Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter? 214
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."
The Queen (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the queen had much to do with it so I'm not sure why she's getting a mention. This would fall under "official duties that have to be carried out or I lose my allowance". The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.
Re:The Queen (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Queen (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the Crown can assert absolute ownership of the land in England (and the seabed of territorial waters). "Landowners" in England only own estates (the estate in fee simple and the estate in land) and have tenure on the land [wikipedia.org].
Of course, it'd really kick off if Liz Windsor sent her army round to clear the peasants off her nice patch of dirt (she is Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces after all). Something tells me she can't be bothered with the hassle.
Re: (Score:2)
If she did that, she wouldn't stay Queen for very long. In fact, there probably wouldn't be a monarchy for very long. Commander-in-chief or not, I doubt the UK armed forces would follow those orders.There's a long tradition in the UK of a gap--sometimes a large gap--between the powers you *officially* have, and the powers you *actually* have. The Queen understands this very well.
Re: (Score:2)
All the Commonwealth realms are like this.
If you read the Canadian Constitution the Queen (it actually says "she," because at the time Victoria was Queen) is hiring ministers, firing ministers, and basically the only check on her power is that a) nobody can mess with the provinces (but she also hires and fires their governments), and b) she has to have one guy a "Chair of her Majesty's Privy Council," who does a lot of the actual scut work.
Turns out the Chair of the Privy Council is the Prime Minister, and
Re: (Score:2)
If she was selfish about her aims in asserting her theoretical command of the armed forces, I'd totally agree that the armed forces wouldn't even budge for her.
However, if the *government* did something obscenely overbearing, illegal, and unpopular and the Queen decided to oppose it and ordered out the army, there is a reasonable chance the army would obey the Queen. There was a survey done at some point in the fairly recent past asking the soldiers who they'd take orders from if there was a conflict. Mos
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. George III and his successors leased out the Crown Estate because the customary taxes and rents that the Crown Estate collected were not enough to support the civil government of the time. The whole deal is so that Parliament would take the cost of the government off the hands of the King/Queen so it could use its superior ability to impose taxes so that the government could actually function. The monarch would also get an amount of money for certain royals on what was called the "civil lis
Re: (Score:2)
The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.
Which politicians told Prince Harry to stage a randy-rompy game of strip billiards in Las Vegas? Those are the type of politicians that I would like to elect!
"The Economist" regularly frowns on the monarchy concept, because it undermines the principle that positions of state should be based on merit. Although, they are not really rabid about it.
An interesting thought on royalty can be found in Beaumarchais' play "The Marriage of Figaro". Figaro points at the Count and says:
"Because you are a great n
Re: (Score:3)
Question:
Can you name a single country whose last three leaders have actually been selected based on merit?
Hollande, Bush, etc. were selected by a process; but in 20-20 hindsight it's pretty clear there wasn't much merit involved. Or, to be more precise, the things you have to be good at to earn a Presidency (winning elections) have virtually nothing to do with the things you do as President.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Question: Can you name a single country whose last three leaders have actually been selected based on merit?
Germany: Merkel, Schröder, Kohl, Schmidt, Brandt. That's five, if you're counting. And I am American, so I didn't elect 'em.
Or, to be more precise, the things you have to be good at to earn a Presidency (winning elections) have virtually nothing to do with the things you do as President.
I agree with you on that. The wisest thing a political leader can do, is to pick the smartest folks for the cabinet posts . . . and then get out of their way and let them run things. The merit involved here, is being able to delegate, organize and win the trust of the voters. A lot of the decisions that a leader needs to make on economic issues are bad-tasting medicine, that
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it seems to me that the ability to become president is simply the ability to convince the power brokers that you will do the job to their satisfaction. There are a lot of popular fools out there.
That is not to say that the power brokers necessarily feel that it is in their interests to have a moron elected. There are wise plutocrats, and foolish ones. The wise ones understand that in the long run, you can't have a moron running the government. As long as they can have their hooks into the governmen
Re: (Score:2)
Her allowance is paid out of the income from the Windsor's family Land ... the Government would be loath to lose the 94% of this they currently keep ...
