867).

"If" is indeed a good term here. Look at our PM for example: he is "bound" by any number of rules and decisions, like: observing "supremacy of the Parliament"; obligation to provide documents to Parliamentarty investigations; the law (his own) to hold elections on fixed dates; a number of other laws that he does not like to mention. And? Look where's our Parliament, "fixed" elections and the documents? Right. This is because most grown up individuals understand that making something happen may take more than writing it into glancy picture books. Hint: this is why unlike us and a few other rare and in between exceptions, most modern democracies have introduced independence of democratic institions, limited their powers and created checks and balances so that no one branch of government dominates political process. We here seem to yet to wake up to realisation that the problem even exists. I'm really getting tired of useless repetitions. Their Parliament is working and ours is you know where. Is it a big or "small" difference? To me it's about the same one that differentiates a functional, vibrant democracy from a formal one. And again "can demand" is not the same as "can conduct investigations free of obstruction or interference". When the Parliament returns after the Olympics they would need to reset all committees, recreate agendas, order of the day etc. Who knows how long it'll take them to get to the point where they could actually demand those documents againt - if ever (right where they were last September). Looks like you're still struggling to understand that there may be a difference between something that' written in the book and what is actually working. Is our Parliament working? Well I hope you at least should be able to answer that trivial question. Anyways, wouldn't one find the ability of the executive to obstruct and interrupt inconvenient investigation of its activities at will and for a long, long and long time quite astounding - for a "vibrant" democracy? Well, and please listen carefully this time, there's token, procedural difference and difference in principle. If one branch of government is allowed to obstruct and interrupt its oversight and control, wouldn't it undermine the very principle of independent powers, and therefore the princiles of accountability and responsible democratic governance? Then change isn't going to happen too. Dinosaurs also believed in that, should ask them for an advice in this situation. As said, this could only happen now in a case of a major screw up by one of our two majority behemoths. Neither has anything new to offer, and more importantly, reluctant and terrified of offering anything new. It is a solution, it can work and it has worked but of course unlike some here I cannot speak for the country. People can choose change or they can choose to stick with the status quo and the choice determines their future, I can only say as much.

OK, if: - proportionally elected vs first by the post - coalition as a norm vs coalition as an anathema direct from political Hell - elected by popular vote vs appointed by the government - working to set schedule as opposed to convened and suspended by the government when and as needed - constitutional right to investigation and access to information as opposed to well established pracice of ignoring, obstruction and plain ridicule by the government all sound like "exactly the same way", I'm not sure in what other way I can be of any further assistance here. Maybe only to ask for the meaning of "wordplay" and "circular argument" in your framework of logic? The only practical way I could think of is this: stop voting for any of the two political behemoth parties, on principle. Their main preoccupation is with taking turns at the power political wrestling show associated with it, and real meangful change is the one thing they are most terrified of because it brings RISK and UNKNOWN and CHANGE to their well puffed up comfy positions in this country's political system. This may already be happening anyways, and darn me if "prorogation" Harper vs "go figure" Iggy duo would add any more interest to our federal politics that were already running at dangerously low levels of substance. Eventually, one of two things will happen: either, voter participation would drop to ridiculously low levels making it impossible to pretend any longer that we still have THE BEST DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. Or, we'll see a new face at the power control that could be more conductive (and less terrified of) real democratic change.

And so we're back all the way to Square #0. Let's see how this strategem would work in other humanly undertakings: "No shoes can be created that would feel perfectly comfortable at all times and in all weathers, so I'll stick with my old and stinky pair of wooden clogs" "No perfectly fitting clothes can be made so I'll just keep using my old furs" "No unbreakable cart can be made so I'll just keep moving this stuff on my back". Shall we continue? Or, for some divine reason our political system has been created in the dawn of political times in complete and perfect form, requiring no adjustement or modifications till end of times?

