Queen to abdicate?

[HenryJM]

Breadvan72 said:

It is remarkable that people are so poorly educated about our history and constitution that they believe that the Monarch has any role in government beyond the ceremonial and symbolic.

The Monarch has no power and that is the point, that is why it works. Removing the role puts both a potential drop in tourism but also no discernible advantage - nobody seems to have put forward anything I've seen that shows a reason why any different system would be an advantage to where we are now.

[dandarez]

I hadn't bothered reading this thread until now, because the idea of the Queen abdicating at Xmas is bloody nonsense and just simply daft speculation.

She's likely to live to a 100 - probably beyond - so barring a tragedy, ill-health or similar she'll still be there.

Oh, and why oh bloody why the mention of the hideous grinning Pippa Pig, the bottom of the barrel of royalty connections.

Anyway, I hope the monarchy continues, and no I'm no royalist, I just intend to live to 110 (well, everyone tells us we are all, and will be, living longer) and receive my 7 birthday messages from the 'King', and sell the lot on ebay to finance an elaborate funeral.

And if you can't work out how I'll get 7 messages in 10 years then you're probably as wet behind the ears as Pippa Pig!

[loafer123]

Indeed.

Both the monarchy, by having the right of veto never used and no public opinions and the House of Lords not having a right of veto, but the ability to expose proposed laws to detailed and public rigour, keep a single elected chamber within sensible limits, whilst maintaining its clear control over the government.

It isn't a solution which would ever be proposed now, but it works well.

[anonymous-user]

How does possessing a notional right to veto legislation that is never exercised (a right which if ever exercised in relation to a public general bill would lead to a mahoosive constitutional crisis, the outcome of which could only be fatal to the Monarchy) act as a check on the House of Commons or the Executive?

The House of Lords does do good work as a scrutinising and revising chamber, but it would be better if smaller and elected. The House of Commons should be smaller, too, but that's another discussion.

[Einion Yrth]

Breadvan72 said:

The House of Lords does do good work as a scrutinising and revising chamber, but it would be better if smaller and elected.

Merely stating something does not make it true. It may be, I'm not wedded to the the current system but some sort of analysis rather than a bald statement is probably necessary before taking any further axe strokes to a constitution that has developed over such a long time in such an idiosyncratic way.

[Mr_B]

Even the most ardent anti-monarchist is probably hoping she keep that dopey Charles out of the top job. She seems smart enough to know letting that idiot in to the job would undo her good work. Skip that idiot, his own children have rendered him a relic and useless.

[Ayahuasca]

davepoth said:

Ayahuasca said:

Why do we need a 'head of state' anyway? Plenty of countries have an executive leader, and no separate 'head of state' above them.

Very few "decent" countries do. The Prime Minister is fairly busy without having to go all around the world looking vaguely annoyed by things.

I'm not a royalist, but a realist. A monarchy costs the UK less to run than we would ever manage for an elected head of state, and for that reason alone I think we should keep the status quo.

The USA manages fairly well.

[HenryJM]

Ayahuasca said:

davepoth said:

Ayahuasca said:

Why do we need a 'head of state' anyway? Plenty of countries have an executive leader, and no separate 'head of state' above them.

Very few "decent" countries do. The Prime Minister is fairly busy without having to go all around the world looking vaguely annoyed by things.

I'm not a royalist, but a realist. A monarchy costs the UK less to run than we would ever manage for an elected head of state, and for that reason alone I think we should keep the status quo.

The USA manages fairly well.

Does it? Given the issues between President and Congress in the way it is currently?

[Ayahuasca]

HenryJM said:

Ayahuasca said:

davepoth said:

Ayahuasca said:

Why do we need a 'head of state' anyway? Plenty of countries have an executive leader, and no separate 'head of state' above them.

Very few "decent" countries do. The Prime Minister is fairly busy without having to go all around the world looking vaguely annoyed by things.

I'm not a royalist, but a realist. A monarchy costs the UK less to run than we would ever manage for an elected head of state, and for that reason alone I think we should keep the status quo.

The USA manages fairly well.

Does it? Given the issues between President and Congress in the way it is currently?

OK, I am all ears. How would the Queen fix that?

[HarryW]

Breadvan72 said:

HarryW said:

allows for decisions and guidance to be made for the right reasons, not chasing votes......

What decisions, and what guidance? The Queen has precisely zero decisions of any importance to make. Lots of things are done in her name, but she doesn't decide that those things will be done. When she is told to sign something, she signs it. Anyone who thinks that hard nosed politicians take guidance from a not especially well educated woman who has been paid to go around smiling at people and to read someone else's speeches for several decades is, I suggest, being a tad naive. She might have a few good racing tips, perhaps, and if she has remembered what she learned during the War (when she briefly had a proper job) she might offer some tips on fixing trucks, but she may be a tad out of date on that.

