4 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoIf 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 agoThe process of dissolving the monarchy is certainly more arduous than a routine election, though.
- sb057 4y agoThe 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.