The Queen has more power over British law than we thought • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by cb34-465e » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:13 AM UTC

phonebucket wrote: post #402

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. With regards of being stripped of wealth, what makes the Royal Family different to other cases of inherited wealth? Should I not bother saving up money for my kids?

I think scale of anything makes rules different. How we look at Amazon is not how we look at your small bakery although they are both companies.

But, I think a lot of people are this extremist and abhor any form of inter-generational wealth. Basically, every individual should start from 0 and "prove" themselves. You are free to do anything except sacrifice and save for your own family.

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

#412

Post by Blikkentrekker » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:15 AM UTC

yccs27 wrote: post #371

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 curre…

> 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.

The difference is that a man can rarely convince the others of a chance that is not in the interest of the many, but only in his own.

If there be legitimately flaws in the system that he wishes to address, it will be far easier to convince the collective by pointing out said flaws.

> 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.

And the big thing you leave out: that many, many men simply desire inertia for it's own sake and are afraid of change for no other reason than that it be change.

There are almost none in comparison who seek change for it's own sake, simply because they are afraid of matters staying the same.

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

#413

Post by wastedhours » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:17 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #262

pjmorris wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I read the GP's comment was that the meat of the argument wasn't the 'cute' part, it was the 'avoid a violent revolution' part. Wars are usually more expensive than peace.

We don't need a violent revolution, the people who place themselves above all other people and claim ownership of our lands and claim control of us as people could choose to denounce those positions and powers of their own will. No one is forcing them to claim sovereignty over other people, nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation.

> nor forcing them to claim sole right to income and assets that should belong to the nation

In theory, it'd then be shared as belonging to the nation. In practice, you'd get the political class lining their pockets in the short term, and leaving us worse off in the long term.

Between letting successive populist governments have free reign over what happens to certain wealth, institutions and freeholdings and spunking it on policies during their 4 or 8 years in charge, and letting a somewhat stable (if sometimes self-serving) hereditary monarchy retain stewardship over the course of centuries - I'm inclined toward the latter.

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

#414

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

nomercy400 wrote: post #404

It's kind of strange. 20 years ago there was the House of Commons making laws, with the House of Lords checking the laws, and the Queen who signed the votes. Now, the House of Commons has made the House of Lords something that can be ignored, and now they also want to do away with the Queen. I think it is dangerous to see the House of Commons gaining more and more power over the country, without any regulatory body b…

[deleted]

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

#415

Post by roelschroeven » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:23 AM UTC

jonp888 wrote: post #363

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…

So if after an election there are two different coalitions with different Prime-ministerial candidates 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?

Parliament. A cabinet needs approval of a majority in parliament. At that stage of the process, the monarch has no influence, even now. I'm not sure who decides whether or not to hold new elections, but I'm pretty sure it's not the monarch.

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

#416

Post by wastedhours » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

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.

> I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them

There's currently a government in Westminster making laws and dictating to us that the vast majority of the country didn't vote for. The public also has the power to change a monarchy, with the only real difference being that the "election" and transfer of power is less peaceful.

Democracy is of course better, but representative democracies in large nations are about as participatory as a monarchy.

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

#417

Post by anonymousDan » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:32 AM UTC

dTal wrote: post #175

lotsofpulp wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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. On the one hand, most of the physical tourist attractions could be maintained without monarchy actually owning or inhabiting them - indeed, the tourism value of Buckingham Palace would perhaps be improved if y…

It's total bullshit. France got rid of their monarchy a long time ago and it's not like their tourist industry suffers.

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

#418

Post by thu2111 » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:32 AM UTC

nomercy400 wrote: post #404

It's kind of strange. 20 years ago there was the House of Commons making laws, with the House of Lords checking the laws, and the Queen who signed the votes. Now, the House of Commons has made the House of Lords something that can be ignored, and now they also want to do away with the Queen. I think it is dangerous to see the House of Commons gaining more and more power over the country, without any regulatory body b…

And what happens if that head of state decides to overrule the Parliament on a whim? Is it even meaningful to talk about an entire population having "whims", as that's a term normally reserved for individuals.

People can afford to take edgy contrarian positions on the basics of democracy because they take it for granted. The Queen is not an abusive monarch and never has been, in fact she's been so scrupulously symbolic that her actual political views are almost entirely obscure. So here we see arguments of the form "maybe Parliament should have to bend to the whims of the Queen".

The Queen is 94. How many more years can she carry on? When she dies, Prince Charles will take her place and he has always been politically active in ways the Queen has not. Does the idea of Charles vetoing legislation sound fun or in any way appropriate for a first world democracy? No, it does not.

I don't like the Guardian at all but it's good that they're bringing this to light, or rather, it would, if they were actually revealing the documents in question. It seems this article isn't going to do so, which means we are being asked to trust the Graun. Unfortunately I don't trust the Graun so this is a bit of a pickle. What's being said here sounds plausible, and there's really no reason for such a process to exist at all, but it could also be shit-stirring.

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

#419

Post by chacha2 » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:33 AM UTC

nomercy400 wrote: post #404

It's kind of strange. 20 years ago there was the House of Commons making laws, with the House of Lords checking the laws, and the Queen who signed the votes. Now, the House of Commons has made the House of Lords something that can be ignored, and now they also want to do away with the Queen. I think it is dangerous to see the House of Commons gaining more and more power over the country, without any regulatory body b…

Yes, I would like to live in a democratic nation.

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

#420

Post by thu2111 » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 9:37 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #397

Closi wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tyra…

We're talking about a country where they are forced to pretend that someone can be born with an ability to rule. Hereditary monarchies a sick joke. If people want to go and look at the English and think that it is cute they can. But that shouldn't influence the local decision making.

Nobody is forced to pretend anything. The monarch lost the ability to "rule" centuries ago. People can and do routinely call for abolition of the remnants of the monarchy with no ill effects, in fact, the head of Labour (the official opposition) is on film saying he used to be an abolitionist and by implication probably still is.

If the Queen had ever alienated the population the UK would have become a republic within a few years. Nobody actually thinks she rules anything which is why this article in the Guardian is news, and why it takes pains to point out how obscure this apparent veto actually is - apparently so obscure that even Parliamentarians themselves believe it's not used for anything!