9 ms·

Republic UK

22 points by acqbu 4y ago

wfhordie 4y ago
It never really bothered me either way, being an American, whether the UK continued to have a monarchy. It seemed just a touristy thing, or like a very expensive reality show. That was until Boris Johnson got the queen to suspend parliament so he could push through a no-deal brexit in 2019[0] Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? The PM can just do an end-run around the elected members, pause everything to run out the clock, and then come back and force through his version of a highly contentious event for the UK? Fucking bonkers. End the monarchy. [0] https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754990771/britains-prime-minister-asks-queen-to-suspend-parliament-ahead-of-brexit-deadlin https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754990771/britains-prime-mini...
- Smaug123 4y ago
  I'd say this particular loophole has effectively been patched now, given the Supreme Court ruling that declared this incident unlawful. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_contr... is a much more informative link than the NPR one.)
  - wfhordie 4y ago
    Didn’t this bill effectively reinstate that ability? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Parliament_Act_2022 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_P...
    - Smaug123 4y ago
      Oh, you're quite right. Cemented it in law, even.
  - Veen 4y ago
    It has not. Following the prorogation there was a general election. The Tories won a large majority and put forward the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. It, in part emphasized that relevant Royal Prerogative powers are non-justiciable. Essentially, it made it clear that the Supreme Court shouldn't interfere (In the UK, Parliament is the supreme legal authority—it can make laws that override the Supreme Court).
- sb057 4y ago
  >That was until Boris Johnson got the queen to suspend parliament so he could push through a no-deal brexit in 2019[0] >Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? The PM can just do an end-run around the elected members, pause everything to run out the clock, and then come back and force through his version of a highly contentious event for the UK? Having a non-monarch head of state wouldn't have inherently resulted in anything different.
  - wfhordie 4y ago
    > Having a non-monarch head of state wouldn't have inherently resulted in anything different. The Queen is unelected and has the power to dissolve parliament. That’s fucked. At least without her the person doing the shitty thing is subject to being sacked.
    - scrlk 4y ago
      If she (or any future monarch) were to exercise that power unilaterally, the monarchy would be finished. So in a roundabout way, they'd be sacked.
      - wfhordie 4y ago
        The process of dissolving the monarchy is certainly more arduous than a routine election, though.
    - sb057 4y ago
      The alternative would be having a head of state that, in many countries, is also not directly elected and has the power to dissolve parliament. If you want to argue from principles that the latter is better, fine, but it would have done nothing to avert what Johnson did; indeed, as a political figure, a president in her role would have had additional pressure to dissolve parliament.
- notahacker 4y ago
  That sort of misses the important details that [i] his gambit failed a legal challenge so he ended up calling an election instead and [ii] the reason he could try had everything to do with the broad executive powers of the PM and nothing to do with the Queen. If you scrapped the Queen and kept the PM role as it is, he'd have had the same meeting with himself!
- azangru 4y ago
  > Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? This bullshit is called prorogation. According to Wikipedia [0], there are a number of countries that have provisions for the prorogation of Parliament. They do not have to be monarchies. In absence of the queen, it could have been Boris himself who suspended the Parliament if the republic gave its prime minister (or president) such power. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation
  - wfhordie 4y ago
    It seems to me that having the queen involved provides a false sense of separation of powers. Prorogation in most countries is a routine process that signals the end of a particular session. It seems unique to the UK that this power move could even play out. I’m not familiar with this process, which is why it surprised me. Are there any countries where the PM can routinely and/or for political purposes just end parliament without triggering an election? It strikes me as a situation where , absent the monarchy, such a situation would have been so quickly abused that the constitution would have been patched to preclude it. In any case, and on base principle, no unelected head of state should be able to dissolve parliament. Like, full stop.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - potatototoo99 4y ago
