26 ms·
This is the one argument left for monarchy; that the military in the UK (and technically Australia) swear loyatly to the monarch, not the Prime Minister. In the
by marcus_holmes 7mo ago
This is the one argument left for monarchy; that the military in the UK (and technically Australia) swear loyatly to the monarch, not the Prime Minister. In the event of an obviously-lunatic elected official ordering the troops into civilian areas to "pacify" civilian populations, the monarch could (in theory) countermand that order.
- r14c 7mo agoIsn't that worse? You don't even get to elect the commander in chief, its just some random guy who was born into it?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- ChocolateGod 7mo agoThe monarch being Commander in Chief is ceremonial. Everything is done on the advice of the Prime Minister and their cabinet. The chance of the monarch overriding said request is less than 1%. Even then, parliament is sovereign. Whilst the logistics are complicated due to how things are introduced to the house, if parliament says no to a prime ministers decision, it overrides anything the prime minister who has no absolute power like a president does.
- laughing_man 7mo agoMonarchists can't have it both ways, though. Making him a ceremonial CiC isn't going to provide you with much of a bulwark against abuse of power by parliament. Or he isn't ceremonial and he could become a threat himself.
- marcus_holmes 7mo agoI didn't say it was a good argument ;) Personally I love the idea that the codes for nukes are surgically implanted in a volunteer, and in order to issue the order to fire the nukes, the CIC must personally carve the codes from that person's chest with a knife, killing them in the process. Or the variant on that idea, that the codes are implanted in their own forearm, and to order the nukes they must cut the codes from out of their own flesh. We could do the same for all military deployment orders.