3 ms·

If 1940's Germany or 1970's Soviets had wanted to decapitate British leadership they could have done little better than this. It would be nice if the Queen were

by rrggrr 10y ago

If 1940's Germany or 1970's Soviets had wanted to decapitate British leadership they could have done little better than this. It would be nice if the Queen were to exercise Royal Perogative - quickly - and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. In this way, the Queen could minimally pacify all sides and Britain could extricate itself from this quagmire with some face intact. She would set herself above the fray and if the EU objected it would be Brussels at fault thereafter.

arethuza 10y ago
She could maybe do something like that, but it would probably mean the end of the Royal family, who do have power but are arguably only allowed to have power on the strict understanding they don't use it. The last thing we need is the chaos of the Royals becoming mixed up in all of this. [Edit: I'm a very mild republican - but I'd be happiest if the Royals decided for themselves that the current state of affairs is a bit silly and they decided to do something else. Also if the alternative is an elected political president as HoS then I'll keep the Royals.]
- rrggrr 10y ago
  No. This was a protest vote and I seriously doubt the actual consequences are what the majority of voters actually want. A move by the Royal Family now would secure their position for a hundred years to come and keep the Kingdom together.
Xylakant 10y ago
> and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. Free movement of EU-citizens is a core obligation in the EU. You can't honor all other obligations without honoring this one. The ironic twist is that for people from new EU member states, there is a transitional phase where movement and work permits can be restricted and the UK explicitly opted out in the case of Poland, because at that time they were in dire need of cheap labor - and now they're complaining. In any case, there's no question at the moment if the UK needs to honor all EU membership obligations: Until the UK government decides to invoke the exit clause, the UK is a full member with all privileges and all obligations - and it seem they're not in a rush to do so. However, I fully expect them to be sidelined in all upcoming negotiations, especially the ones that don't require an unanimous vote. They've already thrown away the improvements that Cameron negotiated in February, those were under reserve of not leaving the EU. Fun times ahead, for sure.
- rrggrr 10y ago
  > Free movement of EU-citizens is a core obligation in the EU. Until its not. The EU would be delighted to look the other way if it means keeping the Union together. Yes, it may be that immigration reforms have to be extended throughout, and that move would be welcomed in most EU countries.
pvaldes 10y ago
Is a complex situation. The "United States of Europe" idea is basically oppossite and a menace to european monarchies. Some of the more reluctant countries to adopt the euro have kings or queens; and maybe this played a role in the brexit. In the current big plans for the eurozone, European kings will become quickly useless. (Why would be necessary to keep such thing like a "King of Alabama" or a "Queen of New York"?). The Queen of England probably knows it, and wouldn't be much excited with the idea of helping the same european burocrats that would be glad later to menace her power.
rrggrr 10y ago
Ya'all misunderstand. the problem - and OP's post theory - is the leadership vacuum that exists is one that threatens the United Kingdom. This is why you keep a constitutional monarchy around, a safeguard for times like this. If I'm certain of anything, it is that the EU will look aside as Britain enacts immigration reforms, because the alternative is the demise of the EU and the ascension of Russia as the center of gravity in Europe. The only other possibility is a shock and awe meeting of NATO countries to offer cohesion. This is a real crisis.

by rrggrr 10y ago

arethuza 10y ago

She could maybe do something like that, but it would probably mean the end of the Royal family, who do have power but are arguably only allowed to have power on the strict understanding they don't use it. The last thing we need is the chaos of the Royals becoming mixed up in all of this. [Edit: I'm a very mild republican - but I'd be happiest if the Royals decided for themselves that the current state of affairs is a bit silly and they decided to do something else. Also if the alternative is an elected political president as HoS then I'll keep the Royals.]

rrggrr 10y ago
No. This was a protest vote and I seriously doubt the actual consequences are what the majority of voters actually want. A move by the Royal Family now would secure their position for a hundred years to come and keep the Kingdom together.

Xylakant 10y ago

> and order Britain to honor its obligations as an EU member apart from immigration. Free movement of EU-citizens is a core obligation in the EU. You can't honor all other obligations without honoring this one. The ironic twist is that for people from new EU member states, there is a transitional phase where movement and work permits can be restricted and the UK explicitly opted out in the case of Poland, because at that time they were in dire need of cheap labor - and now they're complaining. In any case, there's no question at the moment if the UK needs to honor all EU membership obligations: Until the UK government decides to invoke the exit clause, the UK is a full member with all privileges and all obligations - and it seem they're not in a rush to do so. However, I fully expect them to be sidelined in all upcoming negotiations, especially the ones that don't require an unanimous vote. They've already thrown away the improvements that Cameron negotiated in February, those were under reserve of not leaving the EU. Fun times ahead, for sure.

rrggrr 10y ago
> Free movement of EU-citizens is a core obligation in the EU. Until its not. The EU would be delighted to look the other way if it means keeping the Union together. Yes, it may be that immigration reforms have to be extended throughout, and that move would be welcomed in most EU countries.

pvaldes 10y ago

Is a complex situation. The "United States of Europe" idea is basically oppossite and a menace to european monarchies. Some of the more reluctant countries to adopt the euro have kings or queens; and maybe this played a role in the brexit. In the current big plans for the eurozone, European kings will become quickly useless. (Why would be necessary to keep such thing like a "King of Alabama" or a "Queen of New York"?). The Queen of England probably knows it, and wouldn't be much excited with the idea of helping the same european burocrats that would be glad later to menace her power.

rrggrr 10y ago

Ya'all misunderstand. the problem - and OP's post theory - is the leadership vacuum that exists is one that threatens the United Kingdom. This is why you keep a constitutional monarchy around, a safeguard for times like this. If I'm certain of anything, it is that the EU will look aside as Britain enacts immigration reforms, because the alternative is the demise of the EU and the ascension of Russia as the center of gravity in Europe. The only other possibility is a shock and awe meeting of NATO countries to offer cohesion. This is a real crisis.