Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 599 posts

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#41

Post by retrac »

gruffalowboy wrote: post #36
etrevino wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.

> nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.

Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.)

Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into political debates, and not opening up the office to the vulgarities of electoral politics.

For example, Germany elects its president by convening both the Federal and State legislatures together, who then vote. By pulling in all the regional parties and legislators, the President has to have broad support across party lines. It's also convention that the President doesn't wade into daily political issues. The result is a largely ceremonial office, usually held by a broadly respected statesperson with former government experience. Which is what you want for the "emergency button" you hope you don't have to push in the first place.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#42

Post by jsmith45 »

retrac wrote: post #35
Silhouette wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parliament is sovereign. This is always a fun start to any argument about the constitution of the UK. The thing is, you're building on a foundation that could potentially be challenged. As we discovered during the Brexit debates, people are happy to use words like "parliamentary sovereignty" when it suits their purposes, yet clearly many of them have never actually read Dicey , much less understood its entire argumen…

For what it's worth, Canada somehow managed the trick. That is to say, through an act of the British Parliament, the Canadian legislature became a sovereign legislature, bound by a written constitution. Basically, the UK Parliament passed a law delegating all of its powers to the Canadian legislature and declared it would never debate or pass a law again on the Canada question. Nothing actually stops them from doing…

> (As an aside, "What would happen if the British Parliament did repeal the British North America Act 1867 or Canada Act 1982?" is a rather fun hypothetical from the Canadian side.)

The Queen would likely (rightly) refuse Royal Assent if parliament tried that, given that as she is also Queen of Canada, she could never legitimately allow the UK Parliament to do that.

And if so some reason she did not, it would have no real impact on Canada anyway. Practically speaking Canada is in no way bound by the UK at this point. While legal theory may claim otherwise, it does not really matter. Legal theory would also claim the US constitution is illegitimate, because it was not passed in the way considered correct by its predecessor document (Articles of Confederation). Nobody cares.

The UK trying to change Canada's constitutional situation would be no more effective than the US passed a law claiming to amend Canada's constitution. The Government of Canada would laugh at it, and otherwise move on with their day. In the UK case they might debate changing to no longer be a Monarchy, since their Queen had failed them here.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#43

Post by retrac »

jsmith45 wrote: post #42
retrac wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, Canada somehow managed the trick. That is to say, through an act of the British Parliament, the Canadian legislature became a sovereign legislature, bound by a written constitution. Basically, the UK Parliament passed a law delegating all of its powers to the Canadian legislature and declared it would never debate or pass a law again on the Canada question. Nothing actually stops them from doing…

> (As an aside, "What would happen if the British Parliament did repeal the British North America Act 1867 or Canada Act 1982?" is a rather fun hypothetical from the Canadian side.) The Queen would likely (rightly) refuse Royal Assent if parliament tried that, given that as she is also Queen of Canada, she could never legitimately allow the UK Parliament to do that. And if so some reason she did not, it would have no…

Yes. It's just a silly thought experiment, of course. I mentioned it, if anything, to highlight how, what the law says on paper, may not be the real law.

Canada would, of course, simply ignore any such act. Even if there were a strong legal argument made in our own courts that it somehow abolished our sovereignty, we'd all agree to simply pretend otherwise.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#44

Post by matthewdgreen »

thesuitonym wrote: post #21
dhosek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? Apparently what is widely assumed to be a pro forma aspect of the legislative process has, in fact, been used to make substantive changes to legislature before it's even presented to parliament and this is done in a manner outside of public view.

On the other hand, is this process really that different than the usual process of legislation being crafted in private by people who aren't the Queen before it's presented? It is worrying that the Queen can just say no before legislation gets off the ground, but that's true of many of the more powerful MPs, too. I'm in the US, so I'm not exactly familiar with the process on your side of the pond, but over here, we h…

I think it’s different because the MPs are specifically elected by the public to propose (or block) legislation, and the hierarchy of Parliament is in turn determined by the votes of same elected officials. The Queen isn’t elected. By the same argument you could say that it’s fine for me to have a veto over British legislation, and I assure you that it would not be.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#45

Post by User23 »

retrac wrote: post #41
gruffalowboy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.

Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.) Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into polit…

A monarch actually holds a higher office than a dictator in the Western tradition.

This is relevant because Western monarchs claim the office of Rex/Regina.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#47

Post by sudosysgen »

retrac wrote: post #41
gruffalowboy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nonpartisan president Oxymoron. You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.

Why? The Queen was not elected. She's not a dictator. The de facto head of state in Canada is the Governor General who represents the Queen. The office is, in practice, appointed by the Prime Minister. Also not a tyrannical dictator. (Except with her personal staff, for the last one.) Nonpartisan in the sense that the Queen is nonpartisan. So of course, partisan. Still, nonpartisan like not publicly wading into polit…

Monarchs are just as bad if not worse than dictators. There are also non-tyrannical dictators. The issue with dictators is an issue of incentives, not an issue of immediate result.

Unelected officials should never have significant power. This led to a harmful coup d'etat in Australia. It's not a ceremonial office, and simply the fact that the emergency button exists makes it possible for perversions to continue and cause serious issues (and it has).

Partisanship is very far from the only cause of dysfunction in governments. I'd argue it's not even the worst.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#48

Post by Tomte »

motohagiography wrote: post #19

How does one even become a monarch? They weren't always hereditary, and it would be interesting to see what they were based on. Seems like you need some kind of divine recognition, as otherwise you're just a dictator.

In Sweden: you have people from several factions argue whose candidate should be King, and then you compromise on a French (Bernadotte).

In the Holy See: you have people from several factions argue whose candidate should be Pope, and then you compromise on a Pole (Wojtila).

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#49

Post by Chris2048 »

etrevino wrote: post #20
retrac wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.

You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.

And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown?

I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#50

Post by retrac »

Chris2048 wrote: post #49
etrevino wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.

And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.

Property owned by the Crown is not the property of Elizabeth, as a person. If QE II were to abdicate, for example, she would not get to keep all of it. It's the property of the Crown, the office of the head of state. It belongs to the state, in practice. If she's advised to abdicate, she would, and she's advised to transfer all Crown property to a republic, she would.

The royal family does have many billions in personal holdings as well, of course.

Post reply on HN