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

151–160 of 599 posts

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

#151

Post by flukus »

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.

Because the powers they hold have to be given to someone else. Replacing them with an elected president or parliamentary appointed one potentially create there own issues and sacrifice the long term stability of a monarch.

If the crown was directly replaced with an elected president for instance, that would be an enormous amount of power for a populist leader to wield and the lack of policy responsibility would lead to populists leaders. If the president was appointed by parliament then there is opportunity for corruption.

So there would need to be far more drastic changes and many possibilities (like changing from a parliamentary system) would not be popular. Ideologically I don't think anyone should hold such power based on who their parents we're, but in practice I'm a soft-monarchists or conservative on the matter.

Edit - The powers don't have to be replaced, the holders of those powers do.

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

#152

Post by philistine »

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.

Here’s my point of view: it would be extremely simple to change our system to give reduced powers of our Governor General to an unelected president named by our prime minister every five years.

But because the Canadian government rammed the constitution down the throat of the Quebec government, any constitutional change is now a political impossibility. And now Indigenous groups are demanding a seat at any constitutional discussion, which is absolutely appropriate but also fraught with uncertainty.

So the lack of change to our constitutional monarchy is not because we cannot think of how to replace it: it’s because Pierre Elliot Trudeau done goofed.

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

#153

Post by foldr »

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?

More than most women her age, I think it’s fair to say. If the Queen was lazy she could have abdicated two decades ago with some justification.

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

#154

Post by eggsmediumrare »

markdown wrote: post #101
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…

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. What about billionaires? You know, millionaires don't need all their money either. How about we take all their money and exile millionaires, billionaires, and the monarchy?

Yeah, who would want to live in a society where obscene wealth is redistributed?

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

#155

Post by ksec »

jnwatson wrote: post #74

The most obvious difference between the American and British legislative systems is the presence of a foundational document like the Constitution. The British system is strictly about convention and precedent, whereas Americans have a little more explicit guidance from the Constitution. I think what we've learned as Americans in the last few years is that it isn't enough to have a foundational document. Convention an…

>Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system

I still remember it wasn't that long ago the British System were laughed and attacked on HN for lacking a document like the Constitution. And how convention and precedent were antique.

Having said that convention and precedent aren't foolprove either.

"As long as human are involved it can always be corrupted."

-Mao Zedong

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

#156

Post by Zenst »

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.

It's more figurehead than actual rule of thumb and the transition from rule-control to being a legacy rubber stamp has been something that shifted a while ago.

Let us not forget the diplomatic aspect they afford and I'd say from that aspect alone - done more good than the elected politicians. Whilst the media love to focus upon the negatives, you can't overlook the positives and initiatives - the prices trust and other chartable involvements and then tourism. Though the diplomacy aspect is something that you have to respect the Queen and been a national asset in that respect.

So far from a no-brainier as you say if you look at their involvements beyond the headlines.

As an aside - if America had a royal family, the prospect of Trump on legal currency bank notes would be zero.

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

#157

Post by Consultant32452 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #133
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.

there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth. What exactly is the justification for having…

Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.

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

#158

Post by detaro »

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.

Even if it were feasible, the solution to the Brexit mess certainly wasn't "have the Queen override it". (It's an interesting theoretical question though: at what point and how could the Queen have stopped it? I guess she could have rejected the Act authorizing the Article 50 invocation - at that point it would have been even harder to argue a good case for doing so. After that, the process was running.)

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

#159

Post by contravariant »

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.

If you don't want a single person to rule over you then it makes more sense to just select a head of state on a criterium that anyone can see doesn't have anything to do with their right or ability to rule. If you ask me this beats accidentally giving the head of state some degree of legitimacy just because they happen to be elected.

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

#160

Post by prima-facie »

This comes at an incredibly unfortunate time and has the potential to lead to a monarchy crisis in the UK. The royals haven't won too many favours with the public over the past few years. Prince Andrew's involvement with Epstein, Charles breaking lockdown rules, and now this.
Post reply on HN