6 ms·
The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating"
by lacker 6y ago
The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense.
This isn't really guaranteed to be a "moderating" influence except in the most technical sense. The current queen does not seem very eager to grab more power, but one could easily imagine a more devious and power-hungry monarch parlaying the ability to interfere with some laws into greater political power.
Imagine a Trump-type figure in England. Popular on social media, eager to bend the laws, and calling on the support of a loud minority willing to sacrifice the principles of democracy. Now imagine that figure is also the King of England, with the current powers given to the monarch. Why would you want such a hereditary system?
Britain should scrap the monarchy entirely while they have the chance.
- HenryKissinger 6y agoI view the monarchy as Britain's system32. A backup in case the OS fails, or something like that.
- mhh__ 6y agoHow? If Parliament fails the queen doesn't start writing laws, we'd have had a revolution.
- zepto 6y agoParliament has failed many times, including at least once in the last decade. When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister.
- mhh__ 6y ago> When it does, the Queen appoints whoever can form a credible government to be the prime minister. Because if she did anything else someone else would. Constitutions barely mean anything when tested, our unwritten constitution might isn't worth fuck all
- etrevino 6y agoThat's exactly it.
- etrevino 6y agoYou could say this about a president, too. If one president grabs more power his/her successor can be assured of trying to exploit that power. All of these systems rely on people respecting established political norms. There's no way to get around it. I'm not defending the monarchy, mind you, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't matter if the chief executive is the monarch or a president.
- pritambaral 6y agoWell, we have fresh evidence of a president doing exactly that. Fortunately, this president wasn't for life.
- notahacker 6y agoIn general it has to be said a President is more likely to try this than a constitutional monarch, given that [i] Presidential elections select for people that are ambitious, have an agenda and are good at getting a large proportion of the population to support it and [ii]the President has a lot more theoretical legitimacy and generally constitutional power to assume 'emrgency powers' or sack a government