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

#441

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

Guthur wrote: post #376

roenxi wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a difference between abolition of privileges reserved to a caste and striping of wealth people regardless of whether or not anyone is granted the possibility to obtain the same wealth by legal means.

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

#442

Post by lb1lf » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:25 AM UTC

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…

-Living in Norway, whose monarchy is basically reduced to being on hand for when we need someone to officially open a new bridge to nowhere or provide apolitical statements in time of need, I am a pragmatic monarchist.

In the sense that keeping the royals around probably is cheaper and creating less fuss than becoming a republic. Precisely as the monarch is not elected, there is (the odd left fringe aside) very little controversy to be had.

Rather than electing a president (which, of course, will lead to a fraction of the population seeing their candidate lose), we've got our (ceremonial) head of state and everybody just deals with it. The monarch is very much aware that the survival of the institution he represents relies on him being apolitical and not attempting to boss parliament around.

Heck, the grandfather of the current monarch even won over a lot of the left when pointing out (in the late 1920s sometime) that he was the king of the communists, too - not just the bourgeousie, and asked the head of the labour party to form a government when election results indicated that was what the electorate wanted - despite attempts from the establishment to have him appoint anybody but the election winners.

Basically, as long as the royal family are as well behaved as they mostly are, they are probably cheaper and less controversial than any alternative. (While still being outrageously undemocratic, of course).

The main argument for abolishing monarchy around here probably is on humanitarian grounds - basically, it is hardly fair to have one's life cut out for oneself from birth?

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

#443

Post by michaelt » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:26 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.

The main thing standing in the way of republicanism in the UK is the simple fact the main alternative is an elected career politician.

And while nobody believes in that divine right nonsense any more, 99% of people who see the royals as corrupt and incompetent don't have anything better to say about our career politicians.

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

#444

Post by psychoslave » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:26 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…

Tourism in France works without any royal family to feed.

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

#445

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

etrevino wrote: post #113

lacker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power. Ima…

You could say this about a president, too. If one president grabs more power his/her successor can be assured of trying to exploit that power. All of these systems rely on people respecting established political norms. There's no way to get around it. I'm not defending the monarchy, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter if the chief executive is the monarch or a president.

In general it has to be said a President is more likely to try this than a constitutional monarch, given that [i] Presidential elections select for people that are ambitious, have an agenda and are good at getting a large proportion of the population to support it and [ii]the President has a lot more theoretical legitimacy and generally constitutional power to assume 'emrgency powers' or sack a government

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

#446

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

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…

Worth remembering that we in the UK have already had a French style revolution with the monarch being decapitated in 1649.

It was considered a "bad move" and his son was restored to the role of head of state about 12 years later to correct it. :P

The idea of a powerless head of state has always appealed to me. I can't think of anything worse than someone like Johnson assuming that role.

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

#447

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

sytelus wrote: post #316

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 view British monarchy as tyranny prevention mechanism. Democracies are notoriously weak and can collapse at any momemnt by a charasmatic leader. Any long lasting democracies need some serious mechanisms to squash the tyranny. In American version this is achieved by having 3 almost equally powerful branches of governments. In British version, this is achieved by subdued monarchie. It's much like injecting a dead vir…

>> In many ways, this is more ingenious than American system, although more expensive

Is it though (more expensive)? I've heard they spend 1.5 billion dollars per year for the president (flights, security, meetings, etc). And that's the explicit part; the implicit one is the election spendings which last year constituted 6.5 billion dollars; if they come from special interest groups, I suspect, they should be somehow payed back in the form of legislation, tariffs, taxes, and projects appeasing those special interest groups (so taxpayers will probably pay way more than what was donated).

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

#448

Post by Guthur » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:36 AM UTC

psychoslave wrote: post #441

Guthur wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a difference between abolition of privileges reserved to a caste and striping of wealth people regardless of whether or not anyone is granted the possibility to obtain the same wealth by legal means.

If you think the House of Commons was actually common men like you or I you'd be sorely mistaken, it was Knights and landed people (and i don't think very much has changed there). Make no bones about the UK parlimentary body, it is not of the "people" if that's what you are into.

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

#449

Post by psychoslave » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:38 AM UTC

kenneth wrote: post #385

dTal wrote: post #175

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. 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…

Stripping the Monarchy of their lands goes quite a bit further than just abolishing the monarchy. Removing the right to rule a county is one thing. Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.

>Stripping a wealthy family from all their holdings seems to go a bit too far by any measure in a civilized society that values the concept of personal property.

The concept of personal property can perfectly accommodate of a limit in how much a individual person can personally own, especially in regard to the distribution of wealth in the whole population.

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

#450

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 10:41 AM UTC

bigtones wrote: post #297

The Queen of England is also the head of the Australian Government, and has the power to fire the Prime Minister of Australia. She actually did so in 1975.

> The Queen of England is also the head of the Australian Government,

No, she's not, the Prime Minister is head of government. The monarch is generally held to be the head of state, though that's not entirely clear and the Governor-General is sometimes referred to that way.

> She actually did so in 1975.

The Crown by the action of the Governor-General did, there's no indication that the Queen had any direct involvement.