3 ms·

> At least with governments you get a representative ...if you live in a republic. Bonus points if it's a democratic republic; then your representative will ac

> At least with governments you get a representative ...if you live in a republic. Bonus points if it's a democratic republic; then your representative will actually listen to you... if you can outbid the competition and get said representative elected via advertising money. At least with a corporation, they can't impose arbitrary fines on you and lock you in a concrete box if you don't pay said fines... unless the government says they can.

anoncake 7y ago
>> At least with governments you get a representative > ...if you live in a republic. The Parliament of the United Kingdom doesn't actually exist? That explains a lot about Brexit.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  The quote said governments, not "this one specific government."
- yellowapple 7y ago
  The House of Lords kinda throws a wrench in calling the UK a republic, IMO. I know they're technically representatives (of... someone), but the Life Peers within the Lords Temporal are Crown-appointed ("on the advice of" the PM, which sounds like Her Majesty can tell the PM to bugger off and ignore that advice, but maybe there are specific restrictions there that I ain't aware of on account of not being British), which to me sounds like monarchy with extra steps.
  - Gaelan 7y ago
    In theory the Queen has the right to tell her advisors to bugger off, but in practice she hasn't done so in a long time, and I think it's widely believed that if she tried to exercise any power the monarchy would be abolished very shortly.
    - magduf 7y ago
      With the way things have gone lately in the UK, it seems like they'd be a lot better off if she stepped up and took over for a while. She sure seems a lot more intelligent and sensible than the current PM and other figures in power.
      - sbmassey 7y ago
        Imagine the chaos if she did take over and made a decision on Brexit one way or the other, though. Better to let the politicians take the heat.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        In the short term, maybe. In the long term, the monarchs lost their power for a reason.
    - twic 7y ago
      I'm not sure that in theory she does. The law has this idea of "the Crown", which is a sort of mechanical legal function, which happens to be exercised by Queen Elizabeth II at the moment, but which is tied up in a lot of law governing what it does in various situations. Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void. This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered. So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory. If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The UK has a monarch. That means it's a monarchy without any extra steps and thus not a republic. I didn't call the UK republic, I pointed out that having representatives does not require a republic. The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK and the monarch just can't decide anything. Even if they did, the House of Commons would still exist.
    - matthewheath 7y ago
      > The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK Yes, the Lords may only delay bills for up to a year and the Commons has the right to reintroduce the bill in the next session and pass it without the consent of the Lords under the Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949 respectively).

anoncake 7y ago

>> At least with governments you get a representative > ...if you live in a republic. The Parliament of the United Kingdom doesn't actually exist? That explains a lot about Brexit.

blotter_paper 7y ago
The quote said governments, not "this one specific government."
yellowapple 7y ago
The House of Lords kinda throws a wrench in calling the UK a republic, IMO. I know they're technically representatives (of... someone), but the Life Peers within the Lords Temporal are Crown-appointed ("on the advice of" the PM, which sounds like Her Majesty can tell the PM to bugger off and ignore that advice, but maybe there are specific restrictions there that I ain't aware of on account of not being British), which to me sounds like monarchy with extra steps.
- Gaelan 7y ago
  In theory the Queen has the right to tell her advisors to bugger off, but in practice she hasn't done so in a long time, and I think it's widely believed that if she tried to exercise any power the monarchy would be abolished very shortly.
  - magduf 7y ago
    With the way things have gone lately in the UK, it seems like they'd be a lot better off if she stepped up and took over for a while. She sure seems a lot more intelligent and sensible than the current PM and other figures in power.
    - sbmassey 7y ago
      Imagine the chaos if she did take over and made a decision on Brexit one way or the other, though. Better to let the politicians take the heat.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      In the short term, maybe. In the long term, the monarchs lost their power for a reason.
  - twic 7y ago
    I'm not sure that in theory she does. The law has this idea of "the Crown", which is a sort of mechanical legal function, which happens to be exercised by Queen Elizabeth II at the moment, but which is tied up in a lot of law governing what it does in various situations. Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void. This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered. So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory. If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
- anoncake 7y ago
  The UK has a monarch. That means it's a monarchy without any extra steps and thus not a republic. I didn't call the UK republic, I pointed out that having representatives does not require a republic. The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK and the monarch just can't decide anything. Even if they did, the House of Commons would still exist.
  - matthewheath 7y ago
    > The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK Yes, the Lords may only delay bills for up to a year and the Commons has the right to reintroduce the bill in the next session and pass it without the consent of the Lords under the Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949 respectively).