8 ms·

We could get rid of the monarchy tomorrow and ordinary britons would notice zero change in our political and democratic freedoms. They are politically irrelevan

• vasco 4y ago
  They are not irrelevant in the sense that they are a declaration of the nation that there are special people by birth. In a society so worried about equality, it is appaling that multiple countries in europe not only have populations that leave under monarchy, but that they seem to be in favor.
  • plonk 4y ago
    Seems like their special status is more of a burden today.
  • hef19898 4y ago
    None of that monarchs is involved in actual legislative, executive or judicative activities. Sure, they are heads of state, but that's where it stops. European monarchs don't write laws, don't sign laws, are not part of the elected government.
    • dane-pgp 4y ago
      > European monarchs don't ... sign laws That may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the details are more interesting: "Since the sixteenth century no [British] monarch has actually signed a Bill themselves. Instead, the monarch signs what are known as Letters Patent which announce that an assent has been given." https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what-royal-assent-and-why-dont-laws-come-force-straight-away https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what...
    • karencarits 4y ago
      > European monarchs [...] don't sign laws [...] At least in Norway, laws have to be signed by the King and the prime minister (with a few exceptions); for example, in 1975 the King did not sign a law passed by Parliament/Stortinget and the law did not become effective (this was, however, a special occation related to a strike where the two parts found an aggreement after the law was passed by Parliament but before it was signed by the King and the prime minister, so the government recommended the King not to sign). See https://lovdata-no.translate.goog/artikkel/vil_kongen_nekte_a_sanksjonere/2384?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://lovdata-no.translate.goog/artikkel/vil_kongen_nekte_...
      • pbhjpbhj 4y ago
        In the UK laws are signed into being by the monarch, formally they're like writs from the monarch about what they wish. Parliament and the legislature are just advisors. It's a bad look for a country claiming to be democratic. The monarch chooses the PM, it's 'her majesty's government' according to law and tradition; she refused Australia's choice of PM in the past IIRC.
        • karencarits 4y ago
          > It's a bad look for a country claiming to be democratic. Perhaps, but rather bad looking than bad functioning; I'm not intimate with how the Stuart Restoration worked, but the monarchy in Norway was introduced in 1905 by vote and has been widely popular since. If the monarchy and its role in the constitution and the sosicety have continuous support by a majority of the population, then it is a good look for a country claiming to be democratic?
      • hef19898 4y ago
        We have a similar situation with German President, our head of state. The president has to sign laws once they are passed by both chambers of parliament. Usually Presidents sign, almost, whatever is put in front of them. Quite some time ago government had a phase when they tried to pass laws that were later struck down by the constitutional court. That prompted the then President to do some due dilligence and return proposed laws to parliament. Needless to say politians were not amused. That being said, our Presidents have not real power in the legislative process, pretty much like most Monarchs do. Playing this process, like in your example, is fair game if doesn't happen all the time.
• throw2597 4y ago
  There are very real issues that would be solved, not abstract ones like in the article above. See, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
• dane-pgp 4y ago
  > ordinary britons would notice zero change But that only proves that what we have now is an elective dictatorship where the Prime Minister of the day effectively exercises all the powers of the sovereign, without any real accountability or separation of powers. Removing powers from the Queen (or even just codifying them in a written constitution) would be the first step towards fixing this democratic deficit and allowing the people to choose someone more suitable to hold those powers, with a proper mandate to support them. The particular reform I propose is introducing a "Governor General" role for the UK, who has the power to veto laws, treaties, and wars, but remains nominally answerable to the Queen just as the Prime Minister pretends to be. To be eligible for the role, candidates would need to be nominated by 20% of MPs, and they would be elected in a national election using the Supplementary Vote method.
  • waylandsmithers 4y ago
    > elective dictatorship where the Prime Minister of the day effectively exercises all the powers of the sovereign, without any real accountability or separation of powers (As an American) this is a more pessimistic view of how it appears to me. Maybe I'm being naive but the voice of the people does appear to provide accountability. The idea that David Cameron felt the need to resign after the Brexit vote because he no longer had the support of the public seems like a big deal to me. We're not really big on admitting defeat over here.
    • pmyteh 4y ago
      It's complex. There's nothing really to stop a British prime minister going full dictator if they want, as long as they can get Parliament to pass an Enabling Act. And that's not an entirely fanciful proposition: they have the support of a majority of the House of Commons pretty much by definition and the Lords have very little power in practice. Our constitution is built on the so-called 'good chap theory of governance', which is that power is in the hands of people 'like us', and therefore reasonable. If the PM loses a vote of no confidence he's obliged to resign. What makes him? Nothing. But that's the convention and it's been followed until now. It's also a constitutional convention to resign from ministerial office if caught lying to Parliament. (Yes, really!) That one, though, looks defunct: Boris Johnson is a serial liar, and has managed to get himself referred to the Privileges Committee of the Commons for lying over his lockdown breaches despite his majority in the Commons. Will he resign? Will he hell. He doesn't want to, and all the Commons can do is bring the whole government down (and even then only if he is prepared to resign then). He's made it clear he doesn't care, and the Conservative Party in the Commons has made clear they're not willing to face an election over it, so that's that. A similar thing happened over the Prorogation of the House just before Brexit. That was fairly straightforwardly a contempt of Parliament, and the advice to prorogue was found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. But nothing of consequence happened to those in charge as a result. I'm grateful our political culture isn't quite as buggered as that of the US at this point, but I'd be grateful for slightly stronger guardrails against misconduct than simply hoping it doesn't happen.
