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

431–440 of 599 posts

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

#431

Post by janeroe »

anikan_vader wrote: post #311
cossray wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just list Saudi Arabia and Qatar as poor countries? They might be anything, but not poor.

Not as poor countries, but as poorer countries than the ones the parent comment mentioned. The GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is around $23k - approximately half of that of Sweden, the Netherlands, or the UK. Qatar is absurdly rich, but the wealth is inequitably distributed (unusually so). Although the GDP per capita is ~60k, the median household income (and the median per-capita income) are considerably lower than t…

> The GDP per capita of Saudi Arabia is around $23k - approximately half of that of Sweden

Why are you mentioning nominal GDP, not PPP which is $55 grand according to CIA (which is more than Sweden's and UK's and just a bit less than US's)? If they raise their taxes to the level of Sweden they will have larger nominal GDP although without any increase in the purchasing power.

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

#432

Post by psychoslave »

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…

> On the other hand, having a royal family it cute -- doesn't that count for something :)

You might probably buy far more and far better distributed amount of cuteness without a royal family.

> A revolution like the French isn't free or without risks. Paying off the monarchy for generations to come is quite possibly cheaper.

Nothing is without cost and risk. Keeping a royal family includes a cost and it rise the risk inherent with any concentrated political/wealth power. It is not absolutely safer on all regard to go for a different kind of government of course, it’s a different trade-off.

>A revolution would have incurred negative growth, and it's entirely possible that our economy would have been marginally smaller today, had we opted for a violent revolution.

First, one might be willing to destitute royal caste from its privileges without willing to shedding blood and make widespread violence arise. The question is, if the people decide by means of a referendum to get rid of privileges, will the privileged few accept without trying to use violence to maintain their position?

Actually in France, they are several pretender to the throne[1]. It’s just that virtually nobody care.

>Would be fun to see if anyone did that math? :)

Maths on what? Societies are complex systems with many parameters whose evolution is subject to the butterfly effect. You can throw numbers in-between to decorate any thesis you would like to defend, it doesn’t give it any meaningful scientific credibility.

> Just look to Syria, paying Assad an absurd amount of money to take a ceremonial role would probably have been a lot cheaper, and less risky.

You say that like there was some kind of strictly internal consensus in the people of Syria to go for what happened rather than paying Assad. That sounds like an absurdly simplistic exposition of reality.

[1] https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/07/08/qui-serait-l-...

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

#433

Post by benlumen »

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…

What did you make of the debacle of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and the government being left unable to call a General Election in 2019 because of it?

Supposedly it removed the power of the Queen to dissolve parliament.

Lots of British people, me included, were deeply alarmed by it. Parliament was essentially rogue.

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

#434

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

hansbo wrote: post #427
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are mistaken. Almost every modern democracy has a bicameral legislature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism

"Almost every" is an exaggeration. While most do, there are quite a few with unicameral legislature, and they do not work worse than bicameral ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicameralism#/media/File:Unib...

Fair call.

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

#435

Post by roenxi »

thu2111 wrote: post #420
roenxi wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 withi…

The citizenship affirmation for British citizenship [0] is:

I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British Citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law

After which the citizen is issued a passport by Her Majesty’s Passport Office.

If we compare and contrast with America, nobody needed to swear allegiance to Trump at the border. They let in a bunch of people who would have actively and publicly wanted him gone. One of these two countries is pretending that birth literally should confer special privileges.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-citizensh...

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

#436

Post by tim333 »

hyko wrote: post #346
tim333 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled I'm guessing you're not a Brit? A problem with that is the British people support them - about 72% for 21% against and I think they've been clearly in favour for at least the last century. So you can't really do it unless you get a dictatorship in to go against the people.

The eurosceptics never gave up in the face of impossible poll odds; why should republicans?

You never know. Future monarchs may be less popular.

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

#438

Post by benlumen »

Apofis wrote: post #104
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…

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.

Utter nonsense for too many reasons to go into. You could just as easily say that the Queen needed to make sure it happened while parliament was trying to stop it.

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

#439

Post by unionpivo »

jedberg wrote: post #330
krisgee wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the main source of turmoil would be in replacing the office since theoretically all the powers in the country devolve from the head of state. I gotta say that I find the rabid anti-monarchal take a lot of americans have online kinda weird. I wouldn't say I feel "ruled" in any real sense by the British crown even though it is technically true. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legis…

> The Prime Minister and the House of Commons are where the actual legislative power rests The article disagrees with you. Or at least points out where there isn't always true.

ehh article agrees. It was the government that accommodated the queen.

They could just as well polity said to her to pound sand.

Queen asked them, it was up to them to say yes or no. I imagine if some other party was in power back then results might be different

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

#440

Post by tim333 »

diminish wrote: post #336
tim333 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled I'm guessing you're not a Brit? A problem with that is the British people support them - about 72% for 21% against and I think they've been clearly in favour for at least the last century. So you can't really do it unless you get a dictatorship in to go against the people.

72% figure comes from a vote or a poll? Btw, Can the brit people name any other candidate to be the queen or the king? From the existing family or a new one? That would be awesome, because there are some great. Brit scientists which would make a great king or queen.

Poll. Who knows how it would work. There was a satirical novel on how it might go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen_and_I_(novel)
Post reply on HN