Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who owns Parliament?

whoownsengland.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 210 posts

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#41

Post by hef19898 »

vasco wrote: post #16
simonh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of th…

They are not irrelevant in the sense that they are a declaration of the nation that there are special people by birth. In a society so worried about equality, it is appaling that multiple countries in europe not only have populations that leave under monarchy, but that they seem to be in favor.

None of that monarchs is involved in actual legislative, executive or judicative activities. Sure, they are heads of state, but that's where it stops. European monarchs don't write laws, don't sign laws, are not part of the elected government.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#42

Post by hiddencost »

Angostura wrote: post #15

We’re a constitutional monarchy AND a democracy. The monarch is the disabled root account of the nation. The government is the sudoers

The queen was exercising secret veto power, I don't think root was disabled.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#43

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ben_w wrote: post #38
plonk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the system would be simpler if we removed root and gave capabilities to the sudoers instead. Edit: why does the disabled root account allocate so much RAM?

The root account was written when it was fashionable to be object-oriented, so its resource allocation is all due to inheritance. Scotland in particular is upset because of certain issues due to multiple inheritance.

LOL. Great comment.

But it's not just Scotland. The War of the Roses had some multiple inheritance problems, too.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#44

Post by joaonmatos »

etothepii wrote: post #29
kcartlidge wrote: post #6

Here in the UK we're one day into a two day extra 'bank holiday' for the Queen's jubilee (70 years). Seems a good time to remind people of great sites like these, places that take the time to gather the evidence that reveals the truth behind royalty - descendants of thieves and murderers still profiting off the proceeds of their ancestral crimes, with their only 'qualification' being an accident of birth . We've neve…

Of course it's underserved. But the person of the sovereign in the British system can be a unifying figure impossible with an elected Head of State. Don't agree? Just look at how the red half of the US talk about Obama and the Blue half talk about Trump.

As long as you keep the Head of Government away from the sovereign, presidents can be harmless enough to avoid this kind of polarisation.

Maybe look at Ireland or Portugal as examples of republics where the president keeps the constitutional safeguards (dissolving parliament, vetoing laws, and what not), and you'll see that they are not exactly polarizing figures. Instead, the prime ministers are, as they should (they head partisan politics).

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#45

Post by ValentineC »

Angostura wrote: post #15

We’re a constitutional monarchy AND a democracy. The monarch is the disabled root account of the nation. The government is the sudoers

I don't know if this is more appropriate, but I've always thought of the monarch as PID 1, and parliament as a child process running under the root account.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#46

Post by kcartlidge »

p10jkle wrote: post #37
kcartlidge wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow. Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and…

They get 25% of crown estate profits, but I’m not sure they really ‘own’ that land per se. And in general, the elite own a huge amount of the UK (most notably Oxbridge colleges with incredible land ownership). We can make a case to take ‘back’ the Queen’s private or crown estate land, but why just them? IMO, casting judgement on what historic ownership is ‘rightful’ is really hard.

We'd struggle to fairly take it back; probably not even worth trying. And whilst I never said so specifically I presumed it apparent that I never meant just the Queen. I accept I could have been clearer (sorry).

The first steps might be:

- An end to the honours system (entirely - even though many 'commoners' get them now it perpetuates the class concepts)

- Fair and universal application of inheritance tax to reduce the inequalities over the generations

- The taxation of assets (beyond a certain point so that people don't need to sell their home) and not just income

All those have arguments for/against, but it would be good for them to be honestly discussed and considered by those with the power to effect change.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#47

Post by arlort »

kcartlidge wrote: post #30
simonh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of th…

> They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow. Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and…

> they own huge parts of the country

And they would keep owning them if they were made to abdicate

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#48

Post by waylandsmithers »

dane-pgp wrote: post #23
simonh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of th…

> ordinary britons would notice zero change But that only proves that what we have now is an elective dictatorship where the Prime Minister of the day effectively exercises all the powers of the sovereign, without any real accountability or separation of powers. Removing powers from the Queen (or even just codifying them in a written constitution) would be the first step towards fixing this democratic deficit and all…

> elective dictatorship where the Prime Minister of the day effectively exercises all the powers of the sovereign, without any real accountability or separation of powers

(As an American) this is a more pessimistic view of how it appears to me. Maybe I'm being naive but the voice of the people does appear to provide accountability. The idea that David Cameron felt the need to resign after the Brexit vote because he no longer had the support of the public seems like a big deal to me. We're not really big on admitting defeat over here.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#49

Post by [deleted] »

SulphurSmell wrote: post #39
Angostura wrote: post #15

We’re a constitutional monarchy AND a democracy. The monarch is the disabled root account of the nation. The government is the sudoers

Love this analogy. As a Canadian...we have the same monarch, but our own Constitution / elected officials. So...we are ourselves in the sudoers file...but surely we are different under this analogy than our UK brethren? What are we a VM with sudo root?

[deleted]

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#50

Post by basisword »

arlort wrote: post #47
kcartlidge wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow. Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and…

> they own huge parts of the country And they would keep owning them if they were made to abdicate

Only if we let them.
Post reply on HN