      It is common for PM-plus-president systems to have the PM govern and the president be allowed to dissolve parliament. They are usually independent enough unless the president is seeking reelection.
    - cf100clunk 4y ago
      A Canadian perspective is given in "Prorogation: A Powerful Tool Forged by History" https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ In recent years, Canadians have tended to treat Prime Ministers who attempt prorogation with enmity: https://archive.ph/nKG0a https://archive.ph/nKG0a
- James_K 4y ago
  This is wrong. The prime minister technically asks the queen to do everything, he is only an adviser to her. All of the PM's powers are actually the queens, if she was removed he would retain any of his powers (prorogation included). The only difference would be that he wouldn't have to ask, but the asking is more ceremonial, the queen has no real choice but to do as he says. TL;DR asking the queen to do things is just a ceremony with no real impact on the PM's powers, removing the queen is removing the ceremony not the powers.
  - wfhordie 4y ago
    The Queen has the power, but she has no choice than to do what the PM says? This is autocracy with extra steps. End the monarchy, end the bullshit ceremonies, and write up some rules for when you’re allowed to trash the government.
    - James_K 4y ago
      >This is autocracy No it isn't. The monarch's position is purely ceremonial. The queen doesn't pose even the slightest risk to democracy in the UK. She has no power to act outside of the government's will, just a bunch of old documents that say she theoretically can. >End the monarchy, end the bullshit ceremonies, and write up some rules for when you’re allowed to trash the government. You don't have an argument here. You have a claim that the ceremonies and culture of another country should be destroyed, and accompanying it you have a request that legal loopholes in its system of governance should be resolved. My counter-proposal is that the loopholes are resolved and the tradition remains intact.
- blibble 4y ago
  it would be nice if you put some effort into how constitutional monarchies work before starting an ill informed rant personally: I'd rather have our slightly flawed system that evolved to deal with various issues over the centuries rather than the disaster that is the system designed from scratch that is used in the US (so bad it's essentially used by absolutely no-one else)
Veen 4y ago
The abolition of the monarchy is extremely unlikely to happen. There's no appetite for it among the general populace. No major political party supports it. If we had a referendum about it today, it would be rejected by a massive majority. These people are cranks.
- luxpir 4y ago
  True, but that doesn't account for the speed at which the minority is growing, up to over a third now, nor the impact on public opinion of Charles vs Liz. They may end up being caught offside quicker than expected.
  - Veen 4y ago
    Charles isn't very popular, but William is.
    - luxpir 4y ago
      We'll see what the situation is in 20-30 years then. And if William hasn't already resolved to abolish himself by then. Stranger things have happened. William for President, POTUK.
- dom96 4y ago
  From the polling it does indeed seem like the general population believes the monarchy is good for Britain. But that opinion is changing[1]. I certainly wouldn't call those promoting the view of the UK becoming a republic "cranks". 1 - https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/tzluoaf4hh/YouGov%20-%20Jubilee%20-%20Views%20of%20the%20Monarchy%20Survey%20Results.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/tzluoaf4hh/YouGov%20-%20Jubilee%...
- throwyawayyyy 4y ago
  True. And I'd go further: once the campaign stops becoming "get rid of the monarchy" and becomes "set up exactly this system X", support will go down even further. It's a very useful fiction that the monarch isn't political.
- 4y ago
muglug 4y ago
I think the monarchy in the UK still has a good 30 years or so. I suspect William will be the last consitutional monarch before the country adopts a presidential system. The tourism benefits of the monarchy are proven to outlast the monarchy itself — France's monarchy still brings in millions of euros each year, despite not having existed for over 200 years.
cja 4y ago
