Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:26 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Ah, right, so the fact that a power is seldom used is a reason for its perpetuation

Do you think so? really? I would disagree.

El Barbudo wrote:

Besides, the fact that Charles is regularly sticking his oar in ... and affecting statute in the process ... is utterly undemocratic.

No, he is sticking his oar in as he owns the independent country that is the Duchy of Cornwall.

El Barbudo wrote:

We are constantly fed the lies that the monarchy is largely ceremonial when, in actuality, it serves to maintain the establishment via the Order of the garter, the House of Lords, the honours system and the distribution of awards of grace and favour.

Who constantly feeds you these lies then? I don't remember a single person ever feeding me this lie during my life to date. Maybe I meet the wrong people. Don't you find it an irritant when people are constantly telling you "the monarchy is largely ceremonial"? It would pisz me off, I can tell you. It's an odd thing, though. Why are they picking on you like that?

The monarchy is far from ceremonial. We have a monarch. At the moment, a Queen. This is factual.

The establishment is the establishment but I doubt whether in any major sense it needs the monarch. Those people who form the establishment are not, in the overwhelming majority, royals.

The honours system is of course pretty much entirely the province of politicians. It is hardly realistic to lay any criticism of it at the feet of the monarch, who simply hands out the gongs.

The House of Lords is, like the monarchy, a fundamental part of the constitutional setup of this country. The monarchy does nothing, at all, to serve to maintain it. Unless Parliament votes to abolish the HoL then it will remain.

El Barbudo wrote:

Nothing knee- jerk about it, the self-interested forelock-tuggers stand between the populace and decent democracy.

You have got to be joking. What stands between the populace and decent democracy is a lot of things, but (for just one example) international conglomerates including the banks are a million times more relevant to that point than the monarchy. Unless you think the queen runs all of them. I think the implication that if you abolished the monarchy this would restore decent democracy to the populace is breathtakingly naive. It would have no such effect at all.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:16 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

All very funny for knee-jerk anti-monarchists, but as in reality we are told in the article itself that on no occasion has a veto been used "unless advised to do so by ministers" there seems to be no story here.

Why on earth would a minister need to advise the queen to use her powerless veto???

Couldn't possibly be that the queens advisor, after advise from the queen, advises the minister to to advise the queen to veto something she doesn't like, could it??

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:45 am  

Ovavoo wrote:

Why on earth would a minister need to advise the queen to use her powerless veto???

Because it would be of little apparent use on other planets?

But seriously, if you can't work that out by yourself, then I can't help you.

Ovavoo wrote:

Couldn't possibly be that the queens advisor, after advise from the queen, advises the minister to to advise the queen to veto something she doesn't like, could it??

It could be the tooth fairy too, but there are no grounds to think so.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:37 am  

Durham Giant wrote: Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills That bill was raised from the back benches in protest at Tony Blair going to war with Iraq without the consent of Parliament. The Queen almost certainly only vetoed it at the behest of the Government as it would have been quite embarassing for Tony Blair had it passed.

Durham Giant wrote: Unbelievable that she vetoed a bill which gave parliament rather than her the power to go to war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills That bill was raised from the back benches in protest at Tony Blair going to war with Iraq without the consent of Parliament. The Queen almost certainly only vetoed it at the behest of the Government as it would have been quite embarassing for Tony Blair had it passed.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:46 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

...
You have got to be joking. What stands between the populace and decent democracy is a lot of things, but (for just one example) international conglomerates including the banks are a million times more relevant to that point than the monarchy. Unless you think the queen runs all of them. I think the implication that if you abolished the monarchy this would restore decent democracy to the populace is breathtakingly naive. It would have no such effect at all.

Actually I would agree that there are many obstacles to democracy, to suggest that I think the Queen runs them all is just reductio ad absurdum.
This thread is about the powers of the monarchy so I was commenting on that.

Your post seems to veer from saying that the monarchy is not just ceremonial to saying that it is impotent.
Both cannot be true at the same time.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:48 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Actually I would agree that there are many obstacles to democracy, to suggest that I think the Queen runs them all is just reductio ad absurdum.

It would indeed. Which is probably why nobody has suggested it.

El Barbudo wrote:

Your post seems to veer from saying that the monarchy is not just ceremonial to saying that it is impotent.
Both cannot be true at the same time.

You seem to be confused. The monarchy, far from being impotent, has to sign off every single piece of legislation otherwise it does not become law. That is hardly ceremonial, and pretty much well towards the opposite end of the scale of impotence.

