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

191–200 of 599 posts

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

#191

Post by PeterisP »

twoslide wrote: post #24
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…

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

The process discussed in the article (the Queen's consent, as opposed to the similarly named royal assent) applies only to legislation affecting "the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, and personal or property interests of the crown" - arguably Internal Market Bill and Brexit would be out of this scope.

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

#192

Post by blibble »

rosstex wrote: post #147
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.

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

closing the door after the horse has bolted?

the UK left the EU in Jan 2020

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

#193

Post by blibble »

ameister14 wrote: post #170
flukus wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What powers would need to be replaced, exactly?

pretty much all of them

under the UK constitution Parliament is short for Queen-in-Parliament and all executive and legislative powers come from the sovereign

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

#194

Post by ta2987 »

pkd wrote: post #171
jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 peacef…

False dichotomy. You don't have to sign up for a contract that give them even ceremonial powers forever or behead them in grotesque violence. It is possible to negotiate a deal where they have no power and get to keep their properties but they have to maintain it themselves.

The problem with not killing potential monarchs is that their continued existence can be perceived as a latent threat to reassert their divine right to rule at any time in the future.

In my book, assuming the risk of an occasional beheading is part of the job of being a monarch.

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

#195

Post by barry-cotter »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #166
randallsquared wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don’t know anyone that wants management that can never be replaced.

This is not an accurate description of a constitutional monarch’s role, either de jure or de facto.

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

#196

Post by [deleted] »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #154
markdown wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

[deleted]

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

#197

Post by seneca »

pasabagi wrote: post #81
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 together makes it stronger. Coronavirus has been a pretty good litmus test for which countries have good governments, and which countries do not. The UK has consistently led the charts in terms of deaths and infections. I think it shows the fundamental defectiveness of the system itself - a defectiveness that has been pretty…

> Coronavirus has been a pretty good litmus test for which countries have good governments, and which countries do not... I think it shows the fundamental defectiveness of the system itself

Authoritarian states have been able to manage the pandemic because their residents must do as they're told or suffer. Many others do well because they have cultural cohesion and people are willing to band together for the greater good. That is to say, people must either be willing to act for the greater good or be forced to do so.

Failure to manage the pandemic is more a sign of a liberal government (unable to force) and cultural breakdown (individuals unwilling to act), outside of countries that are actually just not capable.

The UK and US aren't willing to enact forceful measures, which actually think makes them quite good governments, in contrast to China, for instance. The US, at least, has been in a cultural death spiral since the late 60s and completely lacks cohesion. I suspect the UK has similar issues, but I know little about it. That is our actual weakness that has lead us to be unable to manage this crisis. Our government being unwilling to force us is one of our primary strength.

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

#198

Post by ValentineC »

bpodgursky wrote: post #178
godmode2019 wrote: post #164

I like my queen. The problem arises what happens when she leaves. The other family members are not likeable at all.

I have no stake in this at all, but as far as I can tell William is extremely likeable.

Hopefully Charles (heir apparent), who's a lot more polarising, abdicates when Elizabeth II passes.

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

#199

Post by barry-cotter »

admissionsguy wrote: post #110
markdown wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Exclude first-generation millionaires and we have a deal.

And that’s how country X ended up having every successful entrepreneur emigrate or set up their business affairs so as to have assets held offshore.

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

#200

Post by dan-robertson »

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…

A lot of the British constitution is specified in the legislature. It isn’t precedent that determines who the next monarch is, or how frequently there are elections. Though there are indeed conventions like the way the House of Lords must treat budget bills.
Post reply on HN