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

551–560 of 599 posts

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

#551

Post by throwaway_kufu »

skissane wrote: post #536
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you define "democracy" broadly, to include representative democracies I don’t think this is a matter of being overly pedantic. What you have done is redefined “democracy” to “republic”. To use a real world example you don’t find many historians that call the ancient republic of Rome a democracy, or a representative democracy. A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elect…

I haven't redefined anything. > A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives. In 1999, Australia had a national referendum on becoming a Republic [0]–to replace the Queen with a President. The referendum was defeated, despite polls showing a majority of Australian voters favoured becoming a Republic. Most observers attribute the referendum's failu…

> what on earth was Australia voting on – they already have that.

As you said they were voting to replace the “Queen” and become a republic. But for the Queen Australia would be a constitutional republic, hence the vote to remove the Queen to become a republic.

It goes without saying the Queen (Monarch)is not elected and Queen’s heirs will succeed the Queen’s powers. It’s not enough that otherwise Australia has an elected parliament, even dictators in Roman republic were elected.

Because the UK and Australian Constitutions provide for unelected monarchs they are Constitutional Monarchs.

The US isn’t a “representative democracy” it is a Constitutional Republic. The fact that slavery existed under the constitution and was later amended to out law slavery never had and effect of the constitution providing for a Republic form of government at all times.

The US also needs to be viewed through a certain lens: 1) I believe it was only the 2nd attempt in history at creating a Constitution; and 2) the US only became an independent county through war and treaties. Maybe it was a plutocratic oligarchy in the beginning, but they were still elected representatives making it a republic, and that’s exactly why democracies do not have elected officials and the people manage the affairs of the state directly or otherwise temporary officials are selected at random. And as much of a plutocratic oligarch as it may have been, King George laughed when he heard about the concept of the elected “President” after losing the war and he famously said if Washington actually does give up the power “he would be the greatest man in the World.”

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

#552

Post by joubert »

Reason077 wrote: post #504
colejohnson66 wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

And Buckingham is part of the Crown Estate, which is not the private property of the monarch.

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

#553

Post by salawat »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #495
patmcc wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you'll be surprised what a government can accomplish when it really tries. Being able to make laws helps with that.

Laws still have to respect the rights of the people, no? I’m not well versed in UK law, but the US, the legislature can’t just make a law making criticism of the government illegal because it’s a violation of our First Amendment right to free speech.

Mmmm. Tell that to all the lawmakers and Executives that made their careers by pulling off end runs around the 4th, 5th, and 2nd amendments.

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

#554

Post by salawat »

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-…

What you describe is noblis oblige. It's a long standing cultural force ofarguable efficacy peculiar in particular to France/Britain.

Elsewhere, there are alternative viewpoints. The funny thing is that your proposed institution assumes the layman is the one who needs to be taught or reminded more often than not.

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

#555

Post by salawat »

Closi wrote: post #487
roenxi wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Technically, it's to the thing for which the flag is a symbolic representation. One Nation, under God is arguably not an invocation of Christendom, but of deism, or the next biggest fish.

Spot on on the being based more on culture and tradition than law though.

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

#556

Post by salawat »

Lio wrote: post #455
roenxi wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

The problem that comes into play with over-malleability is that you can end up weaseling your way into anything with enough time. Hard, explicit limits have their place, even if you do need to rein in the linguistic drift from time to time.

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

#557

Post by Reason077 »

joubert wrote: post #552
Reason077 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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."

And Buckingham is part of the Crown Estate, which is not the private property of the monarch.

No, Buckingham Palace and other “occupied” royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate.

”The palace, like Windsor Castle, is owned by the reigning monarch in right of the Crown. Occupied royal palaces are not part of the Crown Estate, but nor are they the monarch's personal property, unlike Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle.”

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

#558

Post by skissane »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #551
skissane wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't redefined anything. > A republic is just that, a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives. In 1999, Australia had a national referendum on becoming a Republic [0]–to replace the Queen with a President. The referendum was defeated, despite polls showing a majority of Australian voters favoured becoming a Republic. Most observers attribute the referendum's failu…

> what on earth was Australia voting on – they already have that. As you said they were voting to replace the “Queen” and become a republic. But for the Queen Australia would be a constitutional republic, hence the vote to remove the Queen to become a republic. It goes without saying the Queen (Monarch)is not elected and Queen’s heirs will succeed the Queen’s powers. It’s not enough that otherwise Australia has an el…

> It goes without saying the Queen (Monarch)is not elected and Queen’s heirs will succeed the Queen’s powers

The Queen has basically zero powers in practice. Her role is purely symbolic, with no practical relevance. Her symbolic existence, whether it be good symbolism or bad symbolism, does not change the fact that Australia already has, in every practical sense of the word, "a form of government where the people are represented by elected officials/representatives". You can even say that her rule over Australia is democratically legitimate due to the failure of the 1999 referendum to remove her.

