Calling for abolition of monarchy is still illegal, UK justice ministry admits
78 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;43181755]King of america would be a badass name to hold.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton[/url]
Freedom to petition the monarch is in the bill of rights so it shouldn't be illegal, unless I'm missing something
Also wasn't there an enquiry under way to find out if the royals are worth it? I'll wait until the results of that before I come to any solid conclusion. I feel we should be pragmatic with this
One thing I do absolutely call for though is separation of church and state, especially removal of the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal
[QUOTE=NorthernFall;43180898]snip[/QUOTE]
We laugh at North Korea's hereditary head of state because their head of state is [I]actually[/I] their head of state. The Queen is de jure our head of state, not de facto; she's a figurehead, another historical remnant that is part of our country: when I think of England, I genuinely think of those quaint little traditions and indulgences that set us apart from France or Switzerland. We get to dress up our politicians in silly outfits every once in a while (seeing John Prescott in an ermine robe genuinely made me giggle for a few minutes), we get to feel a sense of pride in a country that I think is somewhat set apart from the one in which we live: the land of Lords and Queens and soldiers in red coats is something that nearly everyone can agree makes them feel proud to be British, rather than the land of idiot politicians breaking our NHS and sending those soldiers off to die in wars. The Church, in a slightly different way, is the same. Our brand of state religion is a lot milder than America's, and I don't think the two are really comparable.
You mentioned the Commonwealth (India, incidentally, doesn't get lorded over by the Queen) and that's another organisation that brings our history into the modern day. All the members of the Commonwealth did get a say, and some of them said that actually, they'd rather not have the Queen as their head of state, or that they didn't want to be involved at all. Those that wanted to stay get a union of culture, history, and shared values which carries forth a rather shitty colonial past into the present day for the betterment of all involved.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;43180967][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't really consider it an appeal to tradition; I'm not arguing that a monarchy is justified in the same way as it was previously (indeed, that's been proven wrong in the changing role of the royals): rather, I'm saying that I prefer having a monarchy because of its link with the past, and the cultural role that plays. Sure, that might sound like "it's right because we've always done it that way" but that's not my point.
[QUOTE=Laputa;43182110]Freedom to petition the monarch is in the bill of rights so it shouldn't be illegal, unless I'm missing something
Also wasn't there an enquiry under way to find out if the royals are worth it? I'll wait until the results of that before I come to any solid conclusion. I feel we should be pragmatic with this
One thing I do absolutely call for though is separation of church and state, especially removal of the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal[/QUOTE]
legal to petition, but not legal to advocate overthrow. you could make a (very) loose comparison with the way sedition/petition works in the usa. it's totally your right to try to petition the government to change, but trying to use force to change or overthrow the american government is sedition(a very serious crime).
it's a loose comparison because your law is unenforced and actually just one of those old relic'y laws that no one bothered to change.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;43182173]We laugh at North Korea's hereditary head of state because their head of state is [I]actually[/I] their head of state. The Queen is de jure our head of state, not de facto; she's a figurehead, another historical remnant that is part of our country: when I think of England, I genuinely think of those quaint little traditions and indulgences that set us apart from France or Switzerland. We get to dress up our politicians in silly outfits every once in a while (seeing John Prescott in an ermine robe genuinely made me giggle for a few minutes), we get to feel a sense of pride in a country that I think is somewhat set apart from the one in which we live: the land of Lords and Queens and soldiers in red coats is something that nearly everyone can agree makes them feel proud to be British, rather than the land of idiot politicians breaking our NHS and sending those soldiers off to die in wars.[/quote]
the queen actually does have official power. i can't remember exactly what part of the parliamentary process she is in, but she does have the power to "confirm" laws as they are making their way through the houses of parliament. is it between commons and lords? or is it before the law is codified? i can't remember. it's sorta like an analogue to executive veto power in the american model.
she actually does exercise the power by refusing to confirm certain laws.
[quote]The Church, in a slightly different way, is the same. Our brand of state religion is a lot milder than America's, and I don't think the two are really comparable. [/QUOTE]
it's ironic that a real theocracy like the united kingdom is less functionally theocratic than a de jure secular nation like the united states.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43182404]the queen actually does have official power. i can't remember exactly what part of the parliamentary process she is in, but she does have the power to "confirm" laws as they are making their way through the houses of parliament. is it between commons and lords? or is it before the law is codified? i can't remember. it's sorta like an analogue to executive veto power in the american model.
she actually does exercise the power by refusing to confirm certain laws.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah but she never refuses them because she knows she'd get kicked out if she did. It's ceremonial at best.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43182438]Yeah but she never refuses them because she knows she'd get kicked out if she did. It's ceremonial at best.[/QUOTE]
I don't think she personally does it anyway. As far as I know its one of the many things done by the government that the queen just pretends to do. Or can only do on the advice of the government, I'm not quite sure how this works.