Really? And I thought all was nice and clear because you forgot to mention any ( I thought that we already addressed some of these draustic "similarities" and I'm not in the repetitive mood. Whether real or proclaimed similarities exist, domination of political process by one branch of government is not good for any democracy that is claiming to be functional and transparent, not to mention active and vibrant. Nope you got it wrong and through none of my doing because I stated multiple times that I consider political domination a negative thing regardless of how it happens, through majority clout or use of executive prerogatives disguised into historical robes. The example of this government was obviously very useful as a factual demonstratoin of powers and privileges available to even minority government, and if it was Liberals rather than CPC abusing them, it would be equally inacceptable. Which is exactly why I favour modifying the system over replacing the government as suggested by some posters, because it would leave the obvious flaws in the system open to abuse by future governments regardless of their partisan flavours. I'll say more, if the system is not modified in a meaningful way in the near future to bring in more active representation of realities in the society, the federal politics could lose much more interest and participation among voters and eventually become quite irrelevant.

What questions remain to be answered honestly, though? Is Canada's political system dominated by the executive power? The history of the last year should give a clear and obvious answer to anybody who cares to see. This minority government has done all of the above, i.e obstructed work of Parliamentary commissions and "independent" watchdogs, undermined and fired "independent" watchdogs, refused the Parliament access to information, termnated Parliamentary investigations and suspended the Parlament. What other power or privilege could it wish for, and in what other way could our presumably "independent" and "supreme" Parliament be trumped and danced upon? Should anything be done about it? This question would have to be answered by the people, and the answer would determine the future course (and eventual fate) of our democracy.

No, they are the token and instrument of that "vibrant", etc democracy all the others should be aspiring to. Aka "shut up and listen, big brother (the government) Knows Best". With that, perfected by centuries to absolute and final immutability kind of democracy who needs the cr.. like defined constitutional roles, independence and balance of political institutions, checks and balances, proportional representation, system of political coalitions, etc, right?

It really pi..es me off! Bloody stupid ads to buy my vote from me for my own money. But sigh.. with our love for the big brother, political apathy and reluctance to change we deserve all of these and future self serving political ads courtesy of our tax payer wholesale and more, possibly much more.

Well if we take that view, then wouldn't all those reserve powers and prerogatives become little more than thinly disguised mandate for the government to dominate political process in the country, undermining other democratic institutions and making a joke of the notions of independence and balance of powers? Little surprise that fewer and fewer voters become interested in this political circus. Rather than borrowing tricks and gymmicks we should do away with unnecessary powers and privileges and modernise our political system to reflect the times. By creating real and working balance of powers, allowing coalitions of parties to become the norm of democracy and some form of proportional representation that would reflect the actual political spectrum of the country rather than its distorted reflection through a 200 year old dusty prism.

Agree, sad indeed is your inability to see the difference between "similar" and "quite opposite". As specially highlighted for easy comprehension, the monarch in the aforementioned system refrains from playing active political role, and there's no indication of reserve powers and prerogatives like our GG/PM ability to reset the Parliament whenether they like, killing all active legislation, investigations and commissions, etc. What does exist in that system is the Parliament's explicit constitutional power to keep the government responsible and accountable, and practical and efficient independence and separation of powers, preventing any one branch of government from dominating political process. If this is "similar" to what we have here, where PM can shut down the Parliament in about 5 min by simply picking up the phone and without any explanations or processes, then cow is "similar" to the nightingale, Afghanistan is a democracy just like Holland or Ireland and so on, everybody got the idea. No, the real difference is independence of the Parliament and separation, checks and balances of powers that allow each branch to do its work without interfering with the others. This is what's really different from here, where the executive branch dominates political process, either via majority support in the Parliament, or through legacy "prerogatives" when not. The historical mission and current state of affairs is for the Parliament to serve the government in power, and its "independence" and "supremacy" is worth about as much as the paper that book you're reading was printed on, just stop by the Hill to see this version of democracy in action.