I would agree that there's a tendency amongst some monarchists to understate the constitutional powers of the monarchy, but to make the claim that the queen's just there for the tourists doesn't actually make it true. In a similar vein, they don't publicise that Charlie owns Cornwall, personally, (well, the prince of Wales does) rather than it being a part of the UK. You could say that they let people think (insomuch as they consider it at all) that the "Duchy of Cornwall" is largely a purely ceremonial title nowadays (albeit somehow a source of considerable dosh for Charles, which is never quite explained, and nobody ask, "Why the feck is that then?") but that doesn't make it true.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:00 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You seem to be confused. The monarchy, far from being impotent, has to sign off every single piece of legislation otherwise it does not become law. That is hardly ceremonial, and pretty much well towards the opposite end of the scale of impotence.

I would agree that there's a tendency amongst some monarchists to understate the constitutional powers of the monarchy, but to make the claim that the queen's just there for the tourists doesn't actually make it true. In a similar vein, they don't publicise that Charlie owns Cornwall, personally, (well, the prince of Wales does) rather than it being a part of the UK. You could say that they let people think (insomuch as they consider it at all) that the "Duchy of Cornwall" is largely a purely ceremonial title nowadays (albeit somehow a source of considerable dosh for Charles, which is never quite explained, and nobody ask, "Why the feck is that then?") but that doesn't make it true.

I am not confused ... all of that is anti-democratic.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:28 am  

El Barbudo wrote: I am not confused ... all of that is anti-democratic. All of what is? I would suggest you consider the difference between un-democratic and anti- or pro-democratic. I would certainly argue that the constitutional monarchy that we have promotes and sustains the democratic process because there is a power other than that of democracy with democracy. The question would be whether that power lessens or improves democracy. While our democracy is hardly perfect, it is a democracy and has fared infinitely better than countries where the monarchy was abolished. Do these tend to end up as dictatorships as a consequence, or by accident? I don't know, it's a very complicated issue to which there can't be a definitive answer. But I would say I believe it is a consequence, at least in large part. Interestingly, I note that according to official figures 6 or 7 out of the top 10 countries in the world in categories such as quality of life, Human Development index etc happen to be constitutional monarchies. It could be a fluke, but I don't believe it is. http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/default.html Obviously a monarch who can veto legislation is, objectively, undemocratic but the question is, does having that system promote our democracy, or detract from it? By acting as a check in that way, in my opinion it promotes it. You may disagree but that's the argument. For me, I'd rather have Brenda in that role than instead yet another self-serving, corrupt politician or stooge, being inevitably from the upper echelons of some vested interest or other, backed by big money, dancing to their tune. We'd probably end up with somebody like Bliar.

El Barbudo wrote: I am not confused ... all of that is anti-democratic. All of what is? I would suggest you consider the difference between un-democratic and anti- or pro-democratic. I would certainly argue that the constitutional monarchy that we have promotes and sustains the democratic process because there is a power other than that of democracy with democracy. The question would be whether that power lessens or improves democracy. While our democracy is hardly perfect, it is a democracy and has fared infinitely better than countries where the monarchy was abolished. Do these tend to end up as dictatorships as a consequence, or by accident? I don't know, it's a very complicated issue to which there can't be a definitive answer. But I would say I believe it is a consequence, at least in large part. Interestingly, I note that according to official figures 6 or 7 out of the top 10 countries in the world in categories such as quality of life, Human Development index etc happen to be constitutional monarchies. It could be a fluke, but I don't believe it is. http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/default.html Obviously a monarch who can veto legislation is, objectively, undemocratic but the question is, does having that system promote our democracy, or detract from it? By acting as a check in that way, in my opinion it promotes it. You may disagree but that's the argument. For me, I'd rather have Brenda in that role than instead yet another self-serving, corrupt politician or stooge, being inevitably from the upper echelons of some vested interest or other, backed by big money, dancing to their tune. We'd probably end up with somebody like Bliar.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:47 am  

Just sounds like a way for government to veto stuff they don't like on the quiet, or to do a U-turn without it looking like a U-turn.

I'm no royalist, but the way the article slips the significant information in after most of the article is written just shows that they think most people will only read the headlines or the first paragraph and then just take the rest of the story as confirmation of the headline.

When actually it's never been used unless told by the government ministers that it needs to be used.

Re: The Queen says NO !!!! : Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:53 am  

Interesting article in today's Mirror from John Prescott on the injustices suffered by the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands After being forcibly removed from their homes and dumped in a foreign country. After years of campaigning and winning court battles, they were finally allowed by Robin Cook to return to the outer islands (Diego Garcia was still off limits), only for that decision to be reversed by Royal Prerogative.

Interesting article in today's Mirror from John Prescott on the injustices suffered by the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands After being forcibly removed from their homes and dumped in a foreign country. After years of campaigning and winning court battles, they were finally allowed by Robin Cook to return to the outer islands (Diego Garcia was still off limits), only for that decision to be reversed by Royal Prerogative.