We don't have a dismissable monarchy, it would require great constitutional change to get rid of the Royal's, and even then they would still be the monarch of 15 other countries and head of the Commonwealth ...
Re: (Score:2)
Her allowance is paid out of the income from the Windsor's family Land ... the Government would be loath to lose the 94% of this they currently keep ...
We don't have a dismissable monarchy, it would require great constitutional change to get rid of the Royal's, and even then they would still be the monarch of 15 other countries and head of the Commonwealth ...
Just how did they come by this land? Was it the land that belong to the monarch that they inherited when George I was offered the crown and the House of Hanover took over from the Stuarts as monarch? In that case it's not really their land, but rather the land of the monarch, whoever that may be. Its wrong to think of it as the Windsor's family land in that sense, rather the income from that land is used to fund them and their endeavours. If the monarchy were to be removed I would see those lands as largely
Re: (Score:2)
How'd every family farm in the entire world come by it's land: inheritance.
It's unusual that the UK has kept political power formally tied to heredity, and that they haven't reformed land laws to make it clear the Queen owns nothing of the Crown Estate, but in principle the only difference between HM inheriting most of the UK and a Texas rancher inheriting a bunch of grazing rights from his father is scale.
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you look into it a bit further you'll find that the ownership is related to the monarch, if the queen is removed as the monarch then those rights will go with it. This is certainly true for the Duchy of Cornwall which is related to the holder of the position of the Prince of Wales rather than for the Windsor family to divvy up as they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing:
In countries with written Constitutions something that only requires 50% of Parliament plus one guy is not a "great Constitutional Change."
Replacing the Queen would really shock the British people, but in legal terms Parliament has had that power for so many centuries you can argue about how many centuries it has had that power. The British people would be extremely shocked if Parliament actually acted on it's power to fire the Queen, and in that sense it would be a great change; but since
For those outside of the UK (Score:5, Informative)
The Queens speech is not written by the Queen.
It's a summary of the Governments plans for the next legislative period, written by the government.
She just reads it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically their equivalent of the State of the Union, except instead of having their elected Head of Government deliver it they have the unelected Head of State do the job.
Re: (Score:2)
And what would that achieve?
If she didn't read it out, it would not stop the Government setting out to do it. It would just ensure that next year one of the things on the list would be; put a stop to "Queen opens parliament" tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a very strong show of disapproval, and considering the Queens popularity in Britain, could very well defeat the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
She could decide not to read it out.
Not without provoking a constitutional crisis that would probably lead to her being removed as head of state.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not British, but doesn't getting involved in politics is the job of a monarch? She gets quite a fat paycheck, she should do some work to earn it.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, there wouldn't be much point in voting if the monarch just went ahead and over-ruled the elected politicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
In Britain, *NOT* getting involved in politics is the job of the monarch. She is a symbolic and ceremonial head of state. Haven't you ever heard, "In Britain, the Queen reigns but does not rule"?
Re: (Score:2)
Many democracies have a protocollary president in addition to a prime minister who actually do stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
But this is only so because she chose not to form an opninion on anything. She has quite a few powers she's just not using them.
Queen's speech interpreted as meaning bill is dead (Score:5, Informative)
The Queen's speech outlined the various bills that Parliment intends to bring in, and the "snooper's charter" [bbc.co.uk] wasn't one of them; the absence of any given bill from the speech is widely (and uncontroversially) taken to mean that the bill is dead [bbc.co.uk]. The government's comments that it intends to find other ways to address computer crime would seem to back this interpretation.
And there was some good stuff, too (Score:3)
There were a few other positive signals in this year's Queen's Speech for those of us involved with technology as well.
For example, the government has apparently noticed the number of DRM schemes crippling new games when they go wrong and the plague of low quality software that people are selling, particularly on-line, even though it's so bug-ridden/unstable as to be useless, and it sounds like the consumer rights legislation is about to get an overhaul to make it clear that vendors are on the hook for thes
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately reports are that "other ways" includes methods to tie and individual to an IP address.
