4 ms·

Also the command-in-chief of UK and other Commonweath militaries? Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces https:

Also the command-in-chief of UK and other Commonweath militaries? Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Canadian_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief_of_the_Cana... As all executive power is legally reposed in the Crown, the role of commander-in-chief is the only constitutional means by which decisions are made over the deployment and disposition of the Canadian Armed Forces.[6] Under the Westminster system's conventions of responsible government, the cabinet—which advises the sovereign or his viceroy on the exercise of the executive powers—generally exercises the Crown prerogative powers relating to the Canadian forces.[6][7] Still, all declarations of war are issued with the approval, and in the name, of the monarch and must be signed by either the sovereign or the governor general, as was done with the proclamation that declared Canada at war with Nazi Germany, issued on September 10, 1939; it stated: "Whereas by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, We have signified Our Approval for the issue of a Proclamation in the Canada Gazette declaring that a State of War with the German Reich exists and has existed in Our Dominion of Canada as and from the tenth day of September, 1939." Australia: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s68.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca4... COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 68. Command of naval and military forces. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.

c0m 4y ago
It’s concerning to think of some sort of major constitutional crisis taking place during wartime due to disagreement between PM and King. I’m a little baffled that this has never been framed as a national security issue, at least it hasn’t been a popular narrative in my lifetime. At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why. I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.
- ck425 4y ago
  Bare in mind that the other reason noone wants to open that Pandora's box is that in reality the monarchy's interference is relatively minor and the political establishment (with full backing of the public) would permanently shut down any attempts to interfere in a more major way. That's not too say that the guardians findings aren't troubling or that the powers the UK monarchy do wield aren't antidemocratic. But they're only ignored because they're relatively minor. In the case of something major like a national security incident they'd be overruled and potentially trigger the dissolution or atleast severe weakening of the monarchy. They're aware of that fact and thus careful about what they do.

c0m 4y ago

It’s concerning to think of some sort of major constitutional crisis taking place during wartime due to disagreement between PM and King. I’m a little baffled that this has never been framed as a national security issue, at least it hasn’t been a popular narrative in my lifetime. At the same time, whatever government opens that particular Pandora’s box is in for a hell of a ride, so I understand why. I'm obviously an abolitionist but I would be much less worried about this if the powers matched the role. I'm sure HN could empathise better than most websites that giving a supposed read-only user unused, powerful permissions is probably not the best idea.

ck425 4y ago
Bare in mind that the other reason noone wants to open that Pandora's box is that in reality the monarchy's interference is relatively minor and the political establishment (with full backing of the public) would permanently shut down any attempts to interfere in a more major way. That's not too say that the guardians findings aren't troubling or that the powers the UK monarchy do wield aren't antidemocratic. But they're only ignored because they're relatively minor. In the case of something major like a national security incident they'd be overruled and potentially trigger the dissolution or atleast severe weakening of the monarchy. They're aware of that fact and thus careful about what they do.