3 ms·
Except she has not exercised her right to stop the Brexit which is entirely damaging to the United Kingdom and which the population was lied into by their curre
by Apofis 6y ago
Except she has not exercised her right to stop the Brexit which is entirely damaging to the United Kingdom and which the population was lied into by their current prime minister Boris Johnson. She also will not abdicate to allow someone younger and with more sense to actually make the decision.
- akmarinov 6y agoIf that happened, the monarchy would’ve been abolished within an year. Overriding a democratic referendum by someone who wasn’t even elected to rule...
- im3w1l 6y agoThat's what I used to think, but with the increasing tensions and polarization I'm not entirely sure anymore. Well, my perception is that the UK is not as divided as the US is, but if it were, then a Queen picking a side and wielding her powers might see the side she picked cheer her on.
- detaro 6y agoEven if it were feasible, the solution to the Brexit mess certainly wasn't "have the Queen override it". (It's an interesting theoretical question though: at what point and how could the Queen have stopped it? I guess she could have rejected the Act authorizing the Article 50 invocation - at that point it would have been even harder to argue a good case for doing so. After that, the process was running.)
- benlumen 6y agoUtter nonsense for too many reasons to go into. You could just as easily say that the Queen needed to make sure it happened while parliament was trying to stop it.