The Queen and her powers

[The39thStep]

Complete non-story, there's a whole host of organisations and individuals that get consulted about legislation and regulation in the UK. I've been a member of the IET for years and have been invited to review and comment on a number of papers. It's a way of trying to make sure that laws and regulations actually make sense and are enforceable.

The only reason that this one is different is that there is a more formal process, to the point where it's named.

You are not being consulted as part of a mandatory process to whether the legislation and regulation affects your business interests as the Royals are.

 

[audiotech]

Just been reading Christopher Hitchens book: The Monarchy: A Critique of Britain's Favourite Fetish.
Some points to ponder:

Here,...are all the things that Her Majesty’s Ministers may do by means of an exercise of the Royal Prerogative, without choosing to make themselves accountable to the Commons or to the voters:

1. Make Orders in Council
2. Declare War
3. Make Peace
4. Recognise foreign governments
5. Sign and ratify treaties
6. Grant pardons
7. Grant charters
8. Confer honours
9. Confer patronage appointments
10. Establish commissions.

This list is not exhaustive, but nor is it a record of impotence. It might, but probably won’t, give pause to those who imagine that the monarchy and its functions are purely decorative and ceremonial. It could also give pause to those neo-monarchists who argue, oozing democratic precept from every pore, that the monarchy in England is a guarantee against unchecked political power; against executive or elective dictatorship. In point of fact the very opposite is the case.

 

[elbows]

Its a bit annoying when people write that sort of thing unless they go on to discuss which of those powers could actually be used by the monarchy in the present age without a shitstorm that causes a constitutional crisis and potentially threatened the order of things.

Some of the anticipation for detail in regards to charles & the queens powers over decisions that affect their assets, is because the existence of government guidelines on dealing with it along with other details that have come out rather suggests these powers routinely get some exercise. This instantly makes it more interesting than the queens list of theoretical powers. Some of those theoretical powers are like nuclear bombs, there arent many situations where you can actually use them. But are they used as a deterrent to influence the direction of things? For her most impressive theoretical powers this question will tend to be left to those willing to explore conspiracies without hard evidence. The lower level economic stuff wont be as dramatic but at least it will have some detail we can get our teeth into that goes beyond the realm of constitutional theory.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Its a bit annoying when people write that sort of thing unless they go on to discuss which of those powers could actually be used by the monarchy in the present age without a shitstorm that causes a constitutional crisis and potentially threatened the order of things.

That's not the point Hitchens is making, though. His point is about the extraordinary unchecked powers that the government has in this country as a result of the royal prerogative. It's profoundly undemocratic for this reason. Something he doesn't mention in his list is the ability of central government to meddle in other democratic bodies such as local government. Local government really has no powers except those that central government allows it. Again, profoundly undemocratic.

 

[elbows]

That's not the point Hitchens is making, though. His point is about the extraordinary unchecked powers that the government has in this country as a result of the royal prerogative. It's profoundly undemocratic for this reason. Something he doesn't mention in his list is the ability of central government to meddle in other democratic bodies such as local government. Local government really has no powers except those that central government allows it. Again, profoundly undemocratic.

Ta, I had missed the first part of the quote, I now see what you mean.

Actually I dont agree with him that ministers using those powers somehow avoids accountability to voters. I suppose he means it avoids some layers of scrutiny, but its not like the acts themselves are hidden, the voters can still kick someone in the pants over an issue such as starting a war. Pardon the wrong person and you can still be held accountable in the press, etc.

It also cant really be a surprise to people that such powers in theory rest with the queen but are used by ministers routinely, they must know that such powers must rest somewhere and the dribblings over Blairs 'presidential style' illuminated the laughable weaknesses of our present fudge.

Its hardly the only level that things are at the very least rather 'quaint'. never mind the shambles of the 2nd chamber being the house of lords, I dont even think we began to take serious steps to put some walls between the judicial branch and legislative branch until recent times. On paper our system lacks balance and safeguards which are seen as the basics elsewhere. But since in practice places such as the USA still end up with much the same results despite the theoretically more sophisticated balancing and separation of branches of state, we arent exactly seeing a mass of popular energy devoted to meaningful constitutional reform.