In theory I guess its the same way that only the Queen can dissolve parliament but only when requested to do so by the sitting PM. In reality the Queen isn't doing anything.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43182438]Yeah but she never refuses them because she knows she'd get kicked out if she did. It's ceremonial at best.[/QUOTE]
she can and she does.
[url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_Queen_of_England_make_decisions_for_England[/url]
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262613/Queen-Prince-Charles-given-39-chances-veto-legislation-dont-want-law.html[/url] - pardon the dailymail source please
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html[/url]
she isn't an absolute monarch, but to say that she has no power is also completely wrong. she's less powerful than the president of the united states, but more powerful than a pure figurehead.
[QUOTE=Jsm;43182500]I don't think she personally does it anyway. As far as I know its one of the many things done by the government that the queen just pretends to do. Or can only do on the advice of the government, I'm not quite sure how this works.
In theory I guess its the same way that only the Queen can dissolve parliament but only when requested to do so by the sitting PM. In reality the Queen isn't doing anything.[/QUOTE]
i assume, although i might be mistaken, referring to "the queen" is sorta like referring to "the president" in the united states. there is the actual position, which isn't necessarily that powerful on its own, but the position comes with a government organization that operates in the interest of the position. idk if it's the queen as an individual who can veto laws, or if it's "the crown" as a political organization, or some other organization that encompasses the monarchy, but the monarchical institution [i]does[/i] have power in the united kingdom.
The Queen has never vetoed a law. Those allegations about Prince Charles are just that - allegations, and as a rich landowner he might well have been asked even if the monarchy was abolished.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;43182833]The Queen has never vetoed a law. Those allegations about Prince Charles are just that - allegations, and as a rich landowner he might well have been asked even if the monarchy was abolished.[/QUOTE]
both the daily mail and huffington post both frame the article as if it is confirmed that "the monarchy"(including charles) has vetoed laws. is there a problem with the source?
also de facto power is de facto power. technically, lobbyists in the united states have little de jure power over the legislative process, but they have enormous de facto influence because of the structuring of the system. even if prince charles has no official power, the fact that he is consulted means he is an unelected official that has a degree of influence in the legislative process. that means that the monarchy is not completely powerless. it still has some form of power in government and that needs to be acknowledged in any discussion about the merit of the british monarchy in its present form.
The Bill in question (the Military Action Against Iraq Bill) removed the Crown's - in practice, the Government's - power to launch military attacks. The Queen - acting on "advice" from her Government - vetoed it.
In other words, someone tried to remove Tony Blair's power to attack Iraq without Parliament's consent, and Tony Blair blocked him. Due to the fact that our system is based on Centuries of tradition and history, the precise wording of this involves the Crown.
It's a non-story.
[editline]14th December 2013[/editline]
It's like saying the Queen is responsible for deciding who gets to be knighted.
[QUOTE=Jsm;43181355]I'm just going to say one thing before I reply to this post properly. I hate the argument of "could have paid for X nurses / schools / homes for homeless children etc". I know you probably mean well but it just sounds like something from the daily mail. [/QUOTE]
Yes it's daily mail-esque and the daily mail is the source of journalism but it doesn't make it any less true.
[QUOTE=Jsm;43181355] They aren't part of the government, the second they actually attempt to be part of the government they would cease to have power so fast. [/QUOTE]
I dunno man, i'd consider the head of state a part of government, she still has political activities to do.
[QUOTE=Jsm;43181355] As for not doing anything, they are probably the most charitable people in the UK both in terms of money given and money raised through being the public image of many charities. [/QUOTE]
Yeah they do charity work. So do Bill Gates and Richard Branson, should we crown Bill Gates as his majesty King of England :v:? They could still do charity work in a republic as private citizens, fundraising is not exclusive to the aristocracy, many ordinary people do good charity work every day. It's not something completely unusual.
[QUOTE=Jsm;43181355] As for being a full democracy, this country has so many more problems with the way we elect people and change laws that if people want to get rid of the monarchy to improve democracy they should tackle all of the other problems. Using the monarch as a distraction is terrible.
We have a government that was barely elected and since being in power has prevented proper discussion of changing the voting system (by spreading what amounts to lies during the AV referendum) to a more fair system. They also wish to change the boundaries of constituencies to benefit themselves.
And that's before you take into account the general corruption, lies, theft and lobbying that takes place under in the name of democracy.
Maybe we should deal with these problems before we try and become a republic to enable full democracy. [/QUOTE]
Yup, our current system is riddled with problems and beaurocracy. Our government atm doesn't actually represent the view of most people in the UK and is generally pretty corrupt. So it needs an overhaul, but why stop at overhauling the election system, why not redesign the political system from the bottom up and at the same time become a constitutional republic? They're not mutually exclusive in my eyes.
