4 ms·

It doesn't matter. These days head of states in parliamentary systems don't do their jobs One of the best example for such a system is Bush lying and going to

It doesn't matter. These days head of states in parliamentary systems don't do their jobs One of the best example for such a system is Bush lying and going to war in Iraq when the people didn't want it. The best example that it doesn't matter is Blair doing the same thing and Elisabeth 2 not doing anything about it.

twblalock 10y ago
Do you honestly believe that the Queen should have stepped in? That would have been totally undemocratic, and it would have undermined constitutional part of constitutional monarchy.
- msh 10y ago
  The Brits don't have a constitution or a constitutional monarchy.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Sure they do. Just not a single written document with a big heading "Constitution". Sweden is kind-of in the middle. They have their constitution written, but in four documents.
- dorfsmay 10y ago
  If a decision is unpopular with the large majority and it is morally wrong, then yes. Otherwise, what is the point of having a head of state?
- zeveb 10y ago
  If Queen Elizabeth truly believes that her government is in error, it is her sworn duty to refuse Royal Assent to erroneous laws, and use all her reserve powers to correct it (when asked, 'Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?' at her coronation, she answered, 'I will'). Yes, it would provoke a constitutional crisis (which is British political speech for 'we want to change the rules, now that someone is playing by them'), and it would very well lead to the end of the Windsors, and probably the monarchy. But it would be her duty. That's the thing about duty: you have to do it, even when you don't want to, and even when it may cost you everything. I don't think she should have stepped in in the instance of the war, but she definitely ought to step in if she believes her government is unjust or unmerciful.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

twblalock 10y ago

Do you honestly believe that the Queen should have stepped in? That would have been totally undemocratic, and it would have undermined constitutional part of constitutional monarchy.

msh 10y ago
The Brits don't have a constitution or a constitutional monarchy.
- Tomte 10y ago
  Sure they do. Just not a single written document with a big heading "Constitution". Sweden is kind-of in the middle. They have their constitution written, but in four documents.
dorfsmay 10y ago
If a decision is unpopular with the large majority and it is morally wrong, then yes. Otherwise, what is the point of having a head of state?
zeveb 10y ago
If Queen Elizabeth truly believes that her government is in error, it is her sworn duty to refuse Royal Assent to erroneous laws, and use all her reserve powers to correct it (when asked, 'Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgments?' at her coronation, she answered, 'I will'). Yes, it would provoke a constitutional crisis (which is British political speech for 'we want to change the rules, now that someone is playing by them'), and it would very well lead to the end of the Windsors, and probably the monarchy. But it would be her duty. That's the thing about duty: you have to do it, even when you don't want to, and even when it may cost you everything. I don't think she should have stepped in in the instance of the war, but she definitely ought to step in if she believes her government is unjust or unmerciful.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]