The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

Post by zepto » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

crumbshot wrote: post #100

Chris2048 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a republic. That said - what would happen to all the stuff owned by the crown? I'm not sure if the postal service still is, and the prisons could probably be let go - but I think there's a lot of land, especially in the south owned by the crown.

Abolishing the monarchy would also obsolete the Sovereign Grant, so all the surplus income from the Crown Estate would go to the state without the royal family leeching their cut. That said, there are some Duchies that are privately owned. In my opinion, these should be seized by the state during the establishment of a republic - if we're going to abolish the monarchy, we need to go the whole way and strip each membe…

Post by zepto » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #191

twoslide wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

The process discussed in the article (the Queen's consent, as opposed to the similarly named royal assent) applies only to legislation affecting "the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, and personal or property interests of the crown" - arguably Internal Market Bill and Brexit would be out of this scope.

Post by krisgee » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:07 AM UTC

voisin wrote: post #142

jedberg wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stability. The monarchy has been in charge for so long that getting rid of it would cause turmoil. I'm not saying it's a good reason, just that it's a reason.

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.

Post by zepto » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:10 AM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #202

The prime minister goes to meet the queen once a week. Do people think they just talk about the weather, kiss the ring, and leave? Or the PM just says what laws they wish to pass while the queen silently listens?

Post by zepto » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:12 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #81

jnwatson wrote: post #74

The most obvious difference between the American and British legislative systems is the presence of a foundational document like the Constitution. The British system is strictly about convention and precedent, whereas Americans have a little more explicit guidance from the Constitution. I think what we've learned as Americans in the last few years is that it isn't enough to have a foundational document. Convention an…

> Perhaps the idea that convention and precedent is the only thing holding the British system together makes it stronger. Coronavirus has been a pretty good litmus test for which countries have good governments, and which countries do not. The UK has consistently led the charts in terms of deaths and infections. I think it shows the fundamental defectiveness of the system itself - a defectiveness that has been pretty…