Britain should dump the monarchy

Originally posted by moonbus
Correct me if I am mistake here, but cannot the British monarch dissolve parliament (in effect triggering new elections)? If so, this is not a trivial power, even if seldom exercised. A U.S. president cannot dissolve Congress or force elections outside the regularly scheduled ones.

The British monarch is not only the head of state, but the head of a state ...[text shortened]... surely sound strange to any American to sing "God save Barry O" (even if you like his policies).

no.

that "right" is purely ceremonial.

the parliament must open with "permission" of the queen. if the parliament is dissolved, the queen will perform the voodoo ritual that makes it final.

at no point can the queen actually decide to do those things herself.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no.

that "right" is purely ceremonial.

the parliament must open with "permission" of the queen. if the parliament is dissolved, the queen will perform the voodoo ritual that makes it final.

at no point can the queen actually decide to do those things herself.

Tell that to the Australians, where exactly this royal prerogative was exercised in 1975. The fact that it is rarely exercised does not make it trivial. Indeed, in the case of Britain's chain of offshore tax havens, it is a disgrace that the powers have not been exercised to prevent their continued use to harbour the fruits of crime, corruption and tax evasion around the globe. As you may have noticed above, when the UK wanted to attack pirate radio stations and thus prevent its youth hearing too much pop music, it had no difficulty forcing regulations on the Isle of Man.

You are just falling for the facade put up by the establishment to conceal both its power and the corrupt manner of its deployment.

Originally posted by finnegan
Tell that to the Australians, where exactly this royal prerogative was exercised in 1975. The fact that it is rarely exercised does not make it trivial. Indeed, in the case of Britain's chain of offshore tax havens, it is a disgrace that the powers have not been exercised to prevent their continued use to harbour the fruits of crime, corruption and tax ev ...[text shortened]... put up by the establishment to conceal both its power and the corrupt manner of its deployment.

i have a bit of trouble following your post.

first you mention the australian constitutional crisis, where the governer dismissed prime minister whitlam because the latter failed to do his job. he only did it after a lengthy negotiation where no compromise was reached and did so involving the opposition and numerous other officials.

it has nothing to do with how "powerful" the queen is. the queen did not get involved in it at absolutely no point.


from there you go to what the uk government (not queen) did to those wacky radio stars from "the boat that rocked". again, how does this imply the queen has the power to dissolve parliament?

Originally posted by moonbus
Pro: Countries with presidents know so much better than countries with monarchs how to run things.

With gems like this, do I need to read the rest of the thread?

Are you seriously suggesting Italy and the US run things better than the Netherlands and Sweden?

Originally posted by moonbus
Correct me if I am mistake here, but cannot the British monarch dissolve parliament (in effect triggering new elections)? If so, this is not a trivial power, even if seldom exercised. A U.S. president cannot dissolve Congress or force elections outside the regularly scheduled ones.

The British monarch is not only the head of state, but the head of a state ...[text shortened]... surely sound strange to any American to sing "God save Barry O" (even if you like his policies).

Imagine how "God bless America" sounds to non-Americans.

As George Carlin (an American) aptly noted:

"God Bless America?" Is that a request? Is that a demand? Is that a suggestion? Politicians say it at the end of every speech, as if it was some sort of verbal tic that they can't get rid of.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i have a bit of trouble following your post.

first you mention the australian constitutional crisis, where the governer dismissed prime minister whitlam because the latter failed to do his job. he only did it after a lengthy negotiation where no compromise was reached and did so involving the opposition and numerous other officials.

it has nothing to ...[text shortened]... he boat that rocked". again, how does this imply the queen has the power to dissolve parliament?

It has everything to do with how powerful the queen is. Obviously, she can delegate her powers, as for example to a Governor General in the case of Australia (and other dependencies), but they are not exercised in or through parliament.

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/what-are-the-queens-powers-22069

This list is incomplete in my opinion.

https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100506105242AACVVp6

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/01/21/how-much-power-does-the-queen-of-england-have-answer-a-lot/

Originally posted by shavixmir
With gems like this, do I need to read the rest of the thread?

Are you seriously suggesting Italy and the US run things better than the Netherlands and Sweden?

That was hyperbole to get the ball rolling.

There are examples of good and bad governance on both sides. Haiti has a president, at least nominally, but is horrendously badly governed. Switzerland has a president, nominally, but executive power is actually exercised by a committee. Swiss-style government-by-committee would probably not work anywhere else in the world, but it works very will indeed.

The monarchies which are well-run are almost without exception emasculated monarchies in which the monarch retains very little executive power. Monaco is one of the few exceptions. The Dutch and Swedish royal houses are not involved in determining either the prime ministers or the cabinets of their respective parliaments, in which executive power is effectively vested.