Meanwhile the royals sleep a little sounder at night, knowing that this year was a milestone in their rehabilitation, and the threat that they will be one day be replaced by a series of ever changing reality tv stars, voted in by the public to be head of state for a week, has much diminished.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It also cant really be a surprise to people that such powers in theory rest with the queen but are used by ministers routinely, they must know that such powers must rest somewhere and the dribblings over Blairs 'presidential style' illuminated the laughable weaknesses of our present fudge.

If I'm discussing the monarchy, the royal prerogative and its misuse by government is the first thing I will go to as a practical reason why the monarchy is a bad thing. ime, most people are either entirely unaware of it, or haven't really thought through what it means practically. It does matter, because it allows for centralisation of power into the executive. The warmonger Hitchens is right about that.

 

[audiotech]

'Warmonger' a bit strong to describe Hitchens. His book on Kissinger, and his one on Clinton come to that, counters that misplaced tag.

 

[butchersapron]

'Warmonger' a bit strong to describe Hitchens. His book on Kissinger and Clinton come to that counters that misplaced tag.

Warmonger is the perfect word for someone who uges the powerful to wage war and who provided intellectual justification for those urged wars.

 

[butchersapron]

If you're actually certain that you're hitting only a concentration of enemy troops...then it's pretty good because those steel pellets will go straight through somebody and out the other side and through somebody else. And if they're bearing a Koran over their heart, it'll go straight through that, too. So they won't be able to say, 'Ah, I was bearing a Koran over my heart and guess what, the missile stopped halfway through.' No way, 'cause it'll go straight through that as well. They'll be dead, in other words.

 

[audiotech]

A 'warmonger' starts one. Hitchens stupidly supported just the one, but appeared to regret doing so at the end.

 

[butchersapron]

A 'warmonger' starts one. Hitchens stupidly supported just the one, but appeared to regret doing so at the end.

No it doesn't - it refers to people who try and start wars, who encourage people/states to wage war.

I take it that you have something to back up your claim that he regretted being a war-monger over the invasion and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[audiotech]

In one of his last interviews, with Paxman.

I don't want to get into any pantomime 'oh yes it is, no it isn't' thanks all the same.

 

[elbows]

If I'm discussing the monarchy, the royal prerogative and its misuse by government is the first thing I will go to as a practical reason why the monarchy is a bad thing. ime, most people are either entirely unaware of it, or haven't really thought through what it means practically. It does matter, because it allows for centralisation of power into the executive. The warmonger Hitchens is right about that.

Well when trying to raise awareness and press for change on that matter, its unfortunate that some very stark examples of concentrated doses of power being bloodily used by the executive in a deeply unpopular way came at the wrong time. Rather than creating a sustained demand to rebalance some power with parliament, we then proceeded into an era where parliaments own rep got tainted (expenses) and then on to the media and their turn to have some of their own dirt exposed. The electoral and second chamber reform agendas went down with the Lib Dem ship. The quality of performances in parliament and the drama is not what it was although I suppose it still has its moments.

Mind you if we are going to have a state and institutions perhaps it is better if they involve plenty of absurd, archaic and theatrical aspects. Let them bask openly in their bonkers cathedral of power, on naked display without need of the thick and dull pretence curtains that more modern attempts to show a representative democracy tend to involve.

 

[butchersapron]

In one of his last interviews, with Paxman.

I don't want to get into any pantomime 'oh yes it is, no it isn't' thanks all the same.

What did he say?

 

[elbows]

Hitchens was a warmonger, whatever he said years before or after.

I'm afraid I'd never heard of him at all until the ugly buildup to the Iraq war, so you can imagine what I thought of him, what a bad time to get a first impression of him. For me at the time he was largely indistinguishable from the the gang of neo-cons whose constipated faces sometimes appeared on my tv, including David Frum, Michael Gove and Richard Pearle. It was quite strange to gradually learn later, especially when he snuffed it, how far he had travelled and what a different position he had travelled from compared to the neo-cons I just named. But he still ended up in warmonger territory at that moment in time.