All the Queen's actual powers in Australia are exercised by her representative the Governor-General. She does not instruct the Governor-General what to do. Outside of exceptional circumstances, the GG does what the PM advises the GG to do. In exceptional circumstances (such as the 1975 constitutional crisis), the GG makes up their own mind what to do – they may inform the Queen of their decisions as a courtesy, but ultimately the discretion is theirs not hers. All the Queen does is appoint and dismiss the GG, and the Queen has always (in recent decades certainly) done so according to the advice of the Australian PM.

If the Queen is physically present in Australia, she can personally exercise her powers rather than going through the GG, but even there she is bound by the convention that she does whatever the PM and ministers advise her to do. In the utterly unlikely event that a constitutional crisis happened to coincide with a royal visit, she might be called upon to exercise some discretion, but I think in such a scenario she would quickly depart from the country so the GG could sort it out.

The only hypothetical scenario in which the Queen might have some real power would be if the GG and PM were engaged in a race to be the first one to sack the other – if the PM instructs her to sack the GG, and she knew the GG was about to sack the PM, she would have a choice whether to follow the PM's instructions immediately, or to delay doing so until the GG had the chance to sack the PM first. That situation has never actually happened (although in the 1975 crisis came close to that hypothetical without actually reaching it.)

She has some other extremely trivial powers – for example, when she comes to Australia, she doesn't have to produce a passport (indeed she doesn't have one) – which again, is primarily a symbolic thing. Anyway, at the age of 94, she has made clear she does not plan to ever come to Australia again, so whatever powers she has when physically in Australia are now exceptionally theoretical. We will have to wait and see who is her successor (most likely Princes Charles, although it is not impossible he could predecease her), when that is (her mother lived to 101, she will be 101 in 2027, but it is not impossible she might even live longer than her mother did), and whether that successor ever comes to Australia as King – it could happen that her death is followed by an Australian Republic, and Charles III or William V, King of Australia, might not make it here before one is instated.

> The US isn’t a “representative democracy” it is a Constitutional Republic

I'm sorry but the US government doesn't agree with you. To quote the educational materials the US Citizenship and Immigration Services provides to prospective US citizens: "The United States is a representative democracy." [0]

And the United States Congress doesn't agree with you either – to quote H. Con. Res 139 of 2003 (passed unanimously), the US constitution "established the United States as a federal union of States, a representative democracy within a republic." [1]

So, I think I will trust the US government and US Congress' position, not yours.

[0] https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-pl...

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-108hdoc94/pdf/CDOC-... see page 8 of PDF

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

#559

Post by michaelmrose »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #493
michaelmrose wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly you are pretending that people are rational actors. This isn't necessarily true of people in aggregate and its sure as hell not true of individuals who have many wildly divergent understandings of the world, the probable end results of different actions, and desired outcomes including but not limited to aggregate wealth. Next this doesn't even work out if we replace the monarch with an automaton which faithfu…

I only spoke to the inherent incentives and risks for each type of leader: monarch and President. The rest of that stuff you filled in on your own.

The rest of what I filled in on my own is reality. The motivations you propose constitute a limited theory on how leaders of nations behave. Comparing your theory to thousands of years of actuality ought to cause a rational actor to conclude your theory is at best so incomplete as to be useless and at worst completely wrong.

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

#560

Post by jopsen »

knorker wrote: post #429
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…

"Cute". Defending state supported inherited power, which has already shown to be corrupted and have abused that power, by saying it's "cute" is like saying pirates murdering and stealing are romantisised to being cute. Don't confuse watching and enjoying Pirates of the Caribbean with thinking it's a good idea to murder and steal on merchant ships. Russian oligarchs and mafioso also have their charm, but don't confuse…

That's a very fair argument :)

And maybe one day it will be time to do away with it.. but it does have a cuteness factor to it.

And politicians are unlikely to want to burn political capital doing away with a popular cultural institution.

So as long as they behave, remain popular, I doubt the monarchy will go away.

Post reply on HN