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

111–120 of 599 posts

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

#111

Post by StavrosK »

deepsun wrote: post #107
StavrosK wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.

Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.

Hey neighbour! Our lot aren't deterred, each government is about as corrupt as the last...

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

#112

Post by akmarinov »

Apofis wrote: post #104
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

Except she has not exercised her right to stop the Brexit which is entirely damaging to the United Kingdom and which the population was lied into by their current prime minister Boris Johnson. She also will not abdicate to allow someone younger and with more sense to actually make the decision.

If that happened, the monarchy would’ve been abolished within an year.

Overriding a democratic referendum by someone who wasn’t even elected to rule...

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

#113

Post by etrevino »

lacker wrote: post #73
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Ima…

You could say this about a president, too. If one president grabs more power his/her successor can be assured of trying to exploit that power. All of these systems rely on people respecting established political norms. There's no way to get around it.

I'm not defending the monarchy, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter if the chief executive is the monarch or a president.

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

#114

Post by csours »

etrevino wrote: post #97
csours wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just watched Cromwell (1970) the other day and if you know of a decent but approachable popular history of the civil war and protectorate I'd love a recommendation. I don't know much about it, but the anachronisms in terminology were pretty hilarious.

It doesn't go very far into the protectorate-- that's nearly always a separate book-- but I think that Christopher Hibbert's Cavaliers and Roundheads: The English Civil War, 1642-1649 does a really good job. More in depth but I think interesting to a lot of HN readers would be The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution by Christopher Hill. If you have the time, I think that Veronica Wed…

While I have your attention: Any books on the church state duality? As an American with modern freedom of religion, the question of belief is very different than it was at that time. For instance, while belief was deeply personal and spiritual it was also extremely political. I'm not necessarily asking for a discourse here on that, but maybe a reference to firm up my thinking about how it was viewed at the time.

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

#115

Post by Kranar »

jbay808 wrote: post #55
detaro wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.

As an example of an exceptional circumstance, in a Canada a few years back there was a minority government. The opposition parties banded together and formed a coalition with a plan to take over as a majority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... The Prime minister moved to keep power by requesting the Governor General (Queen's representative) prorogue parliament. In this circumstance, the…

The Governor General did what the Prime Minister asked her to do, which is what they always do. The GG does not act on the advice of parliament but rather on the advice of the Prime Minister.

If you presented an example where the Prime Minister told the Governor General to do one thing, and she did another, then I'd agree that counts as the Queen/GG exercising power.

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

#117

Post by markdown »

Americans on HN up in arms about a British Monarch who speaks up from time to time to try and influence the direction her country moves.

Meanwhile, American billionaires own their congresspeople.

What an interesting discussion to read as a citizen of neither country.

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

#118

Post by Pulcinella »

retrac wrote: post #14
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

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.

Monarchy is inherently undemocratic and has no place in a modern democracy. I am quite certain Canada would continue to function just fine (or even better) without someone pretending they were divinely appointed at the top.

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

#119

Post by retrac »

roelschroeven wrote: post #64
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.

> It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. Why not? I admit I'm more familiar with the Belgian situation than the British Crown, but to me it always seems not very difficult to replace the monarch with almost nothing. I don't see why we need any kind of president, even though that's what people always talk when there's talk of doing away with the monarchy. The real leader of the country is the prime m…

The reserve powers of the Crown have been reduced even more in Canada than in the UK, and there are several cases in just the last decade where the Lieutenant Governor or Governor General has had to make a decision. For example, if there's a motion of no confidence in the first sitting of the legislature, and the Prime Minister loses power immediately, the right answer is contextual. Sometimes another election really would be appropriate, in many cases the opposition can form a working government, if given a chance.

None of these problems are insurmountable, of course. And you could just keep an executive -- I personally prefer just replacing the Governor General in Canada with a president, preferably indirectly elected. Still, patching the constitution would be pretty involved, if you wish to fully excise the executive in its current form from the Westminster system.

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

#120

Post by gerdesj »

crumbshot wrote: post #91
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

> I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. She used her powers to get an exemption from transparency laws with regards to her personal wealth: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-que... , and Charles did the same to ban his tenants from purchasing freeholds: https://www.theguardian.com…

The Guardian article of Feb 7th appears to talk at length about something that happened in 1973. It (article) is quite convoluted but it looks like the Queen was trying to preserve her privacy as she perceived it at the time, perhaps in a heavy handed way.

From the other Guardian article:

"The number of tenants on Scilly caught by the exemption is not known but has been estimated at 100.

One of them is a 78-year-old retired oil executive, Alan Davis. He has been prevented from buying the freehold to his 1960s bungalow."

The Royal Family may not be to your taste but these two articles are hardly grounds for insurrection.

I am genuinely sobbing about Alan the retired oil executive's plight.

Post reply on HN