3 ms·

Meh, the Monarchy has no power it’s just a ceremonial position, and as for the lords yes the process of becoming one is not great (it is no longer hereditary ho

Meh, the Monarchy has no power it’s just a ceremonial position, and as for the lords yes the process of becoming one is not great (it is no longer hereditary however) but it actually is a bit useful these days and many in the upper house are genuinely experts on some aspects of policy and do provide some valuable input. I don’t think you can really compare with the American system where you elect a de-facto king every 4 years...

dan-robertson 6y ago
Yeah I really don’t understand the American comparison in this case. The monarch is unelected but basically powerless while in America the president wields the kinds of powers that the U.K. has removed from the monarch since the US was founded. And while the House of Lords suffers from a lot of issues (eg nominating party donors or stuffing the house,) they are far more constitutionally limited than the us senate which means we don’t get the kind of gridlock and inability to pass legislation that the US has.
- emteycz 6y ago
  I don't think they're arguing against monarchy because of the ceremonial ruler. The problem seems to lie within the Prime Minister who essentially replaced the king. It's no longer hereditary, but the position seems to have very absolute powers and just a few checks/balances. That level of power is impossible to gather in European republics, they don't view the prime minister as a ruler, it's merely a manager of ministers who are each focused on managing one aspect of the state, also with very limited power, and each minister has a non-political counterpart who's actually in charge of running the ministry itself according to law.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
How is the US president a king? Without the legislature, they can’t get any laws passed, and not even appoint people to important positions in the government. Both of the last 2 presidents were severely handicapped once they lost their party’s control of the legislature 2 years after being elected.
- cyberpunk 6y ago
  Don’t executive orders bypass all of that? Isn’t that absolute power?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    No, they do not bypass all of it, or even much of it. Their limits are being stretched, and courts may decide that they’re being used improperly, but I don’t know of any big legal changes enacted by executive order. But a president just tried to use all of the power in the executive branch to overturn an election. And he didn’t even come close. That doesn’t seem very king like to me.
  - Symbiote 6y ago
    Also the presidential pardons.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      That is a huge power, but a president’s pardons are limited to federal crimes. State level charges still apply, and that doesn’t seem very king like. I also forgot to mention the previous president is about to go on trial in Congress starting Monday. Also far from what I would expect of a king. A couple of US websites even banned the previous president while he was president, and he couldn’t do anything about it.
  - skywhopper 6y ago
    No, executive orders can only function in areas where Congress has delegated control to the Executive branch but not to a specific body. ie, setting details of employment policy for the federal government, or setting priorities for prosecution of crimes, or making decisions about how administrative policies happen. But the President can’t provision new funds, raise taxes, make decisions that have specific bodies set up for a regulatory purpose (FCC, SEC, Federal Reserve). A lot of what recent Presidents have done with executive orders could be rolled back by Congress if they chose.
  - wil421 6y ago
dane-pgp 6y ago
> Meh, the Monarchy has no power it’s just a ceremonial position Even ignoring the secret veto that the Queen and Prince Charles continue to use against proposed legislation[0], the effect of the Monarchy (and the uncodified constitution) is that the Prime Minister of the day can effectively act as a monarch without the checks and balances that would exist in a republic. > as for the lords yes the process of becoming one is not great (it is no longer hereditary however) The House of Lords is the biggest parliamentary chamber of any democracy in the world (currently at 792 members), which is not a sign of how much expertise exists in it, but rather how easy it is for the government of the day to expand it with their cronies, who may then hardly ever turn up, except to vote to force through whatever legislation has passed in the Commons. Also, it is incorrect to say it is "no longer hereditary" since there are, by law, 92 members who hold hereditary peerages.[1] Admittedly, the specific selection of these peers is subject to a vote (some elected by the House as a whole, though most are elected by only their fellow hereditary peers), but it is still an affront to democracy to have dozens of seats in a legislature which citizens are ineligible for due to their ancestry. > I don’t think you can really compare with the American system where you elect a de-facto king every 4 years You absolutely can compare it with the American system, and it compares badly, since the UK's de-facto king is elected only every 5 years, and they are chosen not by the people, but by the MPs, who on average were voted for by 37% of eligible voters at the last election. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Hereditary_peers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Hereditary_peer...
- dastx 6y ago
  > without the checks and balances that would exist in a republic. As we've seen in the past 4 years, these checks and balances in a republic like the US can be completely invalidated without the relevant laws in place. Things like senate majority leader having the final say on what gets debated, or how a criminal trial is conducted (e.g. during Trump's impeachment). Neither our current system works properly, nor does the US system, and I'm willing to bet this two party system is the bigger issue rather than having a monarch whose power is mostly ceremonial. I will say, I was unaware of the what was layed out in the guardian article. I'd be curious how much this had happened since 2013.
fenk85 6y ago
Appologies i should have been clear of my comparison, I am in Ireland where we have a saner republican democracy than USA with a proportional representation with single transfereable vote system, which doesnt cause bipolarization. In UK the parliament is a de-facto dictatorship with all the powers they have without checks and balances.