A partisan elected president? No thanks. Boris should be in the Tower for misleading the Queen on the prorogation of parliament. First rule of government: don't put the monarch in an awkward situation. Our fault for electing a nasty narcissistic clown. There is plenty to fix in our system of government before getting to the monarch/president question.
- hnhg 4y ago
  Wait until you get a monarch that you don't like. I guess then you'll ask for a way of choosing one that you do. Or perhaps you're an obedient servant of the royals, no matter who they are?
  - karencarits 4y ago
    Perhaps, but it is also possible to respect people one doesn't like and acknowledge that they may serve another role in society than being liked by me. The GP may enjoy being challenged by someone with other priorities than Tiktok (which optimizes for "liking"). I'm not arguing that the Royals are infallible, but I don't think we should dismiss the thought that having someone in a central position of society with other priorities than instant popularity and having to be liked can be useful
    - hnhg 4y ago
      Then you live to serve them, not the other way around.
      - karencarits 4y ago
        What do you mean with "live to serve them"? Why would I want them to live to serve me (if that is the other way around)? What does that even mean? I believe the Royals have a greater sense of duty and living in service of the nation than you and I have of living in the service of the monarch, wouldn't you agree? Are you talking purely symbolically or about what people are actually doing and experiencing in their everyday life?
dane-pgp 4y ago
I think a large part of the resistance British people have to the idea of abolishing the monarchy is that they don't know what they would replace it with, and they think that having a royal family is a harmless fairy tale that makes Britain special. Fortunately that still leaves room for compromise with those who prefer a more egalitarian constitutional system, and I think this is something that organisations like Republic should consider (at the risk of shrinking the Overton window). As a transitional step, then, towards one day abandoning the monarchy, Britain should introduce the role of a Governor General for the country, who would be given a democratic mandate to exercise the powers that people assume the Queen can still wield but which are in practice held by the Prime Minister (depriving the country of the checks and balances that republics generally have). Specifically, the Governor General would be able to veto laws, treaties, and wars, but would be kept accountable to parliament through the possibility of impeachment, which would trigger a new election for their replacement. Eligibility for the role should be limited to citizens who are nominated by at least 20% of MPs, and I would propose that the Supplementary Vote system be used for these elections.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  How do you ensure that the Governor General is apolitical? The monarchy is essentially a system for rearing apolitical figureheads. Any change towards a president would therefore be concrete change to how things are run and I’m not sure it would be a change for the better.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > How do you ensure that the Governor General is apolitical? How do you ensure the monarch is apolitical?[0] How do you ensure that the person effectively wielding the monarch's powers under the current system is apolitical? That isn't even a claimed feature of the current system, because those powers are wielded by the PM who is decidedly not apolitical. The only concrete change of introducing a Governor General would be that some powers are removed from the PM and given to someone with a democratic mandate to (rarely) use them. These powers would be just as political as they are now, except they would be properly shared between two people, providing a separation of powers that is common outside of autocracies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_consent#Vetting_of_bills_under_consent_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_consent#Vetting_of_bil...
d4nt 4y ago
As governmental systems go, having an unelected head of state is actually kind of smart. Their lack of democratic legitimacy means they don’t try to exercise any real power, leaving that to the parliamentary parties. But they represent the nation and the military swears loyalty to them, so they effectively have a one use “sorry, but they’ve gone too far, I’m dismissing this government” card they can play in case of absolute dire tyranny. There’s no way to fire them, it’s very hard to bribe them, they’re trained for the job from birth and there are backups in place in case they die. The system avoids many of the problems found with elected presidents (whether US or parliamentary style) while preserving all the benefits of democratic government. My only complaint is that the system for choosing the next one could be a bit more representative than “firstborn child of the current monarch”. But changing only that part of the system now without ruining it would be pretty hard.
