British Monarchy

Originally posted by Redmike
I think the queen being head of state is undemocratic. Every piece of legislation has to get the royal assent before it is law.

To say nothing of the vast amount of public money spent on them.

A lot more than just image.

The Queen is Australia's head of state too, but has absolutely nothing to do with the legislative process here.

Originally posted by amannion
The Queen is Australia's head of state too, but has absolutely nothing to do with the legislative process here.

I thought the Governer general had some say in when your parliament meets etc.

I agree they don't have a veto though.

Originally posted by Redmike
I think the queen being head of state is undemocratic. Every piece of legislation has to get the royal assent before it is law.

To say nothing of the vast amount of public money spent on them.

A lot more than just image.

Three questions to see if the assertion may be correct:

1. Which powers currently held by the Queen are undemocratic
and why?

2. What are the constraints and legal limits imposed on
the veto power?

3. How many vetoes has the Queen enforced in the past, let's say
10 years, and rgarding which bills?

Regarding the money, the price for distinctiveness is impossible
to calculate. Some countries spend thousands of millions on
unifying events and programs to strenght social cohesion and
popular harmony. Go figure if how much is spent in the U.K. is
really that much.

Maybe having a queen is humiliating for a Scot and I do not
feel that in my vains since I am not one, though. Yet a cold
analysis points out that a constitutional democratic monarchy
like the U.K. is a well functioning democracy fulfilling all the
scholarly accepted criteria.

Originally posted by Seitse
Three questions to see if the assertion may be correct:

1. Which powers [b]currently held by the Queen are undemocratic
and why?

2. What are the constraints and legal limits imposed on
the veto power?

3. How many vetoes has the Queen enforced in the past, let's say
10 years, and rgarding which bills?

Regarding the money, the price for dist ...[text shortened]...
like the U.K. is a well functioning democracy fulfilling all the
scholarly accepted criteria.[/b]

Your questions:
1. The queen currently has to sign off each piece of legislation passed by the democratic process. Her part in this whole process is undemocratic, as in the presence of other unelcted people.

2. Constraints and legal limits on who? If you mean the government, it really depends on the monarch. An example would be the recent attempt to change the monarch's tax position, and the elected commons - the democratic process - had to seek a grubby compromise to prevent their proposal being vetoed.

3. None, but that doesn't alter the fact that they have the right to do so, which is undemocratic.

The monarchy does nothing to unify the UK or for social cohesion. Indeed the monarchy can sometimes be a divisive element, in some parts of the country (as I referred to before, with orange/loyalist elements).

I do not agree that the UK is a well functioning democracy, but this is wider than the monarchy. We have an unelected chamber in the legislative process, we have a ridiculous electoral system, where a party can form a government with less than 40% of the vote etc etc. And to top it all we have a monrach, we supposedly gets their power from god, who is able to veto an laws they don't like.

Originally posted by amannion
The Queen is Australia's head of state too, but has absolutely nothing to do with the legislative process here.

Yes the Queen does have a role here but as Seitse says it is a ceremonial role. Our parliament consists of the Queen (through her representative the Governor-General) and the upper and lower house. Legislation here also requires the Royal Assent and this is done through the Governor-General. If you look at Commonwealth Acts you will usually notice the Royal Assent.

The Governor-General usually acts on the advice of the Ministers.

The last time the Governor-General intervened in a significant way was the sacking of Gough Whitlam (1975). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gough_Whitlam#The_Dismissal

We also had a referendum in November 1999 on whether Australia should become a republic and it failed nationally, with the exception being in the ACT.

Originally posted by Redmike
Your questions:
1. The queen currently has to sign off each piece of legislation passed by the democratic process. Her part in this whole process is undemocratic, as in the presence of other unelcted people.

2. Constraints and legal limits on who? If you mean the government, it really depends on the monarch. An example would be the recent attempt to chan onrach, we supposedly gets their power from god, who is able to veto an laws they don't like.

Obsolete if refered as God's election, indeed.