Several posters to this thread have noted a few of the vestigial executive powers retained by the British crown, some of which are not merely ceremonial.

http://www.infowars.com/queen-dissolves-canadian-parliament-for-third-time-in-3-years/

Originally posted by finnegan
It has everything to do with how powerful the queen is. Obviously, she can delegate her powers, as for example to a Governor General in the case of Australia (and other dependencies), but they are not exercised in or through parliament.

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/what-are-the-queens-powers-22069

This list is incomplete in my opinion. ...[text shortened]... s://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2013/01/21/how-much-power-does-the-queen-of-england-have-answer-a-lot/

she doesn't have any powers, what don't you get. everything she does, has to be approved. she only has ceremonial roles. everything she "approves" is already a done deal. she is asked for consent on various issues, again as a formality, since no monarch has ever refused this "consent" since the 18th century.

the queen rules by popular consent, and all know this. she could no more dissolve parliament than the US president could order nuclear strikes.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
she doesn't have any powers, what don't you get. everything she does, has to be approved. she only has ceremonial roles. everything she "approves" is already a done deal. she is asked for consent on various issues, again as a formality, since no monarch has ever refused this "consent" since the 18th century.

the queen rules by popular consent, and all k ...[text shortened]... w this. she could no more dissolve parliament than the US president could order nuclear strikes.

You say nothing that conflicts with the links I gave above. e.g.

However, one should understand that despite the Queen having these powers she reigns by popular consent. She knows that monarchies can be overthrown if a monarch becomes tyrannical. Over time her powers have, shall we say, gone dormant, they are never used any more unless on the advice of her ministers. By convention over time it has become common agreement that she isn't supposed to use these powers unless for some reason it becomes absently necessary. The difference between someone who says the Queen has near absolute power and someone who says she is a pointless figurehead is based on whether they understand first, that the majority of her powers haven't actually been restricted by any specific law, and next, on whether someone believes she could actually still use them.

So firstly, the powers exist and they are real.
Secondly, regardless of convention, there are scenarios in which they can be exercised.
Thirdly, they have in fact been exercised. In the case of Australia in 1975, that was a direct decision of the Governor, whose powers were held on behalf of the Queen. In the case of the Isle of Man, the decision would have been entirely one of ministers.
Fourthly, the fact the queen may not personally exercise powers, but ministers do so in her name, does not mean they do not exist, do not matter, or are not used, often in conflict with the wishes of parliament.
Fifthly, it is conceivable that a different monarch (say Charles) might act differently.

Originally posted by shavixmir

Who is King of the Netherlands? Felipe?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Who is King of the Netherlands? Felipe?

King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands has begun his reign by paying tribute to his mother Princess Beatrix who abdicated in his favour after 33 years as Queen.

The ceremony will have extra significance for Prince Charles, who attends with his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall because he also attended the investiture of Queen Beatrix 33 years ago.

Ho ho ho

King Willem-Alexander's faces some difficult decisions in the early days of his reign as the Netherlands, in the grip of eurozone austerity, debates the cost of its monarchy, which is the most expensive in Europe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/10027014/Dutch-crowning-King-Willem-Alexander-becomes-Europes-youngest-monarch.html

Originally posted by shavixmir
With gems like this, do I need to read the rest of the thread?

Are you seriously suggesting Italy and the US run things better than the Netherlands and Sweden?

They did until they decided to copy the others in many ways.

Originally posted by normbenign
They did until they decided to copy the others in many ways.

Remind us - when did Italy run things better than Sweden or Holland? circa 100 AD? Certainly, their Mafia traditions transferred well to the US, if that is what you mean by a good way to run things.

Originally posted by moonbus
This is a spin-off from another thread. The motion: Britain should dump the monarchy and get themselves a president. Reasons for and against, please.

Pro: Countries with presidents know so much better than countries with monarchs how to run things.

Contra: “God save the president” has the wrong number of syllables for the tune.

Pro: England would fi ...[text shortened]... upt.

Pro: Without the royals, the tabloid press would have nothing to report and go bankrupt.

Contra: There’d be some (E)ire about how to write a proper constitution.

Written constitutions cause all sorts of problems.

Pro: The royals are a drain on the economy; they should stop driving Aston Martins and start paying taxes, just like normal people.

On a point of information the Queen started paying tax "voluntarily" under the last Labour government. I don't understand the objection to them driving Aston Martins. There's an arguable economic advantage to a tame monarchy.

Contra: Without the royals, the tabloid press would have nothing to report and go bankrupt.

I'd regard that as a pro.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There's an arguable economic advantage to a tame monarchy.

In principle you are right, of course. A monarch commands more respect in certain regions of the world where kings and queens are still revered. Still, that's like saying it's a good thing to have anti-semites as head of state because certain regimes regard that trait positively.