- chrismatheson 4y ago
  BDFL
- guipsp 4y ago
  Oh, but they do exercise real power
- hnhg 4y ago
  However, in practice: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  > they effectively have a one use “sorry, but they’ve gone too far, I’m dismissing this government” card they can play In reality, they don't have that card. The day the monarch tries to dismiss an elected government will be the day the monarchy is abolished and the UK becomes a republic.
  - karencarits 4y ago
    During the invasion of Norway in WWII, the King was requested by the Germans to appoint a new nazi-friendly prime minister, which the King refused. But as you have pointed out, what the King actually did was to say to the sitting government that he would abdicate if the government gave in to the threats of the Germans. Later during the war, when the King was in exile in England, some parts of the parliament left in Norway (the nazi-friendly part) required the King to abdicate, which he refused. These episodes are known as "the King's no" and were very important symbols for the resistance movement in Norway (https://snl-no.translate.goog/Kongens_nei?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://snl-no.translate.goog/Kongens_nei?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_...). The actual importance of these "nos" are controversial, but they carry a significant symbolic value and made it harder for the Germans to establish a new government with any legitimacy. I guess faking a vote would have been rather easy, trying to change King much harder
cf100clunk 4y ago
The former colonies/dominions/outposts of the British Empire have increasingly abandoned the monarchy, with Barbados being the latest to the best of my knowledge without looking it up. Public opinion in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand tends to swing very tightly between monarchy and abolition in recent times.
tfsh 4y ago
This seems to breach the HN guidelines - it's deeply political.
barrysteve 4y ago
You want your government shadow run by a monarchy or corporate lobby groups? We haven't seen a new government structure that limits corruption in a long time.
drumhead 4y ago
The major problem in the UK is that Parliament is overpowerful. There is nothing to balance or check them. The monarchy is merely a rubberstamping ornament. What parliament says goes, and this was confirmed by the supreme court, Parliament is supreme. All you need is a majority in the house of commons to pass whatever law you want. If the supreme court declares it illegal, you can just go back and change the whatever laws you need to to make it legal or just abolish the supreme court. The reason the monarchary was restored after Cromwells Commonwealth was because legally it was the only body that could check the power of Parliament, parliament protects you from the monarchy but who protects us against parliament. Unlike the Queen an elected head of state would be divisive, they'll inevitably be biased towards one or the other political parties. I dont know what an acceptable solution would be.
nikolay 4y ago
The UK monarchy is a circus that should be taken off the air! I can't believe this corrupt family is a matter of so much media attention! Just ignore these clowns! It's the 21st century and monarchy should be abolished entirely everywhere! Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing! > The UK monarchy is a circus that should be taken off the air! I can't believe this corrupt family is a matter of so much media attention! Just ignore these clowns! It's the 21st century, and monarchy should be abolished entirely everywhere! Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing!
- karencarits 4y ago
  These are strong opinions and claims but you haven't provided any substantial arguments for them. Why should monarchy "be abolished entirely everywhere" if the monarchy has a clear support by a majority of the population in these places? > Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing! For many, the royals are actually important and beloved public figures who gives a voice to minorities and "the voiceless" that are easily forgotten by politicians, providing stability across generations and unity across political orientation. You may not respect them, but calling them "clowns" and "frog-kissing" without reason does not stimulate to good discussions