Personally I think that's even worse, it basically kills free speech online by forcing self-censorship upon people through threat of lawsuits and so forth even when they're in the right. The worrying thing is that Clegg seemed to support this to some extent in that he suggested previously to at least ensure each mobile phone is always assigned a unique IP address rather than have them assigned dynamically.
Luc
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily I can't see how it's even technically possible though beyond the mobile world, so I think such ideas will die a rather quick death when they recognise you can't really attach an IP address to a person. Even in the mobile world it's not like you can prove someone else used or didn't use the phone and that it wasn't hacked and some remote entity was proxying via it.
If the mobile carriers used IPv6 couldn't they give each device a unique, fixed, IP address within their network? The IP address could be tied to SIM card and IMEI of the device which would allow identification of a mobile device. This could be used to identify an owner in a legal sense. Whilst its not perfect its reasonable to assume that the law would work in a similar way to identifying car drivers from the car registration. The owner would be required to provide information as to who was using the devic
I think.. (Score:5, Insightful)
..someone needs to read up on how constitutional monarchy works.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many constituitonial monarchies, but in most of them the monarchs are allowed to form their own opinion.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They're commemorative medals, [bbc.co.uk] basically. They serve a similar function to the various adornments that the Queen wears. BTW that's the first Google result for "prince charles medals".
Re: (Score:3)
He's got nothing on Prince Phillip [dailymail.co.uk].
But to answer your question, he hasn't done anything for most of them other than being present at some event or being where he's at in the royal family. Explanation [bbc.co.uk] of many of the medals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Charles Windsor was a serving officer in the Navy for 5 years (flew helicopters and jets) just like both his sons
The vast majority of his medals are honorary, just like the awards that most heads of state and their deputies receive ...
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be surprised how easy it is to get medals in the military.
State-side you get the National Defense Service Medal for showing up to Basic. Depending on the service, and which form of basic training you go to, you may get another Medal before you even join a unit.
Prince Charles' medals don't seem to come from that source, but what did you expect? 16 countries have made him deputy-commander-in-chief of their armies. He frequently goes on State Visits, and in countries that are not America part of a state
Re: (Score:2)
"It's worth pointing out that his brother Andrew, as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands was at risk in the line of fire;"
Quite literally too. He was a Sea King pilot acting as a deterrent for Exocet missiles in trying to get them to start tracking him, rather than the ships. He wasn't the only pilot doing this at the time, but it's not the sort of job I'd fancy - literally putting myself between a missile and it's target and trying to get it to switch to me so I can attempt to evade it being much more mane
Re: (Score:2)
The universal queen of the world? (Score:2)
Which "the queen" are we talking about?
This is a US based site but they have no queen so that leaves roughly over a dozen choices.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a US based site but they have no queen so that leaves roughly over a dozen choices.
Re: (Score:2)
Dozen?
There are only two currently reining Queens ....
Elizabeth II of the UK (and 12 other states)
Margrethe II of Denmark
So most of the dozen or so Queens are the same person ....
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't confused.
Generally in a Republic when one refers to "the Queen," one is referring to the Queen of a) the mother country or b) a neighboring country, or c) the former ruling family. Elizabeth II is Queen of the mother country (Britain), several of our neighbors (Canada, Jamaica and other Caribbean states), and is the closest thing we have to a claimant to the US Throne. The summary clearly referenced a British Bill, and the British Deputy Prime Minister, so it's clearly referencing Elizabeth II in h
The Queen of England is a tyrant. (Score:3, Funny)
The Queen has all the power in England and has taken away all their guns so they have no freedom. She is a tyrant in Australia, UK, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and England and those folks cower before her and they don't know what freedom is. If we let Obama take our guns and our pipe bombs we will be defenceless and the Queen on England will come here and we will have SOCIALIST OBAMACRE like in England. You go to a doctor but you can not pay so he sends you to a hospital and you can not pay them either because the Queen's law says so, so the death panel KILLS YOU!
In America we have the first amendment to make us free and we have the second amendment to stop socialists who use the first amendment. Without guns the Queen of England would come here and take away all our elected Washington lobbyists and we would not even have our fair and balanced TV news to get the real truth. Wake up American sheeple !!!!!
