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

251–260 of 599 posts

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

#251

Post by mhh__ »

zepto wrote: post #226
mhh__ wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? If Parliament fails the queen doesn't start writing laws, we'd have had a revolution.

Parliament has failed many times, including at least once in the last decade. When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister.

> When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister.

Because if she did anything else someone else would. Constitutions barely mean anything when tested, our unwritten constitution might isn't worth fuck all

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

#252

Post by krisgee »

dan-robertson wrote: post #200
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.

Do you not have maximum time between election? We have that in Canada.

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

#254

Post by zepto »

crumbshot wrote: post #243
zepto wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A helpful clarification.

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

#255

Post by chordalkeyboard »

mhh__ wrote: post #188
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 characterized the Queen's powers as "reserve powers" inasmuch as, if everything goes wrong and Parliament dies from a meteor strike, the government still legally operate provided there is a monarch (even if you have to reach deep into the line of succession to find that person). Ignoring that the Queen and much of her staff would likely be dead, where exactly do you think Governments come from? Parliament woul…

Historically there are a lot more spontaneously formed kingdoms than parliaments.

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

#256

Post by zepto »

crumbshot wrote: post #240
zepto wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. On what grounds exactly?

It's a model of monarchical disposal that has been successfully used by Germany, Greece and Romania. Letting them stay and keep all their vast wealth would risk allowing them continued influence. Also, the birth of the United Republic should involve a peaceful transfer of power, so doing this in the French style is completely out of the question.

I didn’t ask how it would work. I asked what the grounds for removal would be?

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

#257

Post by krisgee »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #244
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

If anything needs reform it's the fucking Senate. Basically the same problems as the US Supreme Court has where whoever's in charge when people die get to pack the upper house of government. I'd happily take at least term limits but I feel like it should either be elected or produced somehow via vote share during the parlimentary election.

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

#258

Post by anikan_vader »

cameronh90 wrote: post #234
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.

From a common sense perspective I agree with you. However I find it hard to reconcile it with the fact that many/most of the nicest countries on earth to live in are constitutional monarchies. Including Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, UK, NZ and Japan. I don't know why this is, but it gives me pause in overthrowing the monarchy. It might be the existence of a monarch unites society in some way, or it…

I would point out that Sweden is unique on that list, as although they do have a monarchy, the king hold no legal/political power, not even in a "symbolic" sense.

A potential explanation for the phenomena you've observed is that it's uncommon for new monarchies to be started in the 21st century, so the countries that still have monarchies are all countries that for the most part have had stable forms of government for many decades if not centuries.

Also there are plenty of poorer countries with monarchies: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, North Korea, Thailand, Cambodia, Bhutan, Lesotho, Oman, Qatar, etc. (I'll admit it's a bit suspect to label North Korea as a monarchy).

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

#259

Post by lmm »

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…

> What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant?

The easiest ways to corrupt someone are offering them wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation; the royals are relatively immune to all of those.

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

#260

Post by djrobstep »

diegoholiveira wrote: post #215
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.

Everyone want someone to rule over them, except, perhaps, the libertarians. Any bureaucrat of any government have more power in your life than you think. And over time, we're giving them more and more power to regulate our lifes. (I'm not even talking about politicians here, they're more powerful than any absolutist king of the history).

Libertarians in fact love being ruled over most of all - they just call the rulers "property owners".
Post reply on HN