• kcartlidge 4y ago
  > They are politically irrelevant, a few completely peripheral procedural and technical issues aside that make no real difference in the grand scheme of things. At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow. Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and class.
  • arlort 4y ago
    > they own huge parts of the country And they would keep owning them if they were made to abdicate
    • basisword 4y ago
      Only if we let them.
      • simonh 4y ago
        We could always confiscate your property while we're at it. Every little helps. After all there can be few on this forum that aren't in the upper decile of wealth globally. Property is theft! (er, kidding in case that wasn't obvious)
        • nicoburns 4y ago
          The more pressing issue with land ownership in the UK is that we don't even know who owns large chunks of it.
          • MockObject 4y ago
            American here. How is that a pressing issue?
            • dane-pgp 4y ago
              It makes it harder to introduce a land value tax, I guess?
• exdsq 4y ago
  We don’t have a written constitution, so if you remove all the pomp and tradition it’s highly likely some things do actually go wrong as people forget they’re meant to happen.
  • simonh 4y ago
    The US constitution is a handful of pages, and only a few lines actually specify how the government should function on a day to day basis. If they forgot everything but the constitution and worked out everything else again from scratch, the result would likely be completely unrecognisable. Furthermore there's an argument to be made that the UK system of government is considerably more modern that that of the US. After all, their system is essentially a direct copy of the UK system of the time, with a few minor tweaks. The house is parliament, the Senate is the House of Lords, and the President is an elected King George V. Signing laws is Royal Assent, dissolving the House is Prorogation, he can even pardon criminals. I say George V specifically because the powers of the crown have been massively reformed since, really from Queen Anne onwards, but the US system has remained frozen in time.
    • exdsq 4y ago
      That’s true of the US but ignores the fact only 3 countries in the world don’t have written constitutions - the UK, New Zealand, and Israel. I’m not being sarcastic when I say a lot of this is managed in the form of strange old traditions that, if stopped, would render the country fairly useless till they’re all codified somewhere.
      • PeterisP 4y ago
        "would render the country fairly useless till they’re all codified somewhere" Not really, almost all of the things done by government for the daily management of the country are not related to the constitution and are already codified. You would need to figure out, agree and codify a mechanism for changing power, but you can arrange it so that you have years to do it and codifying that small part is not that huge of a task; USA had long conventions but that was more because of the need to actually create a country; and many other countries post-revolutions have functioned quite reasonably while codifying the constitutions, because it really doesn't affect the daily things, and you can run on interim rules (in UK's case, continuing as before for a limited time) until it's done.
• teknopaul 4y ago
  If you got rid of the monarchy tomorrow you could bet your life that Tory government would be immediately selling of assets to buy voters. There is little other reason to keep the monarchy, but that's enough.
  • dTal 4y ago
    The foxes are in charge of the henhouse. Tory party members and the monarchy - two intimately related groups characterized by extravagant and unearned privilege. There is little point in reforming just one.
• TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  Unfortunately not politically irrelevant at all. The Queen has directly interfered in legislation, and she also has a weekly chat with the PM every week. It's unlikely they talk about tea and biscuits. But the real issue is that the Queen legitimises hierarchy and privilege. Instead of modelling democratic authority and meritocracy, she models the opposite - vast inherited wealth and land ownership, without accountability. She is also the head of the armed forces, who swear an oath of loyalty to her personally - not to Parliament, and certainly not to the people of the UK. In the UK she has Sovereign Immunity, which means she literally cannot be convicted of any crime. She can't even interviewed. None of this would be a problem if she was in any way outstanding, but unfortunately the Royal Family have made some exceptionally poor choices. The Prince Andrew trial - and his $12m bailout - is just the most recent scandal in a long series of shady events and associations.
  • dTal 4y ago
    >a weekly chat with the PM every week. To be fair, a weekly chat at any other frequency would be quite eccentric!
  • EliRivers 4y ago
    "She is also the head of the armed forces, who swear an oath of loyalty to her personally - not to Parliament, and certainly not to the people of the UK." Speaking as someone who was just such a person (although at the time I did it, in the service I was in, there was no loyalty oath at all), while I can see the issue with this, I would really not have felt comfortable going on record as loyal to parliament or the the people of the UK. We should just bin it entirely; it's a job, with legal conditions and requirements. No need for any weird oaths.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
• krona 4y ago
  If I were prime minister I think having to have a private in-person chat with the monarch every week would probably have a profound impact on how I went about running the country on her behalf. It's like a schoolchild having to explain themselves to the headmaster.
  • dane-pgp 4y ago
    The relevant observation here is that you, and most schoolchildren, and most prime ministers, have a capacity for self-awareness and a sense of shame.