22 points by acqbu 4y ago

It never really bothered me either way, being an American, whether the UK continued to have a monarchy. It seemed just a touristy thing, or like a very expensive reality show. That was until Boris Johnson got the queen to suspend parliament so he could push through a no-deal brexit in 2019[0] Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? The PM can just do an end-run around the elected members, pause everything to run out the clock, and then come back and force through his version of a highly contentious event for the UK? Fucking bonkers. End the monarchy. [0] https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754990771/britains-prime-minister-asks-queen-to-suspend-parliament-ahead-of-brexit-deadlin https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754990771/britains-prime-mini...

Smaug123 4y ago
I'd say this particular loophole has effectively been patched now, given the Supreme Court ruling that declared this incident unlawful. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_contr... is a much more informative link than the NPR one.)
- wfhordie 4y ago
  Didn’t this bill effectively reinstate that ability? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_Parliament_Act_2022 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_P...
  - Smaug123 4y ago
    Oh, you're quite right. Cemented it in law, even.
- Veen 4y ago
  It has not. Following the prorogation there was a general election. The Tories won a large majority and put forward the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. It, in part emphasized that relevant Royal Prerogative powers are non-justiciable. Essentially, it made it clear that the Supreme Court shouldn't interfere (In the UK, Parliament is the supreme legal authority—it can make laws that override the Supreme Court).
sb057 4y ago
>That was until Boris Johnson got the queen to suspend parliament so he could push through a no-deal brexit in 2019[0] >Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? The PM can just do an end-run around the elected members, pause everything to run out the clock, and then come back and force through his version of a highly contentious event for the UK? Having a non-monarch head of state wouldn't have inherently resulted in anything different.
- wfhordie 4y ago
  > Having a non-monarch head of state wouldn't have inherently resulted in anything different. The Queen is unelected and has the power to dissolve parliament. That’s fucked. At least without her the person doing the shitty thing is subject to being sacked.
  - scrlk 4y ago
    If she (or any future monarch) were to exercise that power unilaterally, the monarchy would be finished. So in a roundabout way, they'd be sacked.
    - wfhordie 4y ago
      The process of dissolving the monarchy is certainly more arduous than a routine election, though.
  - sb057 4y ago
    The alternative would be having a head of state that, in many countries, is also not directly elected and has the power to dissolve parliament. If you want to argue from principles that the latter is better, fine, but it would have done nothing to avert what Johnson did; indeed, as a political figure, a president in her role would have had additional pressure to dissolve parliament.
notahacker 4y ago
That sort of misses the important details that [i] his gambit failed a legal challenge so he ended up calling an election instead and [ii] the reason he could try had everything to do with the broad executive powers of the PM and nothing to do with the Queen. If you scrapped the Queen and kept the PM role as it is, he'd have had the same meeting with himself!
azangru 4y ago
> Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? This bullshit is called prorogation. According to Wikipedia [0], there are a number of countries that have provisions for the prorogation of Parliament. They do not have to be monarchies. In absence of the queen, it could have been Boris himself who suspended the Parliament if the republic gave its prime minister (or president) such power. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation
- wfhordie 4y ago
  It seems to me that having the queen involved provides a false sense of separation of powers. Prorogation in most countries is a routine process that signals the end of a particular session. It seems unique to the UK that this power move could even play out. I’m not familiar with this process, which is why it surprised me. Are there any countries where the PM can routinely and/or for political purposes just end parliament without triggering an election? It strikes me as a situation where , absent the monarchy, such a situation would have been so quickly abused that the constitution would have been patched to preclude it. In any case, and on base principle, no unelected head of state should be able to dissolve parliament. Like, full stop.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - potatototoo99 4y ago
    It is common for PM-plus-president systems to have the PM govern and the president be allowed to dissolve parliament. They are usually independent enough unless the president is seeking reelection.
  - cf100clunk 4y ago
    A Canadian perspective is given in "Prorogation: A Powerful Tool Forged by History" https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/ In recent years, Canadians have tended to treat Prime Ministers who attempt prorogation with enmity: https://archive.ph/nKG0a https://archive.ph/nKG0a
James_K 4y ago
This is wrong. The prime minister technically asks the queen to do everything, he is only an adviser to her. All of the PM's powers are actually the queens, if she was removed he would retain any of his powers (prorogation included). The only difference would be that he wouldn't have to ask, but the asking is more ceremonial, the queen has no real choice but to do as he says. TL;DR asking the queen to do things is just a ceremony with no real impact on the PM's powers, removing the queen is removing the ceremony not the powers.
- wfhordie 4y ago
  The Queen has the power, but she has no choice than to do what the PM says? This is autocracy with extra steps. End the monarchy, end the bullshit ceremonies, and write up some rules for when you’re allowed to trash the government.
  - James_K 4y ago
    >This is autocracy No it isn't. The monarch's position is purely ceremonial. The queen doesn't pose even the slightest risk to democracy in the UK. She has no power to act outside of the government's will, just a bunch of old documents that say she theoretically can. >End the monarchy, end the bullshit ceremonies, and write up some rules for when you’re allowed to trash the government. You don't have an argument here. You have a claim that the ceremonies and culture of another country should be destroyed, and accompanying it you have a request that legal loopholes in its system of governance should be resolved. My counter-proposal is that the loopholes are resolved and the tradition remains intact.
blibble 4y ago
it would be nice if you put some effort into how constitutional monarchies work before starting an ill informed rant personally: I'd rather have our slightly flawed system that evolved to deal with various issues over the centuries rather than the disaster that is the system designed from scratch that is used in the US (so bad it's essentially used by absolutely no-one else)

Veen 4y ago

The abolition of the monarchy is extremely unlikely to happen. There's no appetite for it among the general populace. No major political party supports it. If we had a referendum about it today, it would be rejected by a massive majority. These people are cranks.