dan-robertson 6y ago

Yeah I really don’t understand the American comparison in this case. The monarch is unelected but basically powerless while in America the president wields the kinds of powers that the U.K. has removed from the monarch since the US was founded. And while the House of Lords suffers from a lot of issues (eg nominating party donors or stuffing the house,) they are far more constitutionally limited than the us senate which means we don’t get the kind of gridlock and inability to pass legislation that the US has.

emteycz 6y ago
I don't think they're arguing against monarchy because of the ceremonial ruler. The problem seems to lie within the Prime Minister who essentially replaced the king. It's no longer hereditary, but the position seems to have very absolute powers and just a few checks/balances. That level of power is impossible to gather in European republics, they don't view the prime minister as a ruler, it's merely a manager of ministers who are each focused on managing one aspect of the state, also with very limited power, and each minister has a non-political counterpart who's actually in charge of running the ministry itself according to law.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

How is the US president a king? Without the legislature, they can’t get any laws passed, and not even appoint people to important positions in the government. Both of the last 2 presidents were severely handicapped once they lost their party’s control of the legislature 2 years after being elected.

cyberpunk 6y ago
Don’t executive orders bypass all of that? Isn’t that absolute power?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  No, they do not bypass all of it, or even much of it. Their limits are being stretched, and courts may decide that they’re being used improperly, but I don’t know of any big legal changes enacted by executive order. But a president just tried to use all of the power in the executive branch to overturn an election. And he didn’t even come close. That doesn’t seem very king like to me.
- Symbiote 6y ago
  Also the presidential pardons.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    That is a huge power, but a president’s pardons are limited to federal crimes. State level charges still apply, and that doesn’t seem very king like. I also forgot to mention the previous president is about to go on trial in Congress starting Monday. Also far from what I would expect of a king. A couple of US websites even banned the previous president while he was president, and he couldn’t do anything about it.
- skywhopper 6y ago
  No, executive orders can only function in areas where Congress has delegated control to the Executive branch but not to a specific body. ie, setting details of employment policy for the federal government, or setting priorities for prosecution of crimes, or making decisions about how administrative policies happen. But the President can’t provision new funds, raise taxes, make decisions that have specific bodies set up for a regulatory purpose (FCC, SEC, Federal Reserve). A lot of what recent Presidents have done with executive orders could be rolled back by Congress if they chose.
- wil421 6y ago

dane-pgp 6y ago

> Meh, the Monarchy has no power it’s just a ceremonial position Even ignoring the secret veto that the Queen and Prince Charles continue to use against proposed legislation[0], the effect of the Monarchy (and the uncodified constitution) is that the Prime Minister of the day can effectively act as a monarch without the checks and balances that would exist in a republic. > as for the lords yes the process of becoming one is not great (it is no longer hereditary however) The House of Lords is the biggest parliamentary chamber of any democracy in the world (currently at 792 members), which is not a sign of how much expertise exists in it, but rather how easy it is for the government of the day to expand it with their cronies, who may then hardly ever turn up, except to vote to force through whatever legislation has passed in the Commons. Also, it is incorrect to say it is "no longer hereditary" since there are, by law, 92 members who hold hereditary peerages.[1] Admittedly, the specific selection of these peers is subject to a vote (some elected by the House as a whole, though most are elected by only their fellow hereditary peers), but it is still an affront to democracy to have dozens of seats in a legislature which citizens are ineligible for due to their ancestry. > I don’t think you can really compare with the American system where you elect a de-facto king every 4 years You absolutely can compare it with the American system, and it compares badly, since the UK's de-facto king is elected only every 5 years, and they are chosen not by the people, but by the MPs, who on average were voted for by 37% of eligible voters at the last election. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Hereditary_peers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Hereditary_peer...

dastx 6y ago
> without the checks and balances that would exist in a republic. As we've seen in the past 4 years, these checks and balances in a republic like the US can be completely invalidated without the relevant laws in place. Things like senate majority leader having the final say on what gets debated, or how a criminal trial is conducted (e.g. during Trump's impeachment). Neither our current system works properly, nor does the US system, and I'm willing to bet this two party system is the bigger issue rather than having a monarch whose power is mostly ceremonial. I will say, I was unaware of the what was layed out in the guardian article. I'd be curious how much this had happened since 2013.

fenk85 6y ago

Appologies i should have been clear of my comparison, I am in Ireland where we have a saner republican democracy than USA with a proportional representation with single transfereable vote system, which doesnt cause bipolarization. In UK the parliament is a de-facto dictatorship with all the powers they have without checks and balances.