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

371–380 of 599 posts

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

#371

Post by yccs27 »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #293
cameronh90 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Because it has nothing to do with wealth? The detrimental financial costs of monarchies are a drop in a nation's budget. Just as the prime minister gifting his best friend 1 million euro per year fr…

Sorry, I don‘t buy your last argument. You could argue the opposite:

When a person desires change, they either want it for their personal gain, or have seen the shortcomings of the current system and want change to get rid of them. Yet no system is perfect, and most changes have some tradeoff. When a person desires that matters stay the same, they are either profiting from the current state, or believe that the current system is better thought-out than it might seem at first glance, and are like this for a good reason.

This line of thought is based on Chesterton‘s fence [1]. Of course, a well thought-out change is still a good thing, and not all reasons for the current system are sensible. I count myself as a progressive as well, but it is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton'...

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

#372

Post by jpttsn »

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.

The cost of changing the status quo is, for me, not worth the benefit.

There are any number of wrongs that can be corrected. Is “abolishing the monarchy” the best use of the limited budget for societal change?

And is it worth, on top of that, the risks of unintended consequences?

I’d feel similar being implored to surgically remove my appendix and tailbone.

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

#374

Post by CobrastanJorji »

jonp888 wrote: post #362
oblio wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if after an election there are two different coalitions who both claim to be the best chance at a stable government, who makes the choice to go with one of them, or to call fresh elections? We, here in the rest of the world, use a magic number to determine that. 51% (or 50% + 1).

Sure, that works fine when one party has 50%. But what happens when no-one does?

That was the case in the UK from 2010-2015. It's called a minority government.

Various factions horse trade until some coalition of parties has a majority, and then they rule as coalition. Members of both the Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats had cabinet seats.

The main downside to this sort of process is that sometimes negotiations take a long time. Belgium spent nearly two years bickering over forming their coalition in 2010.

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

#375

Post by yesbabyyes »

setr wrote: post #342
vkou wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economically, it might. It is commonly asserted that the British monarchy brings in far more money than it drains in the form of tourism. I would be interested to know how well this claim stands up to scrutiny. Only because of Hollywood accounting. Tourists don't come to England to see the Queen. Tourists can't see the Queen. Tourists come to see the Palace. The Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace. The government d…

The question really is whether the existence of the queen is what provides continued value for buckingham palace — without the monarchy, it becomes another relic of a bygone era, with no inherent quality to attract tourists beyond its history and aesthetic. Visiting a “live” structure is an altogether different thing — this is where the queen lives vs this is where a queen once lived (as opposed to all the other plac…

Sure, this is why nobody is visiting the Versailles or the Winter Palace.

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

#376

Post by Guthur »

roenxi wrote: post #347
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…

It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business. But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than…

And parliaments aren't? It's not actually clear to me which is better or worse over the long term.

Some are bringing up points on wealth and for me that feels like it stems from envy which is also pretty ugly. I postulate that striping the royals of wealth will make no one here materially better off.

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

#377

Post by Closi »

roenxi wrote: post #347
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…

It might have been a mistake to use the word 'cute', monarchies are an ugly business. But countries where the powers in charge are closely balanced enough that the transition away from a monarchy to something else slowly (maybe leaving the monarchy itself intact as in the UK) are much better than the ripping off the bandaid approach seen in Germany or France. Moderate political change is generally a better idea than…

I think 'cute' is probably a good word - amongst other reasons to visit London, a portion of tourists want to take photos with the silly people with tall red hats, see Buckingham palace and then buy a mug with a photo of the queen on it. People crowd the streets to see if the silly old smiley rich lady will wave at you from her golden carriage. People listen to the queens speech not because they look at her as a tyrannical dictator, but usually because it gives some of the population the warm fuzzies.

I'm not saying that's worth more than a fully functioning democracy, or that they couldn't monetise themselves, but I think this is what OP is referring to. Something can be both 'cute' and an ugly business.

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

#378

Post by 7steps2much »

crumbshot wrote: post #295
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stripping them of their wealth and exiling them would be debasing the rule of law in your country.

As I understand it, it is quite possible to do this within the rule of law. To avoid the monarch refusing to enact this, it would need to be done in two stages: 1. A new Royal Assent Act, that makes assent automatic upon a bill passing both Houses. Assuming this in itself receives assent, it would remove the monarch's power to veto or refuse a bill (a power that hasn't been used for over 300 years anyway). 2. A Repub…

I think what the other commenter was trying to say was not that it would be impossible to do so, but that it would not be "right", so to speak.

While you could of course exile them like other countries have done in the past, why would you do that? What reasoning would you use to justify exiling them, striping them of their personal property etc. ?

Abolishing the monarchy is one thing, it can be justified pretty easily, the interests of the people. Anything beyond that however would be punishment, what have they done that is currently illegal that warrants that punishment? Punishing them simply "because they are royals" doesn't really work out, that isn't illegal after all.

Technically just abolishing the monarchy / taking away their powers would suffice.

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

#379

Post by dunnevens »

anikan_vader wrote: post #258
cameronh90 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Not to derail, but I think you're correct in labeling North Korea as a monarchy. It's hereditary. Veneration of current and past leadership is at a level that might have embarassed the Sun King. The internal palace conflicts are practically identical to what monarchies in the past used to endure. They even go as far as to have a variation of "divine right" justified by the Juche ideology.

A Crusader Kings mod that would focus on the internal & external struggles of a cloistered totalitarian regime, like North Korea, would be very interesting.

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

#380

Post by ed_balls »

seneca wrote: post #197
pasabagi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Authoritarian states have been able to manage the pandemic because

sure, but even poorer European countries managed pandemic better

Post reply on HN