luxpir 4y ago
True, but that doesn't account for the speed at which the minority is growing, up to over a third now, nor the impact on public opinion of Charles vs Liz. They may end up being caught offside quicker than expected.
- Veen 4y ago
  Charles isn't very popular, but William is.
  - luxpir 4y ago
    We'll see what the situation is in 20-30 years then. And if William hasn't already resolved to abolish himself by then. Stranger things have happened. William for President, POTUK.
dom96 4y ago
From the polling it does indeed seem like the general population believes the monarchy is good for Britain. But that opinion is changing[1]. I certainly wouldn't call those promoting the view of the UK becoming a republic "cranks". 1 - https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/tzluoaf4hh/YouGov%20-%20Jubilee%20-%20Views%20of%20the%20Monarchy%20Survey%20Results.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/tzluoaf4hh/YouGov%20-%20Jubilee%...
throwyawayyyy 4y ago
True. And I'd go further: once the campaign stops becoming "get rid of the monarchy" and becomes "set up exactly this system X", support will go down even further. It's a very useful fiction that the monarch isn't political.
4y ago

muglug 4y ago

I think the monarchy in the UK still has a good 30 years or so. I suspect William will be the last consitutional monarch before the country adopts a presidential system. The tourism benefits of the monarchy are proven to outlast the monarchy itself — France's monarchy still brings in millions of euros each year, despite not having existed for over 200 years.

cja 4y ago

A partisan elected president? No thanks. Boris should be in the Tower for misleading the Queen on the prorogation of parliament. First rule of government: don't put the monarch in an awkward situation. Our fault for electing a nasty narcissistic clown. There is plenty to fix in our system of government before getting to the monarch/president question.

hnhg 4y ago
Wait until you get a monarch that you don't like. I guess then you'll ask for a way of choosing one that you do. Or perhaps you're an obedient servant of the royals, no matter who they are?
- karencarits 4y ago
  Perhaps, but it is also possible to respect people one doesn't like and acknowledge that they may serve another role in society than being liked by me. The GP may enjoy being challenged by someone with other priorities than Tiktok (which optimizes for "liking"). I'm not arguing that the Royals are infallible, but I don't think we should dismiss the thought that having someone in a central position of society with other priorities than instant popularity and having to be liked can be useful
  - hnhg 4y ago
    Then you live to serve them, not the other way around.
    - karencarits 4y ago
      What do you mean with "live to serve them"? Why would I want them to live to serve me (if that is the other way around)? What does that even mean? I believe the Royals have a greater sense of duty and living in service of the nation than you and I have of living in the service of the monarch, wouldn't you agree? Are you talking purely symbolically or about what people are actually doing and experiencing in their everyday life?

dane-pgp 4y ago

I think a large part of the resistance British people have to the idea of abolishing the monarchy is that they don't know what they would replace it with, and they think that having a royal family is a harmless fairy tale that makes Britain special. Fortunately that still leaves room for compromise with those who prefer a more egalitarian constitutional system, and I think this is something that organisations like Republic should consider (at the risk of shrinking the Overton window). As a transitional step, then, towards one day abandoning the monarchy, Britain should introduce the role of a Governor General for the country, who would be given a democratic mandate to exercise the powers that people assume the Queen can still wield but which are in practice held by the Prime Minister (depriving the country of the checks and balances that republics generally have). Specifically, the Governor General would be able to veto laws, treaties, and wars, but would be kept accountable to parliament through the possibility of impeachment, which would trigger a new election for their replacement. Eligibility for the role should be limited to citizens who are nominated by at least 20% of MPs, and I would propose that the Supplementary Vote system be used for these elections.

zarzavat 4y ago
How do you ensure that the Governor General is apolitical? The monarchy is essentially a system for rearing apolitical figureheads. Any change towards a president would therefore be concrete change to how things are run and I’m not sure it would be a change for the better.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > How do you ensure that the Governor General is apolitical? How do you ensure the monarch is apolitical?[0] How do you ensure that the person effectively wielding the monarch's powers under the current system is apolitical? That isn't even a claimed feature of the current system, because those powers are wielded by the PM who is decidedly not apolitical. The only concrete change of introducing a Governor General would be that some powers are removed from the PM and given to someone with a democratic mandate to (rarely) use them. These powers would be just as political as they are now, except they would be properly shared between two people, providing a separation of powers that is common outside of autocracies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_consent#Vetting_of_bills_under_consent_procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_consent#Vetting_of_bil...

