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

471–480 of 599 posts

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

#471

Post by flukus »

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...

I think quite a few of those also have multi party proportional representation which tend to avoid parliamentary majorities, so checks and balances are their in a different (I would argue better) form.

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

#472

Post by crumbshot »

zepto wrote: post #304
crumbshot wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removal in what sense? Are you seeking clarification on why the monarchy should be abolished, or the benefits of imposing exile?

I’m not talking about the benefits. I’m talking about what legal process is used, and what grounds are given for that process.

It would be done by statute. The only grounds necessary would be that Parliament is sovereign.

Of course, it would need a majority in both Houses, and in practical terms would require popular approval too.

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

#473

Post by [deleted] »

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

#474

Post by crumbshot »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #332
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. As a more serious response to this: to do so is applying a law change retroactively and flies into the face of any semblance of a nation ruled by laws. — what they are doing is not illegal as they did it, a such, they cannot be punished for it by a retroactive law change.

Why would it be a retroactive law?

A new Act of Parliament would be needed anyway to establish the United Republic, it could be included in that. Perhaps as a 100% wealth tax on the first X people in line to the throne, or similar.

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

#475

Post by oilbagz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #450
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 involveme…

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

.. yet.

And, that is precisely the problem with her powers. She can keep anything secret that she desires, including war crimes.

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

#476

Post by ed_balls »

ed_balls wrote: post #382
zepto wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is a rather silly metric. The UK is also one of the leaders when it comes to the vaccine rollout, far outstripping any European country, several of which could easily end up behind the UK in overall stats before this is o…

Out of desperation to stop the new variants UK decided to vaccinate people with a single dose only.

Anyone care to explain the downvotes?

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

#477

Post by MagnumOpus »

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

An Act of Parliament could just ascertain that the Windsors exempting each other from Inheritance tax was unlawful, and ask the new Republican Revenue & Tax office to assess 40% IHT on every historical generational transfer of assets.

Just redressing the historical injustices that the Windsors benefitted from would strangely make them much less rich.

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

#478

Post by gbronner »

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 is useful to have a hereditary figurehead to open flower shows and the like. It keeps the elected politicians from forming a personality cult, and gives them more time to govern. Pardoning turkeys probably isn't the highest and best use of the us President's time

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

#480

Post by Blikkentrekker »

crumbshot wrote: post #474
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, every member of the royal family should be stripped of their wealth and exiled. As a more serious response to this: to do so is applying a law change retroactively and flies into the face of any semblance of a nation ruled by laws. — what they are doing is not illegal as they did it, a such, they cannot be punished for it by a retroactive law change.

Why would it be a retroactive law? A new Act of Parliament would be needed anyway to establish the United Republic, it could be included in that. Perhaps as a 100% wealth tax on the first X people in line to the throne, or similar.

Exiling them as punishment for something they are doing now when it still is illegal is a retroactive criminal sanction.
Post reply on HN