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

241–250 of 599 posts

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

#241

Post by kar5pt »

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…

The American constitution is notoriously vague. Perhaps the problem isn't that we relied on a founding document too much, but that that founding document didn't provide the foundation we needed because there's too many different ways to interpret it.

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

#242

Post by zepto »

crumbshot wrote: post #219
zepto wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries have a hereditary ruling class. At least with the Royal Family, you know who they are.

Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal. One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.

Another key problem is that every now and then someone declares themselves more deserving than the current few who are in power and lines them up against a wall to be shot by a death squad.

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

#243

Post by crumbshot »

zepto wrote: post #242
crumbshot wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal. One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.

Another key problem is that every now and then someone declares themselves more deserving than the current few who are in power and lines them up against a wall to be shot by a death squad.

I'm not advocating for that, if that's what you're implying.

"Targeted for removal" wasn't intended as a euphemism for death squads or anything like that.

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

#244

Post by cmrdporcupine »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #203
flukus wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The British system is strictly about convention and precedent, whereas Americans have a little more explicit guidance from the Constitution. This is complicated by the supreme court which is far more political in the US than the rest of the anglosphere, to the point where it's arguably a third chamber of legislature. They have a lot more latitude to reinterpret the constitution as they wish than anywhere else and t…

> if you asked a random citizen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the UK to name a single supreme court judge they'd probably be unable to Don't each of these countries feature sovereign Parliaments [1]? Congress is not sovereign. It is one of three co-equal branches of government. This, the separation of powers, was a deliberate decision by America's founders. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sover…

There is an (appointed) upper house in Canada and the UK at least, that in theory can act as a check on parliament.

In the real world, separate from theory, the Westminster system seems to have evolved into something far less vulnerable to authoritarianism than the US system. Constant partisan conflict and strife and culture wars down there seem to have yielded a degraded democracy, with the presidency assuming many trappings of a monarchy.

At least the Crown is a symbolic monarchy without real power. I remember being absolutely flabbergasted with the bizarrely reverent way Americans talks about Bush when bombing commenced on Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s; the concept of a "commander in chief" and the general marshal tone of US politics around the executive are quite baffling. But I suppose it makes sense given that the first president was a general.

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

#245

Post by im3w1l »

akmarinov wrote: post #112
Apofis wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That's what I used to think, but with the increasing tensions and polarization I'm not entirely sure anymore. Well, my perception is that the UK is not as divided as the US is, but if it were, then a Queen picking a side and wielding her powers might see the side she picked cheer her on.

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

#246

Post by prewett »

oh_sigh wrote: post #17

I was hoping the Queen's consent would be about things like foreign policy, going to war, etc. But it's just about laws that could possibly affect the Queen's income. That sounds just like garden variety corruption.

It seems fair that the monarch would have some influence over laws that affect them (especially farther back in the past). It seems reasonable for the king to be able to veto an act of Parliament that unilaterally confiscates the king's lands and/or income. How far that the veto should extend is a matter of policy, but the veto itself is not a sign of corruption.

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

#247

Post by krisgee »

jbay808 wrote: post #228
Kranar wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article I linked lists two such examples. More importantly, my point was that in this case, although the GG chose to do as asked, that was by no means a set outcome. If she had done otherwise, as happened in 1896 and 1926, that outcome would also have been considered reasonable, and most likely not resulted in a public outcry and overthrowing the monarchy.

I still think it was a bad call allowing Harper to get away with prorouging parliament twice and giving the cons time to paint a coalition government as somehow "unconstitutional" and "undemocratic".

It's MORE democratic if anything.

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

#248

Post by arp242 »

graeme wrote: post #77
roelschroeven wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Belgian situation seems fairly dysfunctional. Is the monarch completely absent from politics? This happened in 2007-11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–2011_Belgian_political_cr... In Brazil in the 19th century liberal democrats thought a monarch was unnecessary, after 67 years of successful politics under a king. Upon abolition the country devolved into a long succession of military coups and dictatorial gove…

I think the political situation/crisis in Belgium have little to do with the position of the monarch, and more with the somewhat unique situation of Belgium. It's a small deeply divided country; many of the top parties in the 2019 election participated only in the Dutch or French regions. While regional parties aren't unique to Belgium (e.g. SNP in Scotland), the way the votes are split between the two regions is a pretty big problem, and much of the disagreement stems from which list (Dutch or French) people in BHV could vote. This is an issue that goes back to the country's founding in various forms.

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

#249

Post by iab »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #162
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…

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :) Emphatic no from me on that one.

Snapped my neck nodding too hard

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

#250

Post by mbreese »

analog31 wrote: post #161
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.

I still remember, all the way back in the Nixon era, my dad grumbling: "Most people just want to be ruled by a king." But I think a symbolic monarchy could serve a useful purpose by giving those people a ceremonial role in return for promising that they will never attempt to actually govern. Edit: Deleted first sentence per comment below.

I think the symbolism of the state (in this case embodied by the monarch, but it doesn’t have to be a monarch) as a separate entity from the “government” is very appealing. In this way, you can have certain offices that work for the state and others that work for the government. The state/crown side would be apolitical whereas the government side would be politically appointed. But it would be helpful to have the two sides explicitly separated to have minimal interference.

I have no idea if this is how the British monarchy works in practice, rather just the view from my side of the pond. In the US, we have the concept of career vs political positions in government agencies, but in practice, there is a great risk of interference between the sides.

Post reply on HN