Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 185 (8016 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-16-2014 8:59 PM
166 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,426 Year: 9,267/28,606 Month: 957/2,455 Week: 267/428 Day: 68/92 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 5 of 102 (657112)
03-25-2012 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by shadow71
03-25-2012 7:49 PM


Well, 78% of people want a monarchy with 19% against, and any US President with that sort of approval rating would think he'd died and gone to heaven.

The cost to the average person is 62p/year.

Of course, this exorbitant sum falls on people who don't particularly want a monarch, but then we also subsidize opera houses when some (most) people don't want opera, theater for people who don't watch plays, and libraries when some people don't read, so I think that's fair enough.

In short, the monarchy would seem to be justified by the fact that people want one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shadow71, posted 03-25-2012 7:49 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 21 of 102 (657170)
03-26-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tangle
03-26-2012 1:02 PM


Yes, well, I can't bring myself to get worked up about it. It's benign, as you say. And I rather like the old ways. For example, I like the way that MPs resign by taking the office of the Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds. Apart from anything else, it confuses the fuck out of foreigners ... it would nearly have been worthwhile to keep pre-decimal currency on those grounds, just so one could explain to American tourists how many groats make a florin.

I agree that a republic would be more "rational", in the vaguest sense of that word, but then so would eating nothing but health-food, and I don't do that either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2012 1:02 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nwr, posted 03-26-2012 3:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 27 of 102 (657180)
03-26-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by shadow71
03-26-2012 2:07 PM


Re: Long live the queen
Does she have any veto power over bills that are submitted for her signature?

If not what happens if as a matter of principle she refuses to sign a bill?

If I remember rightly, Queen Anne once refused to sign some bill about soldiers' uniforms just to prove that she could, and that's the last time it happened.

There was something that came up in ... I forget ... Belgium, or the Netherlands ... the Queen of whichever country it was had some sort of conscientious objection to signing a bill about abortion, so it was seriously proposed that she could abdicate in favor of her son, who would sign it and then abdicate right back in favor of her. I don't know how the situation was eventually resolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by shadow71, posted 03-26-2012 2:07 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2012 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Huntard, posted 03-26-2012 3:14 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 33 by shadow71, posted 03-26-2012 4:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 35 of 102 (657197)
03-26-2012 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by nwr
03-26-2012 3:07 PM


As long as you can still bowl a maiden over, all is not lost.

If I tried, I'd probably get hit for six.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nwr, posted 03-26-2012 3:07 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 36 of 102 (657199)
03-26-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by shadow71
03-26-2012 4:29 PM


Re: Long live the queen
I guess there'd have to be an Act of Parliament ... which the Queen would have to sign. And it would be rude to ask her, so no-one will.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by shadow71, posted 03-26-2012 4:29 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 39 of 102 (657207)
03-26-2012 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tangle
03-26-2012 4:49 PM


Re: Long live the queen
Oh yes, lots of sharp pointy things and fire.

So like vampires then.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2012 4:49 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 51 of 102 (657291)
03-27-2012 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tangle
03-27-2012 2:39 AM


We're a democracy, the government's legitimacy comes from the people's vote.

Not really. If a private citizen such as (say) Richard Branson, organized a national referendum, it could be as free and democratic as you like, but it would have no legitimacy, because it would be outside what dwise1 would call the chain of command. It would be like me going up to a colonel and telling him what to do: my instructions might be good and necessary ones, but he wouldn't obey them.

Morally the legitimacy of the government may be derived from democracy, but constitutionally the Queen does come into it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2012 2:39 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2012 12:11 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 03-27-2012 3:29 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 58 by Artemis Entreri, posted 03-27-2012 4:17 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 54 of 102 (657308)
03-27-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tangle
03-27-2012 12:11 PM


Well if you want to go down that path, there is no authority except that which can taken and defended by force or by negotiation.

Well, I did not go down that path. I never said nor implied that might made right. But every democratic country has a constitution, a way of doing things. Richard Branson's referendum may be as democratic as you please, but it's not the way that the British do things. Likewise, if it could be shown that Mitt Romney was way more popular than Obama, the Americans wouldn't change Presidents. There's a constitution, a way of doing things, to which there is a broader consent than there is to mob rule; there is even a broader consent than there is to the particular constitution. The most ardent republican would probably agree that the actions of Her Majesty's Government are more legitimate than Richard Branson's plebiscite, because it is important that we should have a way of doing things.

If I could start from scratch I would make the UK a republic and rewrite the US constitution so that Thomas Jefferson himself wouldn't recognize it, but that's just me. By and large, it's best that I can't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2012 12:11 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 56 of 102 (657337)
03-27-2012 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Straggler
03-27-2012 3:29 PM


But isn't the legitimacy of the government dependent on the queen in the same sort of nominal way that the queen is the commander in chief of the British armed forces?

Yes, of course. I wasn't trying to suggest that she has any actual power.

I'm just pointing out that under the current setup the legitimacy of the government is derived from the British constitution and not directly from the popular will. Now, the British constitution has a monarch in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Straggler, posted 03-27-2012 3:29 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2012 6:37 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 03-28-2012 5:35 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12009
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 84 of 102 (657440)
03-28-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by shadow71
03-28-2012 1:53 PM


I wasn't really asking about the legitimacy of the monarch. Just trying to get an explanation from UK as to why they would want a "Royal" person.

Oh, well, in that case I'm not entirely sure.

Except, I guess, the Queen is a symbol. Why do Americans get all upset when people burn the flag? It's only a piece of cloth. But when things become symbolic, they become emotionally conflated with the things they symbolize.

I would never be able to call another human being, Your Royal highness.

I don't think that that form of address is actually required, but if it was, you might still find it within your powers to do that if it was a choice between that and being rude to an old lady.

But beside that, she does have the symbolic value I referred to. She is, albeit by mechanisms we might not entirely approve of, the British Head of State. If there are rules that say how you should behave towards her, and you break them, you are "dissing" Britain and representing your nation as uncouth.

A British person who thinks that the American constitution is stupid and who would have rather voted for McCain if he had the choice should still address Obama as "Mr. President" rather than "you dumb n*****", shouldn't he? --- because to do otherwise would be taken as an affront to the whole nation, and the people who would so take it would include 99% of the people who don't want him to be President. Their personal respect for him might be at rock-bottom, but they would still demand that he should be shown proper respect as Head of State.

What the heck is "Royal" about any monarch?

What?

Er ... being a monarch. That makes them royal. This is true just by definition.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by shadow71, posted 03-28-2012 1:53 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by shadow71, posted 03-29-2012 1:00 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014