[editline]15th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jsm;43182500]I don't think she personally does it anyway. As far as I know its one of the many things done by the government that the queen just pretends to do. Or can only do on the advice of the government, I'm not quite sure how this works.
In theory I guess its the same way that only the Queen can dissolve parliament but only when requested to do so by the sitting PM. In reality the Queen isn't doing anything.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, she doesn't do anything, she's basically a polite little old lady who meets and greets foreign diplomats. She's powerless and in my eyes, that makes her pointless.
[editline]15th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Midas22;43181408]Not a tourist attraction? I suppose selling those TV rights to the royal wedding which 2 billion people watched didn't create much revenue not to mention that the 600,000 people who came for the wedding didn't spend any money during their stay either, or all that cringe commemorative cutlery people don't buy, or the pictures never purchased, or going to see the Crown Jewels which is always empty, or paying to enter other royal establishments which are never used. Yeah, no tourism or profits. Absolutely none.
Where do they get the money for charity? From the money people willingly give when they host the events or turn up to others probably. Not to mention their diplomat work and foreign relations they maintain in the colonies and other countries.[/QUOTE]
The royal wedding caused a sharp drop in the productivity of the British Economy, we lost somewhere in the region of about an estimated £6Bn. Most people that attended the ceremony were British anyway so the money they spent would have ended up back in the economy. And all this happened during a recession.
Source: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8155625/Royal-wedding-marriage-will-cost-economy-5bn.html[/url]
[editline]15th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cabbage;43181466]why are people disagreeing with this?
The monarchy indirectly makes hundreds of millions of pounds in tourism for the country.
And in taxes, we spend about 0.07p (iirc) per pound on their upkeep[/QUOTE]
there is not a single shred of evidence to it, a simple cursory google search will actually show up several websites claiming the opposite.
I could be wrong, but I kind of see the monarch as equivalent head of state to the presidency of Italy or Austria, neither are elected by the people and have similar limited powers with the real bulk of the power being the Prime Minister's/Chancellor's, one of the few main differences being it's hereditary. If it turns out they aren't value for money I suppose we could adapt it somehow but if there's no way at all they could be beneficial then we abolish it, either way it would probably have to go through referendum
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;43182173]We laugh at North Korea's hereditary head of state because their head of state is [I]actually[/I] their head of state. The Queen is de jure our head of state, not de facto; she's a figurehead, another historical remnant that is part of our country: when I think of England, I genuinely think of those quaint little traditions and indulgences that set us apart from France or Switzerland. We get to dress up our politicians in silly outfits every once in a while (seeing John Prescott in an ermine robe genuinely made me giggle for a few minutes), we get to feel a sense of pride in a country that I think is somewhat set apart from the one in which we live: the land of Lords and Queens and soldiers in red coats is something that nearly everyone can agree makes them feel proud to be British, rather than the land of idiot politicians breaking our NHS and sending those soldiers off to die in wars. The Church, in a slightly different way, is the same. Our brand of state religion is a lot milder than America's, and I don't think the two are really comparable.
You mentioned the Commonwealth (India, incidentally, doesn't get lorded over by the Queen) and that's another organisation that brings our history into the modern day. All the members of the Commonwealth did get a say, and some of them said that actually, they'd rather not have the Queen as their head of state, or that they didn't want to be involved at all. Those that wanted to stay get a union of culture, history, and shared values which carries forth a rather shitty colonial past into the present day for the betterment of all involved.
I don't really consider it an appeal to tradition; I'm not arguing that a monarchy is justified in the same way as it was previously (indeed, that's been proven wrong in the changing role of the royals): rather, I'm saying that I prefer having a monarchy because of its link with the past, and the cultural role that plays. Sure, that might sound like "it's right because we've always done it that way" but that's not my point.[/QUOTE]
Okay I see your angle here, but as I stated with my previous post, the monarchy is only a small part of Britain.
We have SO much more to be proud of.
I don't want my country to be defined by it's 'leaders' I want it to be defined by the amazing achievements and attitudes of it's people. People like Brunel, Darwin, Babbage, Captain Cook, Captain Scott, Arkwright, Pankhurst, Nightingale, Fry, the list just goes on and on. People that actually built the country we live in and shaped it. We have so much to be proud of and we have plenty of quanit little traditions to look back on that don't involve a royal family.
If we became a republic I do not think for a second that our national identity as a nation with perseverance, stoicity and a stiff upper lip would dissolve overnight.
As for the commonwealth, imperialism is a thing of the past.
Bloody Roundheads
Sodding cavaliers
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;43180138]This sound like this could be abused if you piss off a cop. Like, couldn't he just arrest you over a personal vendetta and cite the ancient law as reasoning for it?[/QUOTE]
those laws exist everywhere lol
It's illegal to shoot rabbits off an electric trolley in San Fransisco.
[QUOTE=lazyguy;43182358][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy[/url][/QUOTE]
Not applicable, but nice try.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
