3 ms·

Unlike what many people think, the UK has a written constitution in the form of various laws. However, Parliament (more specifically, the House of Commons) can

by samus 3y ago

Unlike what many people think, the UK has a written constitution in the form of various laws. However, Parliament (more specifically, the House of Commons) can in theory alter any of these laws at any time. Such is likely only in case it would further solidify Parliament's power and preeminence. Brexit is the last time it happened, when the perceived subordination to the EU was removed. It's admittedly a messy state of affairs and many important processes are indeed defined and motivated by convention and tradition only. However, many of these traditions came about whenever the British were forced to deal with events or a constitutional crisis. For example, the monarch does not enter the Commons and Black Rod is admitted only after striking three times exactly because of such events. January 6th is doomed in the UK for the same reasons it was doomed to fail in the USA: it was based on a flawed understanding how the government really works. The British would have doubtlessly dispensed with tradition and taken expedient measures, and those would become the new Tradition, regardless of whether it is subsequently embossed in Law or not.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
Parliament, under the same theories, cannot alter any laws - parliament suggests laws to the monarch who grants them according to their caprices ... Of course the monarchs rather like their position of power and the money they rob (it's only a threat of violence) from the taxpayer and so they don't rock the boat, even when they should (eg when a corrupt, lying PM asks them to please prorogue parliament in order to subvert democracy -- extraordinary prorogation being one of the few reserved powers). The monarch is perfectly entitled to take a seat in the public gallery of HoC, just as they are entitled to vote, no court would ever deny them such rights as they really derive from shared freedoms given to all UK nationals. When the Tories take us out of ECHR they might lose those rights. About the only good Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffle Johnson was to demonstrate how we can no longer trust politicians to be honourable, and must reform our parliamentary system with an assumption that MPs are lying, cheating, thieving beings with utmost contempt for the electorate, the rule of law, and even the institutions of Westminster (buying silence with peerages and stuffing HoL with cronies, for example). That we cannot, even now, have a general election is a despicable endorsement of the lack of actual democracy afforded to the British people.
- samus 3y ago
  Royal assent has not been unilaterally withheld by the monarch for more than 300 years. The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time. Even if they wanted to rock on the boat now, the result would be uncertain. Of course the Monarch can enter the visitor gallery, but, as you say, they would enter it as a citizen of the UK, not in their function as monarch. I'd attribute the deficiencies of the UK's democratic system more to the first-past-the-post voting system, which causes government to be answerable to the winning coalition, not to the whole Parliament. Integrity in Parliament has been going downhill everywhere, not just in the UK.
  - fmajid 3y ago
    It's less ceremonial than you think: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent The king is exempted from racial discrimination laws, for instance, and well into the 1970s it was their official and open policy that black and brown people were unfit for any position more exalted than cleaning the toilets: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-p... Everything you think you know about the monarchy in the UK is a carefully crafted fiction by expensive PR consultants, paid by the taxpayers to lobby against their interests.
    - samus 3y ago
      How can you know what I think I know about the monarchy in the UK?
      - fmajid 3y ago
        To quote you verbatim: "The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time." (sic) This is clearly not true, even if they go to great lengths to hide this from the public, in collusion with both UK and Scottish governments. That's before even discussing reserve powers.

by samus 3y ago

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

Parliament, under the same theories, cannot alter any laws - parliament suggests laws to the monarch who grants them according to their caprices ... Of course the monarchs rather like their position of power and the money they rob (it's only a threat of violence) from the taxpayer and so they don't rock the boat, even when they should (eg when a corrupt, lying PM asks them to please prorogue parliament in order to subvert democracy -- extraordinary prorogation being one of the few reserved powers). The monarch is perfectly entitled to take a seat in the public gallery of HoC, just as they are entitled to vote, no court would ever deny them such rights as they really derive from shared freedoms given to all UK nationals. When the Tories take us out of ECHR they might lose those rights. About the only good Mr Alexander Boris de Pfeffle Johnson was to demonstrate how we can no longer trust politicians to be honourable, and must reform our parliamentary system with an assumption that MPs are lying, cheating, thieving beings with utmost contempt for the electorate, the rule of law, and even the institutions of Westminster (buying silence with peerages and stuffing HoL with cronies, for example). That we cannot, even now, have a general election is a despicable endorsement of the lack of actual democracy afforded to the British people.

samus 3y ago
Royal assent has not been unilaterally withheld by the monarch for more than 300 years. The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time. Even if they wanted to rock on the boat now, the result would be uncertain. Of course the Monarch can enter the visitor gallery, but, as you say, they would enter it as a citizen of the UK, not in their function as monarch. I'd attribute the deficiencies of the UK's democratic system more to the first-past-the-post voting system, which causes government to be answerable to the winning coalition, not to the whole Parliament. Integrity in Parliament has been going downhill everywhere, not just in the UK.
- fmajid 3y ago
  It's less ceremonial than you think: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent The king is exempted from racial discrimination laws, for instance, and well into the 1970s it was their official and open policy that black and brown people were unfit for any position more exalted than cleaning the toilets: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-p... Everything you think you know about the monarchy in the UK is a carefully crafted fiction by expensive PR consultants, paid by the taxpayers to lobby against their interests.
  - samus 3y ago
    How can you know what I think I know about the monarchy in the UK?
    - fmajid 3y ago
      To quote you verbatim: "The role of the Monarch has been a ceremonial over for a very long time." (sic) This is clearly not true, even if they go to great lengths to hide this from the public, in collusion with both UK and Scottish governments. That's before even discussing reserve powers.