7 ms·

yeah it's complicated, "Britain would have instituted constitutional democracy in HK but China opposed it" is just too reductive. After all there was (and still

by bllguo 5y ago

yeah it's complicated, "Britain would have instituted constitutional democracy in HK but China opposed it" is just too reductive. After all there was (and still is) opposition among HKers themselves to the idea, too. And there were British parties resistant as well, ex. Governor MacLehose, it wasn't unanimous by any means

true_religion 5y ago
Honestly, how much can Britain love democracy as it remains a constitutional monarchy with a near centurion who has veto rights over everything and all laws are enforced in her name? Disclaimer: I'm not saying UK is a dictatorship, but if you pay "lip service" in the hundreds of millions to billions of pounds then you really can't claim that the monarch is a mere figurehead.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  It's not just in the UK - Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name a few are all constitutional monarchies. To your point, they're not democracies, they're constitutional monarchies - but functionally that's inconsequential in this day and age. In large part because if the royals ever exercised their veto, the whole system would fall in on itself. It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure. I've nothing against the monarchy because it makes the highest elected office in the land a public servant - as it should be. It's small, but it's meaningful IMO. To me your question is roughly equivalent to asking "how much can the US care about democracy when it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic? The president has veto power, and look how fancy the White House is!" Canada, the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand and many other modern systems are ruled with the consent of the governed, and they pick their functional leaders. The rest is an implementation detail, with various pros and cons.
  - Stevvo 5y ago
    "It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure." The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her. I may not have been eloquent but I meant in matters outside of the UK. Trust me, if the Queen tried to withhold Royal Ascent in Canada it would trigger a constitutional crisis. I'm sure this is true elsewhere.

by bllguo 5y ago

true_religion 5y ago

Honestly, how much can Britain love democracy as it remains a constitutional monarchy with a near centurion who has veto rights over everything and all laws are enforced in her name? Disclaimer: I'm not saying UK is a dictatorship, but if you pay "lip service" in the hundreds of millions to billions of pounds then you really can't claim that the monarch is a mere figurehead.

arcticbull 5y ago
It's not just in the UK - Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name a few are all constitutional monarchies. To your point, they're not democracies, they're constitutional monarchies - but functionally that's inconsequential in this day and age. In large part because if the royals ever exercised their veto, the whole system would fall in on itself. It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure. I've nothing against the monarchy because it makes the highest elected office in the land a public servant - as it should be. It's small, but it's meaningful IMO. To me your question is roughly equivalent to asking "how much can the US care about democracy when it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic? The president has veto power, and look how fancy the White House is!" Canada, the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand and many other modern systems are ruled with the consent of the governed, and they pick their functional leaders. The rest is an implementation detail, with various pros and cons.
- Stevvo 5y ago
  "It's been over a hundred years since the last veto in any commonwealth realm near as I can figure." The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > The Queen last exercised her veto in 1999. Nothing fell in on itself and that is by design; the Queen is sovereign and parliament is subordinate to her. I may not have been eloquent but I meant in matters outside of the UK. Trust me, if the Queen tried to withhold Royal Ascent in Canada it would trigger a constitutional crisis. I'm sure this is true elsewhere.