The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

Post by jtolmar » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #149

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. 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…

Post by LudwigNagasena » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:20 AM UTC

type0 wrote: post #173

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am talking about this thing called joke. Bureaucratic corruption (outside the party) did change somewhat for 5 years at the time.

Post by tehjoker » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:22 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #47

retrac wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Post by zepto » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:24 AM UTC

makomk wrote: post #52

sleavey wrote: post #18

I wonder if private members' bills are subject to the same consent. As far as I'm aware, the first time the chamber hears of these bills is when they are submitted by the member, and presumably by that stage it's public and can't be retracted without bringing a huge spotlight on this obscure rule. A private member's bill could therefore potentially be used to bring about the abolition of this practice.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, it already has been used to prevent a Private Member's Bill from being debated relatively recently in 1999: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_parliamentary_approval_for_... Also, I don't think this rule is really any more obscure than any of the other subtle details of the UK's unwritten constitution - people who care about this sort of thing almost certainly already knew about it (I ce…

Post by cmrdporcupine » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

handelaar wrote: post #140

twoslide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You may have missed this but at one point Johnson was actively touting the notion of proroguing parliament indefinitely so that it could not meet and reject a plan to Brexit without any trade deal in place. And then 48 hours later, as if by magic, that plan (which would have required the Queen to publicly assent to an overtly-political variation of current norms) suddenly vanished without trace or comment.