Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter?

DavidGilbert99 writes "This time last year the Queen officially introduced the Communications Data Bill (known as the Snooper's Charter to those opposing it). Last month it was effectively killed when the UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said it went too far and he wouldn't support it. Today the Queen was back and while there was no official mention of the Communications Data Bill, there was mention of 'crime in cyberspace' and a very strong hint that more legislation to monitor people's online activity is on the way."

Royalty? Just say no.

[Futurepower(R)]

In my opinion, having royalty weakens an entire country.

Re:Royalty? Just say no.

[deusmetallum]

I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK). The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own.

Many Brits will agree (though not all), that having a monarchy does a great deal of good for our nation and the commenwelth, strengthening reltationships, and providing a massive tourist industry.

Worth every penny in my books.

I think..

[Anonymous Coward]

..someone needs to read up on how constitutional monarchy works.

Re:Royalty? Just say no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The alternative, US style at least, a politically motivated president that we treat with honour and respect? No thanks. Lets keep our politicians where they stand, a PM that we can hate and bad mouth in the commons and a powerless head of state to do the ceremonial guff who we can treat with honour and respect.

Re:Dishonesty is not healthy.

[deusmetallum]

I think you might be taking this argument to extremes. The gender of our monarch doesn't matter here. Be they male, female, or a pot of icecream, what is put in front of the monarch by parliament is what shall be read out.

The queen is actually very forthcoming with her own opinions, especially when talking to lawmakers both here and abroad. We should consider this only ceremony, and not try to delve any deeper into it.

Re:Royalty? Just say no.

[cold fjord]

I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK).

Wouldn't it be fairer to say that the royalty, and in particular the monarch, does have meaningful formal power, but that practically it could only be used in extremis? Anything else would probably result in a constitutional crisis.

I'm thinking, for example, of the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in Australia in 1975.

1975 Australian constitutional crisis [wikipedia.org]

Re:The Queen

[serviscope_minor]

I doubt she would oppose spying

There is absoloutely no evidence either way for such a claim. The Queen has remained remarkable apolitical, so basically you're making stuff up.