Queen Elizabeth and the U.K.?

As a secularist I obviously have some problems with the pseudo-theocracy that is a constitutional monarchy. On the other hand, I like the Queen. Not the title per se, but the person. I can not think of a more appropriate person to fill her position.However, ridding the UK of monarchy is probably the last step of secularisation. Right now, trying to get rid of the Queen is from a practical standpoint impossible - it's a constitutional quagmire of problems I'm lead to believe. I think it's probably best to start with the real intrusion of religion in public policy (mandatory worship at school, bishops with legislative powers, faith schools) and do so soon. For the process of dissolving the monarchy, I'd rather we take that slowly, it may require for us to commit to a written constitution (trying to rejig our present 'constitution' is probably an unworkable proposition). She's the freakin' Queen, that's the rationale I believe the land that the Royal family own and maintain on behalf of the country makes more money than their upkeep costs. Added to what tourist 'dollars' she brings in, and I'm fairly sure she's worth the small cost that was mentioned earlier in the thread. Then again, I'm not certain on that. In a constitutional monarchy, the two are somewhat the same. She signs bills to make them laws, heads up the justice system and imprisons people, appoints prime ministers, ambassadors, other ministers as well I believe; She calls for elections too, I think.Most of this is symbolic of course, she doesn't make any decisions that have not been decided already.She does have the power to dismiss the prime minister, but this would only be exercised if the prime minister loses a 'no confidence' vote and does not resign, and it's never actually been tested in modern times. We had a monarchy before we had an empire, the monarch is not necessarily an Emperor/Empress.I suppose, on the other hand, it should also be noted that she is the head of state of 16 countries.

Yes. It hasn't happened for 300 years. It would be a crisis that will probably result in the monarchy being stripped of those powers.

On the downside, I believe it ignited a bit of a war...

From wiki

quote:

---

The Act of Settlement 1701, passed by the English Parliament, applied in England and Ireland but not Scotland, where a strong minority wished to preserve the Stuart dynasty and its right of inheritance to the throne.[92] In 1703, the Estates of Scotland responded to the Settlement by passing the Act of Security, which gave the Estates the power, if the Queen had no further children, to choose the next Scottish monarch from among the descendants of the royal line of Scotland.[93] The individual chosen by the Estates could not be the same person who came to the English throne, unless England granted full freedom of trade to Scottish merchants.[94] At first, Anne withheld royal assent to the act, but granted it the following year when the Estates threatened to withdraw Scottish support for England's wars

---

again, from wiki

quote:

---

In 1990, when a law submitted by Roger Lallemand and Lucienne Herman-Michielsens, liberalising Belgium's abortion laws, was approved by Parliament, he refused to give Royal Assent to the bill. This was unprecedented; although Baudoin was nominally Belgium's chief executive, Royal Assent has long been a formality (as is the case in most constitutional and popular monarchies). However, due to his religious convictions, Baudouin asked the Government to declare him temporarily unable to reign so that he could avoid signing the measure into law.[4] The Government under Wilfried Martens complied with his request on 4 April 1990. According to the provisions of the Belgian Constitution, in the event the King is temporarily unable to reign, the Government as a whole fulfills the role of Head of State. All members of the Government signed the bill, and the next day (5 April 1990) the Government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again.

---

English constitutional law is a mess of case history, treaties, acts and so on and so forth. There is the Magna Carta, of course, which sets the precedent for limiting the powers of the Monarchy.As a result of the looseness of the constitution, parliamentary sovereignty essentially means that Parliament has the power to limit or abolish the monarchy. This actually happened once: in 1649 courtesy of Oliver Cromwell, whose statue stands outside the houses of Parliament. I don't know of any law that requires a referendum for modifying the powers of the monarchy. Indeed, the results of referrendums in the UK are not even legally binding. However, they are usually held when constitutional changes are proposed, so I would expect that the abolishment of the monarchy would only go forwards if there was a positive response from a referrendum.

The Magna Carta is a document that creates a formal parliament of a couple of dozen Barons who together can overrule the Monarch. Over the next couple of centuries the council/parliament expanded to include more people.There were elections during this time, but the voters were all elites (wealthy landholders). Over time, more and more people became empowered to vote. Most of the expansion of voting rights occurred in the 19th Century, inspired by such things as the People's Charter of 1838. There were a couple of important constitutional changes in the 18th Century too. The general answer would probably be 'the consent of the governed'. Many documents and court decisions, treaties etc. Sorry it's not all in one convenient place, but we have this thing here in Europe called history Yes. A representational democracy to be exact. On the basis that we actually do elect representatives who then go to Parliament and from there, leglislate. The basis, other than the simple fact that we do in fact elect representatives, is a thousand years worth of jurisprudence, treaties, acts, notable philosophical works, bills and so on. I can't locate the exact document that specifically gives me the right to vote, but it was probably written in the 1800s. Maybe it was the Reform Act 1867, maybe it was the Great Reform of 1832. I'm no British Constitutional expert.I know, I know, not having a centralised constitution that spells it all out is a bit confusing and for a Yank - maybe even disorientating. But that's the way we roll here.As Dr. A mentioned earlier: It is not permitted for MPs to even resign so they have to accept a post that would disqualify them from being MPs instead. It's not a top-down designed system, it's a bottom up, evolved system and it is messy, convoluted and excessively complex.If something as straightforward as resigning from office is so unnecessarily convoluted - you can hardly expect the basis upon which the democracy is founded to be straightforward!

It would be silly to call France, The Kingdom of France, as it used to be called. Now they call it the French Republic.So, assuming it stays united, we may change the name to the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. UR doesn't flow as easily from the mouth as UK though, which is a shame.

2nd Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, Stephen Fry. It has a certain ring to it

We already manage to select Lords and judges without voting them in. Though there are reforms being bandied about to make it more democratic. Selection can be done in any number of ways. It could be done on the mutual agreement of Parliament. There could be an independent committee. Or maybe some exceptional quality like making the head of state the person whose peer reviewed work has the biggest impact factor. The real question is, should the head of state be a lifelong position determined by birth? I can think of only one good reason why it should: A lifelong duty means one can get rather good at it. But it's hardly a guarantee of sufficient competence.