 

[audiotech]

The "warmonger".

Hitchens was "horrified" at the result of the war. "To say one had no regrets would be abnormally unreflective" he said.

 

[elbows]

A regretful ex-warmonger. A naive warmonger. He only deserved the warmonger label for a time, but its futile to try to erase the mark left by that time, it happened.

Regrets are interesting things though. That Fog Of War documentary that was basically a long interview with an aged Robert McNamara was quite fascinating for this reason. Did Hitchens manage to use his pool of regret to say anything more interesting about his regrets, lessons learnt, etc?

 

[audiotech]

He's dead.
Start a new thread.

One of his best bits:

 

[elbows]

Another freedom of information ruling goes against the royals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/18/prince-charles-letters-ministers-judges

The government has for the first time been ordered to disclose copies of confidential letters Prince Charles wrote to ministers.
The publication of the letters will reveal how the heir to the throne has been lobbying ministers behind the scenes with his strongly-held opinions.
In a significant ruling published on Tuesday, three judges in a freedom of information tribunal decided that the public is entitled to know how the prince seeks to alter government policy.
"The essential reason is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and whenPrince Charles seeks to influence government," they decided.

Bonus laughs:

In their 126-page ruling, the judges, led by Mr Justice Walker, acknowledged that some people "fear, among other things, that disclosure would damage our constitutional structures". However, they dismissed the arguments put forward by the Whitehall departments, saying they had a "strong air of unreality" and were "difficult to pin down".
The Whitehall departments had argued that the correspondence between the prince and ministers had to be kept secret under a constitutional convention. Disclosure would undermine the convention which allowed the heir to the throne to be educated in the business of government to prepare him to become king, they claimed.

 

[Steel Icarus]

Democracy lol

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pickman's model]

Democracy lol

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

your link doesn't work

 

[Pickman's model]

Democracy lol

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

www.theguardian.com

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent

Exclusive: secretive procedure used to review laws ranging from Brexit trade deal to inheritance and land policy

www.theguardian.com

 

[Steel Icarus]

your link doesn't work

Fixed now

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

But she does wonders for the tourism industry, in a normal year, of course.

 

[Pickman's model]

But she does wonders for the tourism industry, in a normal year, of course.

yeh she's certainly showing what a draw she is this year

 

[not-bono-ever]

We are very lucky to have her

 

[A380]

Apparently she has the power to do whatever a spider can; can she swing from a web? Take a look overhead. Look out here comes Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

 

[Pickman's model]

the queen is an expert dog hypnotist who made her corgis bark 'happy birthday' every year for prince philip, who cannot abide dogs

 

[danny la rouge]

But she does wonders for the tourism industry, in a normal year, of course.

Does she fuck.

I know you’re only joking, but the argument when used seriously is not even specious, it’s just stupid.

When tourists visit a country they do the tourist stuff. When they visit Ireland or France, they go and see what’s there. That’s what tourists visiting London are doing when they go to Buck House. They’re not people who were put off going to Paris or Dublin because those are in republics. They’re people who’d have come anyway, but want to tick some stuff off the list. Like when I went to Rome and took a look at the Vatican. Not because I’m a big old Catholic. But because it’s something in Rome you want to at least catch a glimpse of.

 

[Idris2002]

Hitchens was a warmonger, whatever he said years before or after.

I'm afraid I'd never heard of him at all until the ugly buildup to the Iraq war, so you can imagine what I thought of him, what a bad time to get a first impression of him. For me at the time he was largely indistinguishable from the the gang of neo-cons whose constipated faces sometimes appeared on my tv, including David Frum, Michael Gove and Richard Pearle. It was quite strange to gradually learn later, especially when he snuffed it, how far he had travelled and what a different position he had travelled from compared to the neo-cons I just named. But he still ended up in warmonger territory at that moment in time.

The "warmonger".

Hitchens was "horrified" at the result of the war. "To say one had no regrets would be abnormally unreflective" he said.

My theory of Hitchens is that someone somewhere had the goods on him, and used them to use him as a recruiting sergeant in the run-up to the Iraq war.