The Queen has more power over British law than we thought • Hacker News Board

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

#571

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 8:59 AM UTC

crumbshot wrote: post #91

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'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…

[deleted]

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

#572

Post by throwaway_2047 » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 9:06 AM UTC

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…

According to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw, the royal family brings in 160M pound from land property with a maintenance cost of 40M pound, and an additional 7000M pound from tourism

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

#573

Post by kitd » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 10:34 AM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #498

arethuza wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Mind you - the UK can only have a standing army with the express permission of Parliament: This requirement only seems to apply to British Army, the Navy and Air Force are exempt. W good example of how unimportant the pageantry is.

IIRC, it's because the British Army can trace its origins back to the New Model Army, so pledging allegiance to the Crown was more than just a formality back then.

In contrast, the 'Royal' Navy was created expressly by the monarch so allegiance is implied.

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

#574

Post by pasabagi » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 11:03 AM UTC

neximo64 wrote: post #546

pasabagi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in the UK, there are quite clear policy failures that led to deaths (two late lockdowns, 'eat out to help out', etc). It's not hard to see if you look at the graphs, and match them up to when the lockdowns were put in place. Polls showed that people in general were quite keen on lockdowns, as it so happens.

The data is also as close as you're going to get to accurate in the uk. Just on the topic of comparing graphs.. Again you have made so many assumptions. Some countries have different methods for measuring covid deaths. For example you have to have tested positive before you died vs autopsy after vs if you died in a care home automatically covid.

I think you're being disingenuous, but there are few raw facts that are worth noting. First, UK excess deaths are worse than the official COVID figures would suggest. This is under-reporting - and it's actually public policy to only include those who die within 28 days of being diagnosed with COVID, so it's not surprising[1].

[1] This policy has some good technical reasons behind it, but its political use is still a bit gross.

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

#575

Post by yawaworht1978 » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 11:27 AM UTC

The royals everywhere are clinging to their titles inherited and stolen from their mass murderer ancestors.All this based on a ridiculous(pretend or not, end justifies the means) right to rule religious doctrine. And the politicians do not pass legislature to end this travesty because it might not be popular. The days of such power structures and its cronies should be numbered, it is not sustainable and we have better alternatives. Prince Andrew is funded by taxpayer money. Think about that.

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

#576

Post by idclip » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 12:24 PM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #561

idclip wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to put you down. I see the thinking behind your rationale, it is also somewhat detached from human emotional and political reality. Being exposed to the atrocities of /most/ (im no expert) modern day monarchs and being an arab in the middle east, i find it REALLY hard to call what they do cute, or something math and money could fix. These problems, even dänmarks, evolved through strife, injustice and corru…

In Denmark we have a constitutional monarchy... And while the constitution mentions the "King" many places. We now have a Queen, and the role of the monarchy is entirely ceremonial. Back in 1849 the Danish king signed the constitution, making the role of the king ceremonial, and giving us democracy. Sure, this was in the aftermath of the French revolution. And hadn't the Danish king signed away his power we would lik…

> Yes, monarchy in it's original/natural form is horrific. It's essentially a dictatorship, no different. But I'd money and a ceremonial role can grease the wheels for a peaceful transition is that so bad?

Not saying its bad, just saying they wont do it. Theyre already rich beyond imagining- sadism and abuse are rampant, and the public doesnt seem to care.

Like seriously, how much cash will it take to convince the saudis to go ceremonial? Meanwhile another gay person is hung and a dissident is assassinated. That all said .. seems to be what the region “wants” - displeasure isnt high enough yet for regular folk to demand change.

In arabic there is a saying “the people earn the ruler they deserve”.

Beyond the short term moral qualm .. its just a step in the development of these countries - it could - and i was - worse. Better wiser days will come.

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

#577

Post by crumbshot » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 12:48 PM UTC

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #550

crumbshot wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't be as a punishment or sanction, it would be a procedural event as part of the transition to a republic.

