• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Monarchy and Democracy


Sensible Head

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
905
Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian

The Guardian has been pursuing FOI requests relating to meetings/letters from the royal family to Ministers for a while.

The above article talks about how the royal family are asked for their consent in the cases where proposed laws affect them. Now the UK legal/parliament systems is set up with nominally the power residing with the crown and exercised by parliament, hence the crown prosecution service for example and the fact that you can't bring the Crown to court.

Now as a republican in the full meaning of the word the idea that someone has power due to birth is of course anathema, but looking at the list of bills it does look like just a.n.other vested interest looking out for themselves. Why would Prince Charles care about gambling?

This is the worst of it in my opinion.

"In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed"."

Now doubt the Guardian will be pursuing more.

<Mod> This thread has been merged with "UK Democracy may not be all that it seems". </Mod>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

parentheses

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
13,800
It seems fair to question to what extent Britian is a real democracy given the considerable vetoes which are still enjoyed by the Royal family over Brtish legislation.

It appears that the UK "Mother of Parliaments" cannot legislate without the agremment of the British monarch.

Governmental papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers showed that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals’ little-known power to approve or reject new laws.
"At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."
PressTV - Royal family enjoys veto power in all British govt. affairs
 

Hitch 22

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2011
Messages
5,220
It's truly absurd that these people are given any credence whatsoever.

A few years ago the British public were jumping up and down about MP expenses and second homes and all kinds of gravy train fiddling.

Yet this ghastly family get a free ride.
 

sidney higginbottom

Active member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
282
i have a philosphical problem with the concept of Monarchy, but to be strictly fair, the Grinuand hasn't actually come up with an occasion where the Royals have asked for a bill to be ammeded...

so if they always get asked, and never say no - and if they did say no, the change would be reflected in the legislation for all to see - is there really a problem?
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,073
Twitter
No
Didn't they do well, all the same, penniless immigrants from germany and not able to speak the language of the adopted country? The ultimate soft sell.
 

james5001

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
11,503

Northtipp

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
22,217
UK Democracy may not be all that it seems

As the attached tweet and related article demonstrate, the Guardian have unearthed that the monarchy in the UK have had an impact of at least 39 parliamentary billsto the point of actually blocking one.

@RepublicStaff: RT @polblonde: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian << useful reminder, Charles has leverage.

It does eem rather odd that in a country that would consistently declare itself to be a great democracy that here we still have an unelected individual or perhaps even group of individiuals who are born or married into royalty but still have the ability to effect the day to day lives of that country. That seems slightly bizarre to me. I recall during debates about the monarchy that one of the reasons put forward by pro monarchists was that any political power the monarchy had was superficial and a token gesture. This article seems to put that to bed once and for all.

What possible great knowledge or wisdom does the royal family have that the elected MPs could not bring to the table.

I wonder will it recativate the monarchy discussion in the UK?
 

Eire1976

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
14,190
As the attached tweet and related article demonstrate, the Guardian have unearthed that the monarchy in the UK have had an impact of at least 39 parliamentary billsto the point of actually blocking one.

@RepublicStaff: RT @polblonde: Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian << useful reminder, Charles has leverage.

It does eem rather odd that in a country that would consistently declare itself to be a great democracy that here we still have an unelected individual or perhaps even group of individiuals who are born or married into royalty but still have the ability to effect the day to day lives of that country. That seems slightly bizarre to me. I recall during debates about the monarchy that one of the reasons put forward by pro monarchists was that any political power the monarchy had was superficial and a token gesture. This article seems to put that to bed once and for all.

What possible great knowledge or wisdom does the royal family have that the elected MPs could not bring to the table.

I wonder will it recativate the monarchy discussion in the UK?
It's all about protecting the establishment, why do you think the vast majority of the new year and Queens Birthday gongs go to people of influence in business and the media?

They call the Royal family "the firm" and that's what they show on TV.
 

RobertW

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
20,483
Well the Queen meets the PM weekly at Buckingham Palace.

They're not sitting around discussing the weather or the corgis.
 

daveL

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
19,593
It's truly absurd that these people are given any credence whatsoever.

A few years ago the British public were jumping up and down about MP expenses and second homes and all kinds of gravy train fiddling.

Yet this ghastly family get a free ride.
worse than that; they get showered with adulation.

Peasantry is alive and well in the UK.
 

sauntersplash

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
3,466
One benefit of monarchy that is neglected in representative democracy is concern for society over the long term, beyond the four/five years that a person is in office. Perhaps the British system gets the best of both worlds.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
21,853
Germany came out of WW2 better than England... Germany took over England without invading it (EU) ...and have their own German monarch as head of State in Britain :lol:
We dictate our own financial policies, using our our own currency and no one in Europe vets our budget.

Just saying, if you want to be infantile about it...
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
9,011
I'd be less worried about the monarchy (though I am a republican) than I would be by the fact that under first-past-the-post a political party needs only 35% of the vote to get the majority of seats in the Commons.
 

edg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
13,409
One benefit of monarchy that is neglected in representative democracy is concern for society over the long term, beyond the four/five years that a person is in office. Perhaps the British system gets the best of both worlds.
Interesting theory.

Do you have any examples of when this benefited the UK public in practice?
 

Mackers

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,526
There is no reason or room whatsoever for Monarchy in any Democratic society. There never has and never will. End of story.
 

Crack hoe

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
1,317
To be fair to the Queenie she is a very good states woman all the world leaders like to get the full monty and get the grub from her and a bed for the night (yes a very expensive bnb). I'm sure she discusses political matters of the day with her prime minister and why shouldn't she since she is signing off on these laws that the voted in members of parliament make by again voting in the commons
The firm pays for itself.
I hear many on here complaining about president Higgins and other complaints about president McAleese and president Robertson. President Hillary was very quite but cordial enought I suppose. So to meshe is as good as anyone else except its a money spinner and more than pays for it self. Prehaps Ireland could find an O'Brian and elevate him/her up to king/queen it would be a great money spinner and easily pay for the house in the park
 

Liverpoolblue

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
337
The real loss of democracy comes from all political parties serving the wealthy elite rather than the people. Republics have the same problem look at the USA their aristocracy is based on money and big business.


Lb
 

Eire1976

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
14,190
Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills | UK news | The Guardian

The Guardian has been pursuing FOI requests relating to meetings/letters from the royal family to Ministers for a while.

The above article talks about how the royal family are asked for their consent in the cases where proposed laws affect them. Now the UK legal/parliament systems is set up with nominally the power residing with the crown and exercised by parliament, hence the crown prosecution service for example and the fact that you can't bring the Crown to court.

Now as a republican in the full meaning of the word the idea that someone has power due to birth is of course anathema, but looking at the list of bills it does look like just a.n.other vested interest looking out for themselves. Why would Prince Charles care about gambling?

This is the worst of it in my opinion.

"In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed"."

Now doubt the Guardian will be pursuing more.

<Mod> This thread has been merged with "UK Democracy may not be all that it seems". </Mod>
There goes the MBE or OBE for the editor.
 
Top