4 ms·

This is exactly what the article is about.

by gowld 6y ago

meepmorp 6y ago
I'm reacting to the central conceit of the piece, that this process of royal consent is somehow undemocratic. This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen, and the impact of the queen is exclusively a political problem. If there was a serious difference between the will of Parliament (Commons) and the Queen, the result is a foregone conclusion.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen There is surprisingly little basis for arguing that the people of the UK have ever chosen almost anything important about our current system of government. That system is largely based on historical conventions, often dating back centuries and in some cases to the outcomes of civil war, and the status quo has several built-in feedback loops that make it difficult to change even with widespread popular support. The constitution of the UK is a fascinating subject, but it can also be rather uncomfortable subject matter to study if you believe in ideas like democracy and civil liberties.
- throwaway2245 6y ago
  > the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen As a "person of Britain", I have certainly never had any say in the system of government.
- roelschroeven 6y ago
  How so? According to the article the Queen can simply veto any law that would restrict her power to veto.
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    Parliament is sovereign, including over the monarchy. She categorically cannot overrule any legislation without being granted the power to do so by parliament, who can revoke that power at will. There was a whole civil war and other crazy shit to figure it out, but the monarch hasn't had that kind of authority since the end of the 17th century. The article is actually making a big deal about the fact that the queen expressed an opinion about legislation in an area that the author decided wasn't covered by the vague wording of a pamphlet.

This is exactly what the article is about.

by gowld 6y ago

This is exactly what the article is about.

I'm reacting to the central conceit of the piece, that this process of royal consent is somehow undemocratic. This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen, and the impact of the queen is exclusively a political problem. If there was a serious difference between the will of Parliament (Commons) and the Queen, the result is a foregone conclusion.

Silhouette 6y ago
This is the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen There is surprisingly little basis for arguing that the people of the UK have ever chosen almost anything important about our current system of government. That system is largely based on historical conventions, often dating back centuries and in some cases to the outcomes of civil war, and the status quo has several built-in feedback loops that make it difficult to change even with widespread popular support. The constitution of the UK is a fascinating subject, but it can also be rather uncomfortable subject matter to study if you believe in ideas like democracy and civil liberties.
throwaway2245 6y ago
> the system of government that the people of Britain have chosen As a "person of Britain", I have certainly never had any say in the system of government.
roelschroeven 6y ago
How so? According to the article the Queen can simply veto any law that would restrict her power to veto.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  Parliament is sovereign, including over the monarchy. She categorically cannot overrule any legislation without being granted the power to do so by parliament, who can revoke that power at will. There was a whole civil war and other crazy shit to figure it out, but the monarch hasn't had that kind of authority since the end of the 17th century. The article is actually making a big deal about the fact that the queen expressed an opinion about legislation in an area that the author decided wasn't covered by the vague wording of a pamphlet.