OK, as there seem to be little interest in detail analysis of aforementioned and allegedly "similar" and "Westminister" democracies, let's consider one more example, from your own list, and round it up at that. And so, political system of Netherlands has these "similarities" (as easily found on: Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Netherlands ), Parlink interparliament network and a number of other easily available resources): - Coalition governments has been a norm since 1900. A well defined process exists to establish government coalition and create coalition government. - The Parliament has a set sitting schedule. - The Parliament has constitutional privilege to question government and access all documents. - The Parliament can vote no confidence in an individual minister or the entire government, causing resignation thereof. Vote of no confidence in the government causes its resignation and commonly (but not necessarily), a new election. - The government has constitutional privilege to request dissolution of the Parliament, but it has not been used in the last 100 years. - The Queen plays formal and ceremonial role in setting up and functioning of government but has refrained from being involved in the politics since after World War 2. - The ministers of the government have to resign their seats in the Parliament. I'll leave up to the readers to judge how "similar" it is to what we have here, but I could make these conclusions: 1) The Constitutional Monarch in Netherlands plays only formal and ceremonial role and does not get involved into active politics. 2) There is real and functional separation of powers, checks and balances defined both constitutionally and by convention that prevent any one branch of power from interfering with and obstructing the others, most notably, government obstructing the work of the Parliament as has been the case in Canada recently (Parliament of Canada: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E). BTW while doing this research I stumbled across a point that even among constitutional monarchies the system of "reserve powers and prerogatives" is only common in the British Commonwealth. I haven't found many references to use of these instruments in New Zealand (especially in the more recent period after introduction of proportional elections), but do recall that it's used in Australia. Certainly, when used commonly in daily political practice like in this country, these powers give significant and arguably, overreaching influence to the executive branch thus undermining independence of the Parliament and integrity of democratic political system. The example of Dutch system does nothing to dispel the point that these powers are incompatible with the principles of modern and responsible democracy and should be removed, formally or through convention that governments, and especially the minority ones should refrain from using them.

Not so fast; as we already know from the earlier example the devil is in detail. So why don't we approach your examples one at a time, with as much time and attention as needed to establish the truth of the matter? Leaving aside maybe the UK as the origin of this system we have in Canada and Australia (having lived in the latter, I have to concede that it has very similar system to Canada, the "executive democracy" though even they have actually accomplished something that we only still have in our dreams - elected Senate, by proportional vote, and an active debate about republic). Anyways, where would you like to start? Finally, to avoid any confusion (and I thought I made it very clear a number of times) the statements about Canada's (and similar) political models do not imply that they are not democratic or illegitimate (I think that I already commented enough on futility of attempts to determine legitimacy of government of other people). Only that those models do not comply with a set of self obvious principles, the principles of "modern and responsible democracy" (in my interperetation and without taking any credit - I recall reading about it during hystory classes in high school instead of those glancy picture books).

I know, it must be getting a bit complicated for somebody who has learned about political systems from coloured picturebooks: ceremonial heads of state could still exist in democracy without "democratic legitimacy" (in the sense of described principles of responsible democracy) as long as they play, well obviously, only ceremonial role and do not make sovereign decisions in the political process, which are the exclusive privilege of institutions with direct democratic mandate from the people.

Thought so. Anyways, from that perspective (lack of democratic legitimacy of the unelected office of Canadian viceroy), it would be interesting to examine hypothetical situation with the coalition, like one in the fall of 2008. So, suppose the coalition held and did end up voting non confidence in January 09, not two months after previous elections. Supposing the outgoing PM wants to extract political gains against the opposition and advises GG to dissolve the Parliament and call the elections, while coalition asks for a mandate to govern. As established earlier, lacking sovereign democratic legitimacy, that in a modern democracy could come only from being elected by people or their representatives, GG cannot make sovereign decisions, and the most logical decision from that perspective would be to defer to the people as the ultimate authority. And so two months after elections we have another one, and suppose they produce similar outcome with the same party in the minority position and coalition commanding majority in the Parliament. Following the script, the same PM is appointed, and immediately defeated by the Coalition on the throne speech. Then situation repeats itself. Forever (or as close to it as sanely possible in reality). Yes that is why the office of elected President exists in Ireland, because people have actually thought of possibility of the government losing majority support, and considered coalition as a normal situation in a vibrant and functioning democracy. While here in Canada we still stick to the (some two centuries) old view that the government of the Sovereign will always have majority support and there's no need to worry about "rare" or "unlikely" situations when they wouldn't and coalions are nothing short of being political aberrations and/or plain anaphema. Well, as said there're two ways to learn, on others examples or one's own. Presuming that is, that one is still capable of learning.

