Live data from Hacker News

Who owns Parliament?

whoownsengland.org

101–110 of 210 posts

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#101

In the UK we generally ignore this problem because we "know" that the Queen will not bring about a constitutional crisis because she realises that presented with a choice between the duly elected Prime Minster of the day and The Queen, all of us democratic citizens will of course choose the elected politician ... no wait ... err hang on ... The British constitution is complicated.

I dunno. We chopped the head off the last one who pushed too far. That sort of lesson tends to have some permanency as it echoes down the ages.

Also, parliament learned lessons about the mess it gets into when there's nothing above them.

Cromwell was even worse than the king before.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#102
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> European monarchs don't ... sign laws

That may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the details are more interesting:

"Since the sixteenth century no [British] monarch has actually signed a Bill themselves. Instead, the monarch signs what are known as Letters Patent which announce that an assent has been given."

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what...

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#103

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

It's probably more like the monarch is the disabled root account, and the prime minister has an unassuming username but with ID 0.

The UK has an hereditary monarch with all the pomp and no power as cover for an elected monarch with no pomp and all the power.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in the US, and looking at how (for example) their second amendment has ruined their society, but it's considered heresy to countenance change to the holy document, I really don't want the UK to go down that path. There are places with written constitutions that have turned out better than the US one, but if you look at parallels between the UK and other nations, the US is the most likely one for the UK to foll…

The US Constitution has been regularly amended since the beginning. Your claim that it would be heresy falls flat here. 2nd amendment ruined society, exactly how? The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law. What is in ruins?

I didn't claim that amending the constitution was heresy. I claimed that removing the second amendment is heresy. And I stand by that.

[edit: on re-reading, the above is not true. I meant to claim that removing the 2A was heresy. My bad]

Look, this is just an opinion, but from the outside looking in, your society is frankly awful at looking after its people, and the everyone-gets-a-gun made sense a few hundred years ago with frontier justice, but certainly doesn't today. The gun culture doesn't create (as claimed) a "polite society", it creates a society based on fear, where everything is much more dangerous because guns are, at least potentially, involved.

I've been stopped by the police twice in my lifetime for speeding - once when I was a kid just passed his test, once a decade or so ago driving up the 280 to SF Airport and running late. The one in the US was a far more fraught affair - I suddenly remembered advice to keep your hands visible, don't make any sudden moves, etc. etc.

In contrast the UK one was a walk in the park. Got the ticket, the policeman even cracked a joke to reduce the tension, and the worst part was telling my mother (I was still driving on her insurance).

That's an anecdote, not data, but it's a microcosm of any interaction with the police. Over here every tinpot town has military hardware and SWAT teams because the criminals might have guns, the police are poorly trained in general, SWAT teams included, and the interaction between police and policed is far more tense, controlling and authoritative as a result. Because of guns being so prolific, the Peelian principles of policing are pretty much impossible to apply, and so US police do their job with overwhelming force for the given situation and employ fear as a standard tactic...

Every shopkeeper is more alert for guns; Another anecdote: I was being driven from McCarrean airport to a hotel in Vegas for a trade show before I started living here, and my cab driver pulled out in front of someone, who chased him, got alongside and pulled a gun (!!!). My cab driver pulled one right back at him (!!!!!!). They yelled at each other and went their different ways. Could have gone a lot differently. This sort of thing doesn't happen in civilized society.

> The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law

Well, great ? It doesn't change how American society interacts. And the abuse of "religious freedoms" to oppress people is another huge problem in American society in general. I wouldn't go claiming that one, personally.

To be clear, I didn't mean that the 2A was the only reason American society is ruined, but it's more along the lines of (with apologies to EI, this is from memory):

"The gun doesn't kill people, people kill people"

"Well, yes, but the gun helps, doesn't it? I mean, if I walked up behind someone and yelled BANG! they're not very likely to drop dead, are they ? They'd have to be pretty dodgy on the old ticker for that to kill them"

In the same way, the 2A hasn't killed American society, but it helps.