- They aren't prisoners of war; they're “detained enemy combatants”, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. - It's not not a criminal incarceration; it's an involuntary psychiatric commitment so your usual rights to due process don't apply. - You see, we're not giving lesser rights to this group; we're simply giving more rights to the other, so it's fine. - It's not a form of punishment; it's simply a procedural ev…

Drawing rhetorical analogies is one thing, but exactly which human rights do you feel would be violated by applying these proposals to the royal family?

Also just to note this wouldn't be done arbitrarily, but within a specific purpose of abolishing the monarchy and removing all vestiges of their power.

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

#578

Post by Blikkentrekker » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:09 PM UTC

crumbshot wrote: post #577

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- They aren't prisoners of war; they're “detained enemy combatants”, so the Geneva Convention does not apply. - It's not not a criminal incarceration; it's an involuntary psychiatric commitment so your usual rights to due process don't apply. - You see, we're not giving lesser rights to this group; we're simply giving more rights to the other, so it's fine. - It's not a form of punishment; it's simply a procedural ev…

Drawing rhetorical analogies is one thing, but exactly which human rights do you feel would be violated by applying these proposals to the royal family? Also just to note this wouldn't be done arbitrarily, but within a specific purpose of abolishing the monarchy and removing all vestiges of their power.

> Drawing rhetorical analogies is one thing, but exactly which human rights do you feel would be violated by applying these proposals to the royal family?

The right to not be punished by the state for anything that was legal at the time one did it, by way of a future law change.

Saying “It is not a form of punishment; it is simply a procedural change.” can be used to enable any such matter.

> Also just to note this wouldn't be done arbitrarily, but within a specific purpose of abolishing the monarchy and removing all vestiges of their power.

The same can be said about anything.

Let us incarcerate all those that have removed the foreskins of their children in the past, when it was still legal to do so; — this is not a form of punishment; this is simply to remove all vestiges of involuntary foreskin removal.

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

#579

Post by crumbshot » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:54 PM UTC

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #578

crumbshot wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drawing rhetorical analogies is one thing, but exactly which human rights do you feel would be violated by applying these proposals to the royal family? Also just to note this wouldn't be done arbitrarily, but within a specific purpose of abolishing the monarchy and removing all vestiges of their power.

> Drawing rhetorical analogies is one thing, but exactly which human rights do you feel would be violated by applying these proposals to the royal family? The right to not be punished by the state for anything that was legal at the time one did it, by way of a future law change. Saying “ It is not a form of punishment; it is simply a procedural change. ” can be used to enable any such matter. > Also just to note this…

> Saying “It is not a form of punishment; it is simply a procedural change.” can be used to enable any such matter.

Yes but the converse is also true, claiming that something is being done as an unfair punishment, as an argument against it.

In this case, it's also worth noting that most of the monarchy's private assets are vast amounts of property and land, of which they are the landlords. The state seizing and administering this property for the benefit of the country, rather than to perpetually enrich this elite, is a public good.

Rather than taking this to be a punishment on the royals, consider it an anti-punishment on the people afflicted by their predatory rent-seeking behaviour.

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

#580

Post by neximo64 » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #574

neximo64 wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data is also as close as you're going to get to accurate in the uk. Just on the topic of comparing graphs.. Again you have made so many assumptions. Some countries have different methods for measuring covid deaths. For example you have to have tested positive before you died vs autopsy after vs if you died in a care home automatically covid.

I think you're being disingenuous, but there are few raw facts that are worth noting. First, UK excess deaths are worse than the official COVID figures would suggest. This is under-reporting - and it's actually public policy to only include those who die within 28 days of being diagnosed with COVID, so it's not surprising[1]. [1] This policy has some good technical reasons behind it, but its political use is still a…

This data is still not accurate, excess deaths is a very lagged dataset. Countries that have been upfront and honest with their numbers have high rates, another such one is Belgium. The difference isn't the government response it's the data.