4 ms·

Been there, done that already. The British have tried that before. We called it the Interregnum[1]. It turned out nobody liked a system without a superuser so

by Lio 4y ago

Been there, done that already. The British have tried that before. We called it the Interregnum[1]. It turned out nobody liked a system without a superuser so the fix was a restoration plus tweaks to limit powers. You’ll note this all happening well before others decided to repeat the experiment. The system has been ticking along at some definition of “fine”[2] ever since. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Interregnum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Interregnum 2. Personally I’m less concerned about who the ceremonial head of state is than I am about having a police force that refuses to investigate the Prime Minister for breaking the law[3]. Whilst at the same time retrospectively investigating women for breaking the very same law by attending a protest about the murder of a woman by a serving officer of that very same police force. Now that is fucked up. 3. See private ABBA party.

mr_toad 4y ago
> It turned out nobody liked a system without a superuser I thinks it’s more the case that the commons at the time couldn’t get their shit together.
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
>It turned out nobody liked a system without a superuser // Somehow the guy who managed to take over was an even bigger shit of a person than most of the past monarchs and so the people agreed to have a monarch again under a 'better the devil you know [and can limit with magna carta]' sort of deal. It's like how we got screwed out of PR by being offered AV.
dTal 4y ago
The monarchy would love for you to believe they're only a ceremonial head of state. It makes their sinister and self-serving wielding of power much easier. In fact the Queen routinely gets laws changed in her favor, and the details of the process by which this happens are not widely known. The monarchy is a vast and private rent-seeking apparatus that exists to perpetuate the interests of its family members and their business holdings, and is inexplicably afforded vast political power and reverence. It is a rotten leftover that has no place in the 21st century. As for "some definition of fine", I think it is increasingly clear that the UK is not fine and has in fact never been fine, or even much of a democracy, and has been essentially run by a corrupt aristocracy for centuries. It's not a secret that the whole lot of them all went to Eton - that should raise eyebrows among anyone not inured to the whole sordid business. (Well, I should say that it's only really England with this issue. But England is the imperial core of the UK. Its satellite states are more sane, but thoroughly subjugated.)
- labster 4y ago
  As an American, we don’t have anything like you corrupt aristocracy and class system. But we do have a corrupt billionaire class and systemic racism, so actually it’s the same thing after all. Instead of Eton, Harvard and Yale are the schools of the upper crust; it’s virtually impossible to be on the Supreme Court unless you attended one of those universities. And instead of a queen, we have Kardashians and Elon (blessings and peace be upon him), who also seem to attract worship for things other people do. It’s almost like human nature tends to reproduce the same problems no matter the system of government.
- Angostura 4y ago
  >In fact routinely gets laws changed in her favor. "Routinely" is a pretty substantial claim - certainly there have been occasions where the crown has been involved in negotiations over their own tax affairs. Other than that, what 'routine' changes in legislation would you point to?
  - dTal 4y ago
    Well, that's the thing. No one can really say, because - get this - it's a secret. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie... > significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on... All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. But hey, I'm sure it's fine, no need to look any closer, right? The Queen is such a nice old lady, surely - > The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences. Ah. Oh dear.
int_19h 4y ago
If I were a Brit, I'd be more concerned that the Parliament can do literally anything with a simple majority vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t...

by Lio 4y ago

mr_toad 4y ago

> It turned out nobody liked a system without a superuser I thinks it’s more the case that the commons at the time couldn’t get their shit together.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago

>It turned out nobody liked a system without a superuser // Somehow the guy who managed to take over was an even bigger shit of a person than most of the past monarchs and so the people agreed to have a monarch again under a 'better the devil you know [and can limit with magna carta]' sort of deal. It's like how we got screwed out of PR by being offered AV.

dTal 4y ago

The monarchy would love for you to believe they're only a ceremonial head of state. It makes their sinister and self-serving wielding of power much easier. In fact the Queen routinely gets laws changed in her favor, and the details of the process by which this happens are not widely known. The monarchy is a vast and private rent-seeking apparatus that exists to perpetuate the interests of its family members and their business holdings, and is inexplicably afforded vast political power and reverence. It is a rotten leftover that has no place in the 21st century. As for "some definition of fine", I think it is increasingly clear that the UK is not fine and has in fact never been fine, or even much of a democracy, and has been essentially run by a corrupt aristocracy for centuries. It's not a secret that the whole lot of them all went to Eton - that should raise eyebrows among anyone not inured to the whole sordid business. (Well, I should say that it's only really England with this issue. But England is the imperial core of the UK. Its satellite states are more sane, but thoroughly subjugated.)

labster 4y ago
As an American, we don’t have anything like you corrupt aristocracy and class system. But we do have a corrupt billionaire class and systemic racism, so actually it’s the same thing after all. Instead of Eton, Harvard and Yale are the schools of the upper crust; it’s virtually impossible to be on the Supreme Court unless you attended one of those universities. And instead of a queen, we have Kardashians and Elon (blessings and peace be upon him), who also seem to attract worship for things other people do. It’s almost like human nature tends to reproduce the same problems no matter the system of government.
Angostura 4y ago
>In fact routinely gets laws changed in her favor. "Routinely" is a pretty substantial claim - certainly there have been occasions where the crown has been involved in negotiations over their own tax affairs. Other than that, what 'routine' changes in legislation would you point to?
- dTal 4y ago
  Well, that's the thing. No one can really say, because - get this - it's a secret. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbie... > significant amounts of legislation regulating otherwise quite ordinary activities have required consent. The Queen pays tax, so (for example) finance laws require consent. The Queen is an employer, so (for example) child support and pensions laws require consent. And so on... All correspondence containing requests for consent, replies and the documentation of any related discussions have always been shrouded in absolute privacy. But hey, I'm sure it's fine, no need to look any closer, right? The Queen is such a nice old lady, surely - > The documents uncovered by the Guardian provide remarkable evidence that this process accords the Queen’s advisers a genuine opportunity to negotiate with the government over changes in proposed laws, that they do sometimes secure such changes before giving consent, and that they are even prepared to threaten to withhold consent to secure their policy preferences. Ah. Oh dear.

int_19h 4y ago

If I were a Brit, I'd be more concerned that the Parliament can do literally anything with a simple majority vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_t...