Feel free to disagree :) I don't really care about fake internet points, and I realize this isn't a popular opinion in America, but from the outside looking in - y'all are nuts.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living in the US, and looking at how (for example) their second amendment has ruined their society, but it's considered heresy to countenance change to the holy document, I really don't want the UK to go down that path. There are places with written constitutions that have turned out better than the US one, but if you look at parallels between the UK and other nations, the US is the most likely one for the UK to foll…

You live in the US, but refer to "their" society as if you're not a part of it. So if "their" society is in ruins, why do you choose to continue living there? Surely you can head off to any number of countries that would suit you much better, and allow you to be a part of their society.

Ah, the old "if you don't like it, leave" advice.

Well, in life, you might come across some situations where running away isn't really an option. I've got an (American) wife who likes it here, and a kid whose schooling I don't want to interrupt.

Yes. If it were just me, I'd leave. I've made enough millions that I could live quite happily back in my home country, but, you know... Life. Not just your own opinion counts...

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#106
The Crown owns parliament because it is in England.

Nobody except the Crown can hold land in England. You can only own an interest in land (Freehold being one of them). If the holder of any land dies intestate, then the land reverts to the Crown 'bona vacantia'.

The same would happen if Parliament ever dissolved itself as an institution.

Another little quirk of history.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#107
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much exactly that. The Government can (and does) request a Privy Council meeting, which issues various kinds of Orders in the name of the Queen. The Queen's Speech is another (less instrumental) way of government using the root account directly. (Or, I suppose, you could `$ sudo su`and then `# instantiate_republic` to permanently promote the usual administrator account to root. Still not clear it's wise to dir…

I'm not sure the Queen-in-Council is any more (or less) the person of the monarch distinct from the institutional government than, say, the Queen-in-Parliament is. Everything is done in the name of the Queen, one way or another, and almost all of it is practically at the direction of the government.

Yeah, maybe that stretches the analogy too far. I think it is distinct from ministers governing in their own right (or in the right of the semi-fictional unitary 'Secretary of State') though. Most statutory instruments, for example, are issued by and in the name of a minister. Obviously the appointment of the minister is an act of the Crown, and so is the passing of the original Act which authorises the order-making power. But the power is used directly from their own ministerial user account, IYSWIM.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#108
> The Crown Estate Commissioners have done this under the terms of the Land Registration Act 2002, which allows the Crown to register an interest in otherwise unregistered land.

This is wild to me. What do you mean "unregistered land" ? How the hell can you have been a nation for centuries and still have land that no-one owns? How can you be uncertain about who owns a piece of land? How can you have disputes?

Every single square centimetre of Sweden is mapped, surveyed, registered, and owned. There exists one national, public database of who owns what, which means that for every single square centimetre, I can ask who owns it and get a definitive answer. No uncertainties. No secrets. No confusion.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#109
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically we have a different monarch that is occupied by the same person (she is “the queen of the uk and the queen of Canada”, not really “queen of the uk and Canada”) and has the same rules of succession (implemented in a Canadian bill that must be updated in sync with the British equivalent when it changes). So it’s maybe more like a Kerberos auth server with local configuration.

I suggest that in the next bill, rather than updating the Crown to rest in Charles's CNAME, you acknowledge that the Crown is perpetually Elizabeth II. That way you never have to change Birthday celebrations, or anything else related.

We already solved the birthday celebration problem. The Queen's official birthday in Canada is May 24th. Charles' official birthday in Canada will be May 24th. We just decided at some point the best monarch's birthday to celebrate is Queen Victoria and have stuck with it.

Re: Who owns Parliament?

#110
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically we have a different monarch that is occupied by the same person (she is “the queen of the uk and the queen of Canada”, not really “queen of the uk and Canada”) and has the same rules of succession (implemented in a Canadian bill that must be updated in sync with the British equivalent when it changes). So it’s maybe more like a Kerberos auth server with local configuration.

I suggest that in the next bill, rather than updating the Crown to rest in Charles's CNAME, you acknowledge that the Crown is perpetually Elizabeth II. That way you never have to change Birthday celebrations, or anything else related.

Ah! Good ol' DNS. Nothing can go wrong now!
Post reply on HN