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

481–490 of 599 posts

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

#481

Post by astura »

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.

I've noticed that in the last five years or so there's been a trend to automatically dismiss any criticism or argument with "you're just jealous" rather than addressing it's merits. Any wealthy person is automatically immune from any sort of criticism - because if you criticize them it's only because you're jealous.

It's an ad hominem attack, nonsensical, tired, and, as someone who has experienced a lot of wealth envy in the past, always strike me as so incredibly insincere.

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

#482

Post by kitd »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #469
kitd wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.

If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?

Well, that's the thing about having the muscle. Ultimately, you can make that decision for yourself.

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

#483

Post by arethuza »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #469
kitd wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whom does the armed forces pledge allegiance to? In the UK, it's the monarch, not the government. That balance of power (military v political/legislative) gives you national stability. You don't want one person having both. Its the main reason royals serve in the armed forces.

If a crisis happens, which side do you think the military would support, the one they pledged allegiance to or the one paying their wages?

I've actually had that discussion with an ex-Army officer and he was adamant that the Army would support the monarch.

Mind you - he was an officer and from a rather posh guards regiment so that's kind of what I would expect him to say.

Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

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

#484

Post by [deleted] »

stqism wrote: post #315
peruvian wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the royalty went away and the UK took possession of its lands, castles, and holdings, it could make a killing off tourism to those private or semi-private residences. Other European countries that are no longer monarchies do this just fine.

A lot of this land and property is privately owned by the royal family but leased to the government, I’m not exactly versed in UK law; but a governmental attempt to seize a private citizens land seems like it wouldn’t be the smoothest thing to attempt to pull off.

[deleted]

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

#485

Post by Closi »

knorker wrote: post #426
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…

In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off. If you're a foreigner apparently you'll be pushed to the front for a good view. Also cute!

Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy.

I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe.

What a silly comparison.

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

#486

Post by lmm »

akiselev wrote: post #361
lmm wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant? The easiest ways to corrupt someone are offering them wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation; the royals are relatively immune to all of those.

> offering them wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation The government literally pays them and promotes them as a symbol of the nation - how is that not offering them "wealth, opportunities for their children, or a popular reputation"?

The point is that they have those things already, so it's harder for a would-be corrupter to tempt them that way.

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

#487

Post by Closi »

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…

In America you swear your allegiance to a piece of fabric, and to support 'one nation under god' despite the fact that America is supposed to be secular...

Reality: These things are actually more based in culture and tradition than law.

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

#488

Post by girvo »

Nullabillity wrote: post #456
kenneth wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Historically, it seems to depend on how long ago they stole it.

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

#489

Post by Silhouette »

lmm wrote: post #275
Silhouette wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parliament is sovereign. This is always a fun start to any argument about the constitution of the UK. The thing is, you're building on a foundation that could potentially be challenged. As we discovered during the Brexit debates, people are happy to use words like "parliamentary sovereignty" when it suits their purposes, yet clearly many of them have never actually read Dicey , much less understood its entire argumen…

> And of course Dicey himself was not empowered with any special authority, but rather assembled a rational argument based primarily on historical precedent, which has subsequently been broadly accepted by figures in authority in the UK but is still, like everything else about our constitution, more a matter of convention than clear popular mandate. Isn't that true of any such system? The US may have a written consti…

Isn't that true of any such system? The US may have a written constitution, but that would be just a piece of paper if it weren't for the conventions surrounding it.

Perhaps, but I think there is a profound difference in the legitimacy and authority of a system of government if there has at some point been a clear demonstration that the general public consent to it. The ideal might be a popular vote to accept the original constitution document, with a substantial majority in favour, and then some practical mechanism that allows any member of the public to cause a later change to the constitution if the consensus of their peers agrees with them. The important point is that the final authority on the system of government is the people being governed, directly.

In practice I'm sure we could find a way to restrict the authority of parliament - the judiciary have already signalled some willingness to question the validity of laws if they undermine the integrity of parliament as a democratic body or basic human rights.

According to our current constitution as generally accepted, the courts can't overrule the will of Parliament. That is parliamentary supremacy in action.

Human rights cases heard by our highest courts have typically come down to favouring an interpretation of statute law that is compatible with other statute law like the HRA in cases of ambiguity. It is understood that if Parliament clearly intends a new law to reduce the legal protection of human rights then our courts must follow that intent in their judgements.

After that, we're getting into some very fuzzy areas that come to the foreground with issues like Brexit or Scottish independence, but again the courts will enforce the will of Parliament (and by extension, the ability of Parliament to express its will).

I personally don't think either of those is necessarily a good thing, which is why I believe it could be better in the long term if we had a proper written constitution as many other states do, setting out the basic structure of our government and associated responsibilities, authorities and limits on power, with explicit popular consent to that form of government.

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

#490

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

The discussion on the value of monarchy is hotly debated around a quantitative measure of value, tourism vs maintenance costs.

I do think there is a case to be made on the qualitative aspect of value.

A monarch acts as a check for ambitious undesirables (politicians/hollywood types etc) from achieving the ideal elite rank in society, as no one can truly be king by definition, except the king. As such, they act as "power inhibitors" on the rest of elite society.

Inhibiting cult of personality, the monarch instead reflect opposite values like devotion to duty, and restraint, instilled from birth.

In summary, this seems like catastrophic insurance. Even if the probability is very low, the price to insure against a despot , would seem to be reasonable.

Post reply on HN