It is remarkable that people are so poorly educated about our history and constitution that they believe that the Monarch has any role in government beyond the ceremonial and symbolic.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 20th December 15:52

breaders, don't disagree that as a constitutional monarch she cannot get directly involved politics, nor should she, there are enough idiot politicians without adding another layer. How about thinking of her as the ultimate diplomat then. That at the end of the day is what you want from your countries representative, no?
Yes she reads speeches that are prepared for her, as is her duty, but if you think she has no say in the wording then I think, whilst you are obviously better formally educated than her, you may be a bit more naive The weekly 'chat' with the prime minister is confidential, which works against her in the position you are trying to make, you merrily assert but she cannot reply. However I think there are enough memoirs quoted out there that show, barring the horse racing tips! that she does offer guidance if only in a sage and diplomatic sense to all PM's. She is recognised as the most well informed diplomat, i'd wager she would get a doctorate x10 in that subject if only she craved the validity of a formal educational certificate you seem to resent her not holding.
Don't get me wrong I am not a 'royalist' in the true sense, with me I'll give you the respect you've earned and not before, but I've yet to see a better alternative for the no1 diplomatic post for the UK.

[DJRC]

Breadvan72 said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I have even less of a clue why you want an elected head of state

As you agree ultimate power rests with parliament

I want an elected legislature and an elected executive government. Don't you? I would like to see the upper chamber elected. I don't see any need to separate the roles of Head of State and Head of Government. One person can be elected do both jobs, for a limited time.

As for the money, if the Revenue from opening a small part of Buck House to tourists is X, why wouldn't the revenue from opening the whole of it, plus other former Royal enclaves, be much more than X? France does pretty well in extracting tourist income from its monarchical and imperial past.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Saturday 20th December 09:01

?? - but it doesn't. Nobody goes to France (or Paris, as its the only bit that anybody knows - oh OK then, just Versailles and that is only just in Paris) to mooch about its Monarchist history.

[DJRC]

Breadvan72 said:

It can appear that monarchists struggle to see the arguments of principle

Because principle is all about being formulated into law. The law is all about lawyers.

The great thing about having a Monarch etc is its about emotion and instinct.

The great thing about Constitutional Monarchy is that it allows us 90% principles and law and 10% instinctive emotion. A good mix.

[loafer123]

Breadvan72 said:

How does possessing a notional right to veto legislation that is never exercised (a right which if ever exercised in relation to a public general bill would lead to a mahoosive constitutional crisis, the outcome of which could only be fatal to the Monarchy) act as a check on the House of Commons or the Executive?

The House of Lords does do good work as a scrutinising and revising chamber, but it would be better if smaller and elected. The House of Commons should be smaller, too, but that's another discussion.

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

An elected second chamber would push us into even more useless political camapigning and pork belly politics like the US.

[anonymous-user]

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

[loafer123]

desolate said:

loafer123 said:

Think of it as the ultimate protection against a nutter prime minister.

how would that work?

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

[HenryJM]

Ayahuasca said:

HenryJM said:

Ayahuasca said:

davepoth said:

Ayahuasca said:

Why do we need a 'head of state' anyway? Plenty of countries have an executive leader, and no separate 'head of state' above them.

Very few "decent" countries do. The Prime Minister is fairly busy without having to go all around the world looking vaguely annoyed by things.

I'm not a royalist, but a realist. A monarchy costs the UK less to run than we would ever manage for an elected head of state, and for that reason alone I think we should keep the status quo.

The USA manages fairly well.

Does it? Given the issues between President and Congress in the way it is currently?

OK, I am all ears. How would the Queen fix that?

Really? Do you not see how different the structures are? How the UK system does not get the lock between the President and the Congress that exists in circumstances like this? The Current UK mechanism doesn't put us in that situation.

[anonymous-user]

loafer123 said:

Nutter decides to bomb France unilaterally, has to pass law to do so, Queen withholds royal assent and army can take action against Nutter.

You may think this scenario is incredible, but it has happened in the developed world on a fairly regular basis.

OK - so does she actually have this power then?

With regard to the recent bombs dropped which ones did she have to assent to?

So to be clear you are the type of monarchist who likes the monarchy because of the power they have? As opposed to the monarchists who like the monarchy because they have no power but add some colour and history and stop Tony Blair being El Presidente?

[loafer123]

Yes, she has this power.

No, we have never had a despot bad enough to circumvent parliament and require the intervention of the monarch.

No, I don't recognise either of your pejorative descriptions.

[anonymous-user]

loafer123 said:

Yes, she has this power.

No, we have never had a despot bad enough to circumvent parliament and require the intervention of the monarch.

No, I don't recognise either of your pejorative descriptions.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[anonymous-user]

DJRC said:

Breadvan72 said:

McWigglebum4th said:

I have even less of a clue why you want an elected head of state

As you agree ultimate power rests with parliament

I want an elected legislature and an elected executive government. Don't you? I would like to see the upper chamber elected. I don't see any need to separate the roles of Head of State and Head of Government. One person can be elected do both jobs, for a limited time.

As for the money, if the Revenue from opening a small part of Buck House to tourists is X, why wouldn't the revenue from opening the whole of it, plus other former Royal enclaves, be much more than X? France does pretty well in extracting tourist income from its monarchical and imperial past.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th December 09:01

?? - but it doesn't. Nobody goes to France (or Paris, as its the only bit that anybody knows - oh OK then, just Versailles and that is only just in Paris) to mooch about its Monarchist history.

Yes they do. Versailles is a major tourist draw, as are Napoleonic sites such as Les Invalides, and to a lesser extent Second Empire sites, and to quite a large extent former royal and aristocratic palaces and chateaux in the Loire and elsewhere. France makes a decent tourist whack from the fact that it used to have Kings and Emperors, and from its Revolutionary history also.