You'd think that volume (or strong epithets) could obscure or even entirely eliminate substance, and yet anybody with a slightest clue about democracy would instantly see the (lightyears) difference between "elected by popular vote" and "elected by nobody". I already said that on that level of discussion everything is the same, everything is a vibrant and blah modern democracy, Afghanistan, Canada, China and Bhutan. No further argument. To T-B: I'll try to spell it one more time and very slowly: 1) The President of Irish republic is elected by popular vote and for that reason has independent and sovereign democratic legitimacy. 2) Their powers are explicitly defined in the Constitution including the one to reject the advice of executive in certain circumstances. 3) I could not find any reference of the power of prorogation granted to the executive or the President. Note that even it is (we'll need a constitutional expert on Irish political system to confirm that), then it would likely to formally fall into the Presidents responsibilities, and then the already mentioned qualification would make possibility of prorogation to avoid confidence motion highly questionnable. At least to the extent that would make a government considering such option think twice. In Canada, being unelected GG lacks democratic legitimacy, and therefore cannot play sovereign political role with any credibility. Her role is reduced to being a formal conduit for the will of the executive, with the effect that no meaningful checks or qualifications on the powers granted to the executive exist.

Or you could think that this melee has anything to do with rationality or logic. There are however things people have established that allow them to distinguish e.g. a cow from an ameba which are both living creatures and yes are so different and unique in their own right nonetheless for that. The principles of modern representative democracy dictate democratic legitimacy of all powers, independendce, division of powers and checks and balances between democratic institutions. From that point of view, Canada's variant of democracy rates quite poor and cannot be classified as "modern" for the obvious reason that it grants by far excessive, unchecked and unqualified powers and privileges to one, executive branch of power, leaving political process in the country open to possibility of abuse, and the democracy - compromised. As can be obviously seen by anybody who has not lost ability to see or still cares to.

You obviously not hearing (or not interested to hear) the truth of the matter. In Ireland an elected by popular vote President has both constitutionally defined powers and democratic legitimacy to reject the advice of the executive. Explicitly mentioned in the cited passage is the advice of dissolution, but in the absence of otherwise indication, there's no reason to expect that similar processes wouldn't exists for other cases of advice. There's no indication of whether Irish PM (Tao..etc) indeed has constitutional powers to interrupt, or suspend the work of the Parliament, I could not find specific references to who controls the workings of the Parliament, but even if they do have that option, the President clearly may have the powers and democratic legitimacy to reject questionnable advice. Here of course, GG is elected by nobody, and so is clearly lacking any democratic legitimacy to make sovereign decisions. If they do, it would an obvious violation of democratic principles. And if they don't, for all practical matters they become plain and simply a conduit of the will of the executive (as what we see if we aren't being blind that is). None of which sounds anywhere near the level of sophistication of checks and balances found in the Irish constitution. OK, let's summarise the facts we know for certain: Republic of Ireland: Parliament is elected by proportional vote Has the sole authority to pass laws (executive cannot reject laws, or advise etc.. - only refer them to the court) Has the sole authority to declare wars and allow government to participate in wars Elects the executive Passes confidence motions President is elected by popular vote Has explicit constitutional roles and responsibilities, including the authority to reject advice of the executive in certain cases And here, in Canada: The executive appoints GG Unelected GG appoints the executive following elections Executive can (directly or via "advice" to unelected GG who cares): obstruct work of Parliament, suspend it for up to a year, refuse passage of any laws, etc The Parliament can: pass confidence motions...pass confidence motions .. (to infinity) Still sounds like "the same" or at least "similar"? Well, depending on who's really being "blind" and "illiterate" (or both?) here.

