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

451–460 of 599 posts

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

#451

Post by undecisive »

We have a weird relationship with our royals, similarly with our House of Lords. Lots of people seem to want rid of them, and many have half-good reasons on a theoretical level, but nobody really has any solutions to the problems they solve.

To take a recent example from a country that shall remain nameless, how do you stop a magalomaniac from duping half the population with a mix of nationalist rhetoric and promises of rolling back any half-uncomfortable environmental or sociological progress? If the whole government gets tainted at the same time, even if the country realises its mistake half a decade later, the money wasted in switching the laws back - the economic equality and environmental progress lost, the damage to international relations... all because the person in charge doesn't actually care about the country, and there is no ironclad process for getting them out of power (besides the collective power of a government that is either scared of his voter influence, or realises their power is contingent on his)

None of the laws this article claims the Queen has "influenced" worry me in the slightest. It doesn't benefit anyone to know how much wealth she has (in fact, if something should happen and her wealth fluctuates drastically, that could cause more damage to public and international perception than good) and the law has always maintained, as far as I'm aware, that many driving laws do not apply on private property - Sandringham et al being considered private property for the purposes of this law makes logical sense to me. The national monuments one is just bizarre, smacks of a power-grab by government - albeit a petty one. I suspect it was a way of getting more tourist revenue. But either way, its not exactly earth shattering.

"But what if Prince William becomes king and uses these powers for evil purposes?" I hear you cry. Well, in that case something will change. Either an uprising will happen or evil will be done. Though as long the monarchy's well-being for their whole life is entwined with the country's well-being, there is less likelihood that a sane king or queen would rock the boat significantly.

I seriously doubt that this is the law that will cause the next major catastrophe. As that certain other country has proven, unbridled democracy is a more potent threat.

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

#452

Post by [deleted] »

vasco wrote: post #343
sytelus wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why would you want a solution that makes one family be treated as if they're above everyone else by birth? Is that the signal that as a country you want to give your citizens? I cannot understand how people consent to monarchies in so called developed countries while at the same time making huge fusses about everything else related to equality.

[deleted]

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

#453

Post by pbhjpbhj »

krallja wrote: post #236
blibble wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

closing the door after the horse has bolted? the UK left the EU in Jan 2020

QE2 could have blocked it

Honestly, I lost all respect for her when she accepted the unlawful suggestion that she should prorogue her parliament. If she won't even speak up for the very democracy we rely then I don't know why we keep her. The £40M a year from the sovereign wealth fund could surely be used to better ends.

We should take the opportunity to get rid of the position of monarch since we claim to be a democracy. We could also modernise parliament when it becomes ours - things like ejecting people for jeering and interrupting would be a start, close the subsidised bars, ... make it at least have a semblance of being a workplace.

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

#454

Post by JetSetWilly »

pasabagi wrote: post #81
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…

> 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…

The UK has also led the charts in finding treatments (eg dexamethasone), developing vaccines, gene sequencing the virus (regularly doing half of the global gene sequencing to find strains), and testing (ridiculous capacity of half a million tests per day).

Frankly in all of these measures of actual state response to the pandemic it has been a leader. It has had high infection rates, but there could be many reasons for that. The UK is never going to have a highly obedient population like in APAC countries, it also has a relatively high density, extremely low sunlight hours and prevalent vitamin D deficiency as a result.

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

#455

Post by Lio »

roenxi wrote: post #435
thu2111 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Trump is not equivalent to the Queen in role. The Queen is supposed to be a figured head only, a bit like the American flag. That's why this news is controversial because it's an abuse of position.

Real power in the UK rests solely in the House of Commons.

The last monarch that forgot that publicly had their head cut off in 1649.

That fact is celebrated every opening of Parliament when they slam the door in the face of the Queen's representative Black Rod, exactly so that she remembers.

You might not like the unwritten rules that govern the UK but they've worked pretty well so far and have been malleable enough to be reformed whenever there's been a problem.

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

#456

Post by Nullabillity »

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.

Do you let a thief keep the stuff they stole?

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

#457

Post by oblio »

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 comment was literally about coalitions ...

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

#458

Post by benhurmarcel »

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 Spain, Franco succeeded in being a dictator despite the presence of a king. It doesn't work to prevent tyranny.

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

#459

Post by flukus »

woofie11 wrote: post #238
henrikschroder wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possession is 9/10th of the law... Every single now living monarch sits on their throne because an ancestor of theirs took it from someone else. In this case, might makes right.

Seems like the right step then, might be to stage an insurrection, depose the queen, and take the throne, eh? I'm looking at you, readers from Ireland and France. :) Have at it.

> I'm looking at you, readers from Ireland and France. :) Have at it.

They've already had at it. The French in 1066 and the Irish have invaded Wales and Scotland. So have the Dutch, Germans and Scandinavians for that matter, it's time to give someone else a run.

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

#460

Post by guiriduro »

russellendicott wrote: post #401
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…

I expect to be downvoted for this but I think there is an appeal in an institution that dogmaticaly upholds a "higher" ideal of human behavior. They try to provide us with an example of how a hypothetical family with essentially unlimited resources that is born into this world with a social duty should theoretically behave. They also show us constant examples that human emotions are a factor regardless of your socio-…

And then there's Prince Andrew.
Post reply on HN