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

141–150 of 599 posts

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

#141

Post by LudwigNagasena »

type0 wrote: post #138
deepsun wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...

What are you talking about? The USSR was ruled by the same party its whole existence.

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

#142

Post by voisin »

jedberg wrote: post #136
pmoriarty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

Stability. The monarchy has been in charge for so long that getting rid of it would cause turmoil. I'm not saying it's a good reason, just that it's a reason.

What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow?

The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.

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

#143

Post by philistine »

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…

While what you are presenting is all factual and true, it completely ignores the new discovery that the Guardian has made: that the monarch has used Queen’s Consent, which was thought to be a mere legislative formality, to steer the government in a self-serving direction. We were not publicly aware of such a deep involvement.

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

#144

Post by hindsightbias »

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.

All the evidence is that you'll end up with something more like a Kardashian and I doubt they'll bring in the billions of tourism dollars world royal fans do.

Stay Classy, Britain.

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

#145

Post by randallsquared »

pmoriarty wrote: post #129
crumbshot wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

> I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

Almost everyone wants someone to rule over them, or at least over their neighbors.

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

#146

Post by philistine »

pmoriarty wrote: post #128
osrec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first? The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.

"the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect)" What work does the Queen actually do?

That’s what the article at play here discovered: she makes sure no law can ever touch her pot of gold. Oh and god forbid any law force them to use a seatbelt.

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

#147

Post by rosstex »

jedberg wrote: post #136
pmoriarty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

Stability. The monarchy has been in charge for so long that getting rid of it would cause turmoil. I'm not saying it's a good reason, just that it's a reason.

Not leaving the EU would also cause stability and prevent turmoil.

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

#148

Post by katbyte »

voisin wrote: post #142
jedberg wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stability. The monarchy has been in charge for so long that getting rid of it would cause turmoil. I'm not saying it's a good reason, just that it's a reason.

What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow? The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.

I always figured it was more tradition then anything

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

#149

Post by jopsen »

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…

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled.

From a democratic/ideological perspective you might be right.

On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)

I live in Denmark where we also pay the royal family some money, few privileges, etc..

My personal pocket philosophy is that the money we pay the royal family is the cost of a peaceful transformation to democracy.

A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper.

A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution.

Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :)

In any case, if paying a bit of money and respect was the cost of a peaceful adoption of democracy it might have been worth it.

Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.

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

#150

Post by tomcam »

pmoriarty wrote: post #128
osrec wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first? The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.

"the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect)" What work does the Queen actually do?

She is the head of state, a job for which the president of the USA has to pull double duty while also being the executive. It is an incredibly tedious job, requiring her to go to endless factory openings funerals, and so on. She doesn’t really have to do those things, but she has done them dutifully for 75 years or so. As far as I’m concerned it’s amazing and probably does a measurable amount to contribute to the stability of the country. Can’t prove it, of course.

As an American citizen it is why I don’t mind presidents that I don’t like have a large secret service revenue, fat salary, and so forth both during and after their presidency.

Post reply on HN