Aside the "identical" that is so very much like "unlike", Ireland's constitution gives explicit power to the independent, elected President to reject the advice of PM when his government's confidence status is in question. Unlike our system here, it's a serious check on the executive in controlling the Parliament (and of course in the other example, Germany it simply does not exist). If we here had anything like that there's every possibility that Harper would not even attempt to try his prorogation gimmicks. And so, my earlier statement stands intact, no other first world democracy examined so far grants its executive such overwhelming and unqualified powers as we here in Canada. We'll continue this examination so that at least those who are interested could get a hint of the actual state of affairs here, as opposed to glancy picture book we learn in school. Self praise, apathy and aversion to change won't get us far. The embarrasment at the Olympics ceremony, glitch in the flame ceremeny immediately following a generous dollop of most glutenous self praise (to which btw I couldn't immediately find a parallel to in other games) could be a great parallel, or is it a hint from the above, whatever you happen to believe.

Similar??! One of us must have a funny idea what the word means, so let's have a closer look: Here: PM (even minority PM) has an absolutely free hand in suspending or convening the Parliament at any time of their choosing. Germany: The BUNDESTAG (ie the Parliament) "shall determine" (highlighted for easy reading and hopefully, understanding) Ireland: gives explicit privilege to the (elected) President to not follow the advice of the Government if its confidence status is in question. Now with Germany it should be completely clear thati it does not allow a minority PM to dissolve or suspend parliament, unless the Parliament itself so decides. Is that similar to what just happened to us here? Answer: only in the land where day means night, and lack of Parliamentary independence - supemacy and vibrant and blah, democracy. Let's move on to the other example, Ireland. There, an elected President is given an explicit discretion to reject the advice of government whose confidence status is in question. How similar would it be to our already just mentioned situation here? I'll have to begin on a short lecture about democratic legitimacy. See, in a democracy, any sort of sovereign (as opposed to delegated) power has to come from the people, either directly or via their elected representatives. And so, while elected President can be democratically entitled to acts like suspension of Parliament (without saying that I would support such an arrangement for reasons I already touched upon), such an act by a person without democratic legitimacy (like an unelected appointee) would be a big no-no in any society concious and concerned about functioning of their democracy. The reason why we happen to have it this way here of course goes back deep into history when the source of sovereign power was the monarchy, and we just haven't noticed, or didn't care to that in couple of hundred centuries the system has been in place some things have changed around us. Anywats, we can now move on to the example of Ireland. If there's a conflict of two sovereign democratic powers, namely the government, representing a faction of elected representatives, and the Parliamentary majority that would not extend its confidence to the government, the third and also democratically sovereign power i.e. the President makes a decision which they are explicitly empowered to by the Constitution. Now, how similar it would be to our situation in Canada? Let's summarise: There: elected President makes decision explicitly defined in the Constitution; Here: unelected appointee is granted with a privilege to make an important political decisions with not democratic legitimacy, or any explicit definition or qualification of the privilege (such as the state of confidence). Does it sound "the same" or even "similar"? Again only in that dreamland where "No" means "Yes" and the less independent democratic institutions one has, the more vibrant and sovereign their democracy becomes. Now TB, I do appreciate your efforts in digging out all that stuff, being somewhat tied up I cannot accomplish something like that this quickly, but I'll do some research of my own on Parliamentary independency and division of power in the modern democracies, and post results as I get them.

Good dig, TB, but the question still remains, whether Ireland PM has the power to suspend (prorogue, etc) the Parliament for a year, like ours? And I doubt that suspension of legislature for extended periods of time is compatible with principles of modern and responsible democracy. This is clearly a subservient role to the government, where the Parliament is recalled when needed, and can be shut down on convenience at any time. Doesn't sound to me as a recepy for transparency and accountability or responsibility no matter how many words are spun. I guess the only way to resolve our doubts would be to research on the role of the Parliament in the advanced democracies, let see what we can find?

What's unproven though? That the Parliament is being sent to rest, for three months? And for the second time in as many years? Look out that window, will ya? Or that any PM can send it there for even longer, up to a year at at time (we have TD's expert word on that)? So what exactly is unproven, hyperbolic etc, would you care to elaborate? And again, just in case you happened to forget, how common would such situation be among democracies of the developed world?