Then again, I insist Monarchy is no longer seen in
terms of governance since it is purely symbolic, thus
it must be analyzed in terms of semiology.

As for the questions, I asked them in juridical terms, specially
number 1 and 2.

As for 3, then we can speak about a de facto
democracy*, which is superior to a de jure democracy that
is a de facto dictatorship, for example.

=====================
* Analogies can be found in death penalty de facto
abolitionist countries, which are considered abolitionists since the
power to enforce is non positive (though
enforceable in terms of juridical science). Ergo, being law a
social mechanism it is superseded by social practice as years
pass)

Originally posted by chrissyb
Yes the Queen does have a role here but as Seitse says it is a ceremonial role. Our parliament consists of the Queen (through her representative the Governor-General) and the upper and lower house. Legislation here also requires the Royal Assent and this is done through the Governor-General. If you look at Commonwealth Acts you will usually notice the Ro ...[text shortened]... ustralia should become a republic and it failed nationally, with the exception being in the ACT.

I really don't see having the power to stop legislation from the democratic process as purely ceremonial.

Originally posted by Seitse
Obsolete if refered as God's election, indeed.

Then again, I insist Monarchy is [b]no longer seen in
terms of governance since it is purely symbolic, thus
it must be analyzed in terms of semiology.

As for the questions, I asked them in juridical terms, specially
number 1 and 2.

As for 3, then we can speak about a de facto
democracy ...[text shortened]... ience). Ergo, being law a
social mechanism it is superseded by social practice as years
pass)[/b]

But the monarchy does have a role in government. I gave an example above where the elected, democratic representatives had to take this fact into account. Their role is more than symbolic.

Another example would be the requirement of elected politicians to swear an oath of allegience to the monarch.

Originally posted by Redmike
I really don't see having the power to stop legislation from the democratic process as purely ceremonial.

In theory she can do it, even in Canada via the Governor-General.
But I think it's accepted that she never will.
And if her (or a successor) ever tried, I'm sure things would be changed pretty sharpish.

Originally posted by Redmike
I really don't see having the power to stop legislation from the democratic process as purely ceremonial.

The GG takes advice from the Prime Minister and Ministers who represent the democratic process.

Our govt. states the Queen's role as being ceremonial. (as per the Info Fact Sheets at the Australian Parliament House website).

Originally posted by Varg
In theory she can do it, even in Canada via the Governor-General.
But I think it's accepted that she never will.
And if her (or a successor) ever tried, I'm sure things would be changed pretty sharpish.

I don't disagree with this, but even that theoretical option makes it undemocratic.

Originally posted by Varg
In theory she can do it, even in Canada via the Governor-General.
But I think it's accepted that she never will.
And if her (or a successor) ever tried, I'm sure things would be changed pretty sharpish.

i agree. as i mentioned in a previous post from my recollection the last time it happened here was in 1975. Yes it can happen, but i imagine it would have to be something so significant for them to go against the advice of the PM and Ministers for the GG to intervene.

Originally posted by Redmike
But the monarchy does have a role in government. I gave an example above where the elected, democratic representatives had to take this fact into account. Their role is more than symbolic.

Another example would be the requirement of elected politicians to swear an oath of allegience to the monarch.

At the theoretical level a lot of things may happen, yet they
don't. As for swearing an oath, that happens in all the countries:
Elected politicians swear alliegence to the Constitution or the flag, i.e.
most Latin American countries. Those are, for practical matters,
also symbols.

I would agree with this struggle IF the Queen had
a de jure and de facto power. Democracy
has today far more dangerous and real enemies than paper monarchy.

It boils down to, therefore, that there are far much more urgent
and important things to fight for both in the U.K. and in the world.

Fighting against a symbol, which has a de facto uselessness
in juridical terms, seems like trying to ban movies with nudity
in hardcore catholic countries, for example.

Originally posted by Redmike
I really don't see having the power to stop legislation from the democratic process as purely ceremonial.

But then as a communist you do not believe in democracy anyway.