11 ms·

I don’t know much about UK law, but it is at least is constitutional monarchy. So the ruler and rituals of succession exist under the purview of the people and

I don’t know much about UK law, but it is at least is constitutional monarchy. So the ruler and rituals of succession exist under the purview of the people and parliament. Surely there is just not enough political will to change it. That’s very different from your implication that it’s some kind of authoritarian hellscape. Rewording: this “keeps happening” because it’s written into the constitution of the UK. If it didn’t happen, it would be more concerning, because the people wouldn’t have voted on such a big change to how the country works.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
It isn't even allowed to come to a vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent
- mrcsd 4y ago
  That's not correct, crown consent cannot stop a vote. And regardless of this, parliament is sovereign [0], that supremacy overrides any power any monarch could have in the UK. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
  - retcore 4y ago
    The Crown actually has legislative veto, approval and elective immunity via this intervention prior to the release of draft legislation prior to parliamentary debate: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
    - mrcsd 4y ago
      It's a fair point that obstructing draft legislation is a kind of de facto prohibiting of votes, even if crown consent does not enable stopping a vote directly. But in practice I don’t think consent could possibly be used this way without the tacit approval of the government (like with the prorogation of parliament case). I brought up parliamentary sovereignty above precisely because of this. If parliament is sovereign then ultimately the limits of crown consent are for parliament to decide. So the crown does not truly have a binding veto, if that veto can be removed or undone by parliament. That said, it would be very interesting if such a veto was attempted and it went to court, we’d get to see more constitutional clarification in action!
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        Consent blocks votes from happening because Royal Assent has never been challenged. To avoid conflict, Royal Consent has been respected to avoid votes that might go against the Crown.
haltingproblem 4y ago
There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.
- itisit 4y ago
  https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...
  - haltingproblem 4y ago
    This is not the constitution but the product of a 5-year committee to codify a new constitution.
- mrcsd 4y ago
  Yes, there is a constitution [0]. No, it's not writen as complete in any set of documents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
  - haltingproblem 4y ago
    From your link: The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.

lern_too_spel 4y ago

It isn't even allowed to come to a vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Consent

mrcsd 4y ago
That's not correct, crown consent cannot stop a vote. And regardless of this, parliament is sovereign [0], that supremacy overrides any power any monarch could have in the UK. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
- retcore 4y ago
  The Crown actually has legislative veto, approval and elective immunity via this intervention prior to the release of draft legislation prior to parliamentary debate: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
  - mrcsd 4y ago
    It's a fair point that obstructing draft legislation is a kind of de facto prohibiting of votes, even if crown consent does not enable stopping a vote directly. But in practice I don’t think consent could possibly be used this way without the tacit approval of the government (like with the prorogation of parliament case). I brought up parliamentary sovereignty above precisely because of this. If parliament is sovereign then ultimately the limits of crown consent are for parliament to decide. So the crown does not truly have a binding veto, if that veto can be removed or undone by parliament. That said, it would be very interesting if such a veto was attempted and it went to court, we’d get to see more constitutional clarification in action!
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Consent blocks votes from happening because Royal Assent has never been challenged. To avoid conflict, Royal Consent has been respected to avoid votes that might go against the Crown.

haltingproblem 4y ago

There is no constitution. How can it be a constitutional monarchy? Before anyone points out that it is an unwritten constitution, please exchange my invisible benjies for some gold.

itisit 4y ago
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-com...
- haltingproblem 4y ago
  This is not the constitution but the product of a 5-year committee to codify a new constitution.
mrcsd 4y ago
Yes, there is a constitution [0]. No, it's not writen as complete in any set of documents. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
- haltingproblem 4y ago
  From your link: The Constitution of the United Kingdom or British constitution comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched;[2] the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom recognises that there are constitutional principles, including parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy, and upholding international law. You cannot point me to a document that is the constitution. Words like uncodified or "unwritten arrangements" just create a semantic whack-a-mole, furthering the point that no written constitution exists.