d4nt 4y ago

As governmental systems go, having an unelected head of state is actually kind of smart. Their lack of democratic legitimacy means they don’t try to exercise any real power, leaving that to the parliamentary parties. But they represent the nation and the military swears loyalty to them, so they effectively have a one use “sorry, but they’ve gone too far, I’m dismissing this government” card they can play in case of absolute dire tyranny. There’s no way to fire them, it’s very hard to bribe them, they’re trained for the job from birth and there are backups in place in case they die. The system avoids many of the problems found with elected presidents (whether US or parliamentary style) while preserving all the benefits of democratic government. My only complaint is that the system for choosing the next one could be a bit more representative than “firstborn child of the current monarch”. But changing only that part of the system now without ruining it would be pretty hard.

chrismatheson 4y ago
BDFL
guipsp 4y ago
Oh, but they do exercise real power
hnhg 4y ago
However, in practice: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> they effectively have a one use “sorry, but they’ve gone too far, I’m dismissing this government” card they can play In reality, they don't have that card. The day the monarch tries to dismiss an elected government will be the day the monarchy is abolished and the UK becomes a republic.
- karencarits 4y ago
  During the invasion of Norway in WWII, the King was requested by the Germans to appoint a new nazi-friendly prime minister, which the King refused. But as you have pointed out, what the King actually did was to say to the sitting government that he would abdicate if the government gave in to the threats of the Germans. Later during the war, when the King was in exile in England, some parts of the parliament left in Norway (the nazi-friendly part) required the King to abdicate, which he refused. These episodes are known as "the King's no" and were very important symbols for the resistance movement in Norway (https://snl-no.translate.goog/Kongens_nei?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=no&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://snl-no.translate.goog/Kongens_nei?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_...). The actual importance of these "nos" are controversial, but they carry a significant symbolic value and made it harder for the Germans to establish a new government with any legitimacy. I guess faking a vote would have been rather easy, trying to change King much harder

cf100clunk 4y ago

The former colonies/dominions/outposts of the British Empire have increasingly abandoned the monarchy, with Barbados being the latest to the best of my knowledge without looking it up. Public opinion in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand tends to swing very tightly between monarchy and abolition in recent times.

tfsh 4y ago

This seems to breach the HN guidelines - it's deeply political.

barrysteve 4y ago

You want your government shadow run by a monarchy or corporate lobby groups? We haven't seen a new government structure that limits corruption in a long time.

drumhead 4y ago

The major problem in the UK is that Parliament is overpowerful. There is nothing to balance or check them. The monarchy is merely a rubberstamping ornament. What parliament says goes, and this was confirmed by the supreme court, Parliament is supreme. All you need is a majority in the house of commons to pass whatever law you want. If the supreme court declares it illegal, you can just go back and change the whatever laws you need to to make it legal or just abolish the supreme court. The reason the monarchary was restored after Cromwells Commonwealth was because legally it was the only body that could check the power of Parliament, parliament protects you from the monarchy but who protects us against parliament. Unlike the Queen an elected head of state would be divisive, they'll inevitably be biased towards one or the other political parties. I dont know what an acceptable solution would be.

nikolay 4y ago

The UK monarchy is a circus that should be taken off the air! I can't believe this corrupt family is a matter of so much media attention! Just ignore these clowns! It's the 21st century and monarchy should be abolished entirely everywhere! Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing! > The UK monarchy is a circus that should be taken off the air! I can't believe this corrupt family is a matter of so much media attention! Just ignore these clowns! It's the 21st century, and monarchy should be abolished entirely everywhere! Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing!

karencarits 4y ago
These are strong opinions and claims but you haven't provided any substantial arguments for them. Why should monarchy "be abolished entirely everywhere" if the monarchy has a clear support by a majority of the population in these places? > Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing! For many, the royals are actually important and beloved public figures who gives a voice to minorities and "the voiceless" that are easily forgotten by politicians, providing stability across generations and unity across political orientation. You may not respect them, but calling them "clowns" and "frog-kissing" without reason does not stimulate to good discussions