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

501–510 of 599 posts

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

#501

Post by throwaway_kufu »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #308
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a common phrase bandied about: “Democracy is the worst form of government, besides all the others.” It’s oddly used as a pro-Merica. To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Their argument generally boils down to the US has elections and elections = democracy. I can even see hints of…

> To which I normally say the US isn’t a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. I don’t know why I do that, it only causes people to dig in deeper to their position. Perhaps because this is both pedantic and wrong? A state can be both a democracy and a republic, and many are, such as the United States.

Explain how the US is a democracy without providing the definition of a Republic and renaming that form of government as a democracy to suit your arguement.

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

#502

Post by knorker »

Closi wrote: post #485
knorker wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a difference in degree, not kind.

Royalty in Europe has abused their power. It's inherited corrupt power, that time and time again has shown that given this power they abuse it.

Is it the same? No. Just like how Anders Brevik is not as bad as Hitler.

But yeah, Anders Brevik's crimes are "cute".

Defending corruption and crimes because "at least it's not Saudi Arabia" is what's truly silly.

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

#503

Post by AZRS »

pmoriarty wrote: post #129
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…

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

All abolishing the monarchy would do is enable people with more wealth and status than me, many of which who I can expect to not only hate people like me far more than the current monarch, but to have self and group interests that are directly contradictory to my own wellbeing, along with ideological motivations that, if carried out, would be extremely harmful to me.

At this point people who think the monarchy should be abolished get filed under "malicious actor who wishes to put themselves, or their ideological co travellers, as my master instead, or wishes to use the de facto power vacuum to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense", i.e. they put themselves into the "I would probably be better off if this person were to be dead" category.

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

#504

Post by Reason077 »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #491
Reason077 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ”The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch” Correct. > “nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.” Incorrect. Currently 25% of the Crown Estate’s profits are paid to the Monarch. This was raised from 15% in 2018, and is set to revert back to 15% in 2028.

Why was it raised, but only temporarily?

"The sovereign grant was increased in 2017, from its previous level of 15%, to pay for extensive renovations at Buckingham Palace which are likely to run until 2027."

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

#505

Post by detritus »

pasabagi wrote: post #102
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since english people have a cultural prohibition against complaining. Complaining about the status quo . If you ever visited Britain, you'd see how much Brits complain. See: whenever it's raining. Or sunny. Or just grey. Or drizzling. Or foggy.

I am English. I have also lived in Germany for several years. I can tell you that there is absolutely no comparison. Germans expect things to work, and write letters if they don't. English people expect things to be broken, and just want to go on with their day. Perhaps complaining is the wrong term - but for example, where my parents live, the train service has the trick of closing one out of two toilets on the trai…

This might be a North/South thing. Generalising massively - I often find that Southern English will entertain huge grievances but never actually do or say anything about them. I kind of conflate these types with tutting Daily Mail-reading curtain twitchers who decry the fall of their society, as they see it, but never raise a peep in complaint.

Up North, people tend to be much more comfortable speaking up and giving a piece of their mind.

Personally, I am a regular writer of letters of complaint, and frequent arguer in the street, haha :)

Drives me nuts when I see people complaining, but not then actually doing anything to resolve it.

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

#506

Post by jazzyk »

calgoo wrote: post #465
jopsen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Here in Spain the royal family is also paid in a similar way as Denmark and Sweden. However, they are corrupt and make deals with SA and other nations. They go on elephant hunts and are above the law as the Spanish secret service / police will try to defend them as much as possible. When something actually does come to light, they are allowed to leave the country without limit and live in SA with their millions of ta…

It was just the previous King, Juan Carlos, his son (the current King) seems to conduct himself much better (no corruption, no elephant hunts, no tawdry extra-marital affairs).

But I do agree with you that the concept of monarchy (hereditary power/wealth at taxpayers' expense) has run its course.

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

#507

Post by deskamess »

krisgee wrote: post #225
voisin wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What turmoil would you genuinely believe would follow? The more absurd thing, in my mind, is that citizens of dozens of countries, including first world nations like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, consent to having the monarchy, even though it is largely ceremonial. Certainly no one believes it creates stability, nor that turmoil would ensue if they abandoned it.

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 whole monarchy thing is BS. We/Canada can easily do without it. And remember we have to pledge allegiance to the "King/Queen and Her Hiers" when taking the citizenship pledge - which includes the wonderful Prince Andrew. Such bullshit to genuflect to such people. And the British empire doesn't exactly have a shining past with all their colonialism and what not. Why not just pledge allegiance to the Canadian flag or the Charter?

But every time we bring it up for removal there are excuses why it cannot be done. The Governor General et all are a cost center - not just federally but in each province. Or worse two factions aligned to removing the monarchy don't disagree on how it should be done and the measure fails (Australia). At least the Australians managed to remove 'Queen/Heirs' from the citizenship pledge and acknowledged that many immigrants who want citizenship came from countries in Africa and Asia that were colonized, whose people were treated like shit, and had their natural resources stolen.

Cute and hoky to some... but others are being asked to pledge to an institution that subjugated many of their ancestors. For no good reason. Even if you have not been subjugated, there is no reason to pledge allegiance to her.

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

#508

Post by deskamess »

AZRS wrote: post #503
pmoriarty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the monarchy should be abolished" This is such a no-brainer, and I really don't understand why anyone anywhere in the modern world would want someone to rule over them.

All abolishing the monarchy would do is enable people with more wealth and status than me, many of which who I can expect to not only hate people like me far more than the current monarch, but to have self and group interests that are directly contradictory to my own wellbeing, along with ideological motivations that, if carried out, would be extremely harmful to me. At this point people who think the monarchy should…

Like the monarchy is not already richer than you! They definitely feel their status is above yours.

At least the new rich overlords wont ask me to pledge allegiance to them during a citizenship oath like the do in Canada. Not just the queen, but also to her heirs like the great Prince Andrew The Pedophile.

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

#509

Post by meepmorp »

roelschroeven wrote: post #65
meepmorp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reacting to the central conceit of the piece, that this process of royal consent is somehow undemocratic. This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen, and the impact of the queen is exclusively a political problem. If there was a serious difference between the will of Parliament (Commons) and the Queen, the result is a foregone conclusion.

How so? According to the article the Queen can simply veto any law that would restrict her power to veto.

Parliament is sovereign, including over the monarchy. She categorically cannot overrule any legislation without being granted the power to do so by parliament, who can revoke that power at will. There was a whole civil war and other crazy shit to figure it out, but the monarch hasn't had that kind of authority since the end of the 17th century.

The article is actually making a big deal about the fact that the queen expressed an opinion about legislation in an area that the author decided wasn't covered by the vague wording of a pamphlet.

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

#510

Post by dragonwriter »

oilbagz wrote: post #475
dragonwriter wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> .. yet

Well, I mean, it's possible that the detailed information that has come out about the GG trying to get assurances that, if the PM advices that he be removed to forestall a dismissal, the monarch would disregard that advice and receiving a communique from the Queen’s private secretary that, in that event, she would be obliged to follow the PM’s advice has managed to miss another layer of secret communication directly with the monarch directing the action, with the other private communication being a cover. But, I mean, secret backchannels and influences are always possible whatever the former arrangement of power is: the conspiracy theory that the dismissal was directed by the Queen has far less support compared to the theory that it was directed by the CIA, which has no formal role in Australia’s government.

Post reply on HN