The funny thing about it all is, it works. Our Constitutional Monarchy has given us one of the most stable, fairest and effective forms of Governance in the World. We should be proud of our achievements, not aways trying to rip them down to replace them with potentially inferior systems without good reason.
Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed
- Thread starter danielanthony
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,068
- Location
- London
It does work, I see no reason to change what works. It's not like we've had a single party system for the last 30 years, or minorities are being hunted and massacred by the government...
My personal opinion is that people are fond of the Queen, not the institution of the Monarchy. First of all, being fond of your monarch is possibly the worst argument in favour of monarchy that it's possible to conceive. Second, once the Queen's heart ceases to beat, and her slobbering heir becomes King, popular support for the Monarchy will plummet.
I'm just biding my time...
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,068
- Location
- London
Well, to your first point, my personal opinion is that people are in favour of the monarchy, so agree to disagree?
And people not liking Charles? Maybe, but I don't really talk about Charles with people so I wouldn't know, we'll see when the time comes
No hang on, you were essentially citing opinion polls. That's the only way we can know the Queen or the Monarchy is popular. Yet an opinion poll might superficially be similar to a referendum, the former isn't binding in principle. Yes, I know referendum can be technically ignored but it would have to be a suicidal Government.
To save this going any further, the point I'm getting at is that they are unellected. It isn't a good basis for having absolute power.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,527
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Before you know it, next News headline would be we can have a Prime Minister who is unelected.
Yes really !
Yes really !
Through the parliament they have absolute authority over...
We could get rid of them in Scotland much much easier...
The never-fulfilled mantra of the Republican.
I suppose we could always have Tony Blair as President, or some other former politician looking to line their pockets further and advance the interests of corporations and lobbiests (for a fee of course), or we could have the Putin/Medvedev type of merry-go-round, at least we will know who is who, as long as we remember whose turn it is...or maybe the US system whereby the President has executive and effective monopoly of power...or a figurehead like Ireland which is simply a drain on the economy and taxpayer.....
Or maybe we simply stick with a system that has been effective and fair for several centuries and only gives very limited constituional powers to the Monarchy and a whole raft of safeguards regarding the use of those powers.
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Firstly I disagree with the premise that being unelected automatically means you'll make bad decisions (in fact there are strong arguments unelected people make better choices as they haven't got to temper their policies with the fear of not being re-elected), but secondly the queen doesn't have "absolute power" because whilst she can veto policies, she can't come up with them and implement them.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,068
- Location
- London
Fair enough, and what I'm going to end up saying is I have no problem with the powers they have
Tis a bit worrying that Prince Charles has had a secret veto on potential legislation that might affect his interests....
Its one thing for the Monarch to be kept informed of matters and to have the final part in signing a bill into law (largely symbolic anyway) - the process should be open, the idea of Charles having significant influence, in secret, over areas of government policy is a bit scary - hopefully the Queen lives for as long as possible and we get to somehow skip him and let William take the throne as, quite frankly, Charles would be a complete embarrassment and having him as 'King' would cause a fair bit of damage to the monarchy.
Its one thing for the Monarch to be kept informed of matters and to have the final part in signing a bill into law (largely symbolic anyway) - the process should be open, the idea of Charles having significant influence, in secret, over areas of government policy is a bit scary - hopefully the Queen lives for as long as possible and we get to somehow skip him and let William take the throne as, quite frankly, Charles would be a complete embarrassment and having him as 'King' would cause a fair bit of damage to the monarchy.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,068
- Location
- London
The never-fulfilled mantra of the Republican.
I suppose we could always have Tony Blair as President, or some other former politician looking to line their pockets further and advance the interests of corporations and lobbiests (for a fee of course), or we could have the Putin/Medvedev type of merry-go-round, at least we will know who is who, as long as we remember whose turn it is...or maybe the US system whereby the President has executive and effective monopoly of power...or a figurehead like Ireland which is simply a drain on the economy and taxpayer.....
Or maybe we simply stick with a system that has been effective and fair for several centuries and only gives very limited constituional powers to the Monarchy and a whole raft of safeguards regarding the use of those powers.
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
Through the parliament they have absolute authority over...
It would indeed be difficult to pass a parliamentary bill which denounces the power of the Queen, that the Queen would have to sign herself.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,527
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
^^^ It's not a secret !!!
And yet here we are, one of the most advanced and stable nations on the planet. The evidence would suggest that what you think makes a 'good basis for having absolute power' differs from reality
I didn't create that premise, in principle it isn't acceptable to hold absolute power through unelected means. It is absolute power when they have the ability to refuse the will of the democratic chamber where all direction comes from essentially. Ignoring that blemish that is the unelected chamber..
Unless i've missed something I've not seen the slightest shred of evidence that the Crown has actually interfered with parliamentary acts to the detriment of the state to further their own interests.
As an aside, lobbyists, organisations and individuals exert influence over and "interfere" with politics and the governing of this country all the time to suit their own interests. For example, unelected Union leaders "interfered" with (in particular labour) government policy over the last 60 years in the name of their own particular interests. "Big business" does the same.
Sorry, it's non news...
Last edited:
Indeed...The never-fulfilled mantra of the Republican.
I suppose we could always have Tony Blair as President, or some other former politician looking to line their pockets further and advance the interests of corporations and lobbiests (for a fee of course), or we could have the Putin/Medvedev type of merry-go-round, at least we will know who is who, as long as we remember whose turn it is...or maybe the US system whereby the President has executive and effective monopoly of power...or a figurehead like Ireland which is simply a drain on the economy and taxpayer.....
Or maybe we simply stick with a system that has been effective and fair for several centuries and only gives very limited constituional powers to the Monarchy and a whole raft of safeguards regarding the use of those powers.
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.