No (Score:2)
No
* The Queen's speech is nothing to do with the Queen
* the Bill known as "Snoopers charter" The communications data bill was not in the Queen's Speech
So No ...
Re:Royalty? Just say no. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Royalty? Just say no. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll take the president. If he/she turns out to be a dick we can fire them. We would no longer be the Queen's subjects, we would be citizens of our own country. No-one is required to respect the president, beyond the military which has to respect all senior officers.
I'd shake the Queen's hand but wouldn't bow to her. I wouldn't touch Prince Philip. Royalists are all short sighted - the current Queen might be bland an inoffensive but there is no guarantee future ones will be.
Re: (Score:3)
If you'd bothered to read the post you're replying to (or if you had any general knowledge at all) you'd know that it wouldn't make any difference; the monarch is ceremonial and has no real power.
Re: (Score:2)
Power is irrelevant. Imagine of Prince Philip was king. How embarrassing. Would you want to be his subject.
As it is Liz seems unable to produce a smile. Her frowning face isn't exactly the best way to promote our country and its heritage.
Re: (Score:3)
As it is Liz seems unable to produce a smile. Her frowning face isn't exactly the best way to promote our country and its heritage.
HM Queen Victoria seems to have done well without a cheery visage. [wikipedia.org]
HM Queen Elizabeth is certainly able to smile, as you can see in the second photo as she contemplates an object of delight [washingtonpost.com] (to many), as well as cause them [telegraph.co.uk].
Re:Royalty? Just say no. (Score:4, Interesting)
Prince Phillip is not going to be King, ever. And that's probably why no one has bothered to spend time correcting him. He's a guy who gave up his real naval career because his wife happened to become the Queen. Being a consort is no fun in this day and age when they don't actually expect (or want) you to become warleader or some other manly role. You sit around and go to charity benefits. I agree that this is definitely a First World problem, but at the same time, people's issues tend to be relative. To even give up his role, he would have to leave his wife or at least make her life difficult, or she'd have to abdicate, and there's every reason to believe that she believes she has a duty to do the job and be a good Queen.
As for the monarchy, there is a good reason that most countries have republics now, but a constitutional monarchy does have some benefits, if the royal family stays well behaved. And if you think the royals don't understand their place, consider that technically, the Queen has the same powers and authority that many of her more absolutist predecessors had, she just doesn't attempt to use the great majority of them.
There is actually quite a bit of British administrative law which is simply the Prime Minister and the Cabinet having a license to use the Royal Prerogative powers. Anything that is Royal Prerogative today is something the Queen could order herself, if she thought she needed to, and could get away with it. The Prime Minister's only official response would be to resign and force the Queen to attempt to rule on her own, risking revolt and deposition. If the revolt didn't happen, however...
The UK has no constitution, just the understanding that if it came down to Parliament or the Queen, Parliament would usually win because it actually represents the people. On the other hand, some people like the idea that the politicians might have to deal with someone who isn't as susceptible to having to buy votes, or be bought by moneyed interests. Or at the very least accept that there is some power theoretically higher than they are. Prince Phillip might be a fairly small price to pay for that, especially since he's not going to be the King.
Now, if you mentioned Prince Charles....
Re: (Score:3)
Phil the Greek is ace. He produces a never-ending torrent of politically-incorrect and quite amusing quips. LIke the one he asked the local driving instructor on a remote Scottish island: "How do keep the locals sober long enough to get them through the driving test?"
Money and/or votes can't buy that. It's priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen someone say, with a straight face, "I'm a staunch royalist, but if Prince Charles ever becomes king, I'll become a republican".
Re: (Score:2)
Can you blame him? Dude's straight-up pug-ugly, and his perpetual girlfriend looks like she's been whacked repeatedly with a manhole cover.
Re: (Score:3)
It is looking that his reign, if it ever happens, will probably be short. Or spent completely on life support where he isn't going to bother anyone.
On the other hand, while he's... uninspiring... he has struck me as not actually being a moron. He has his causes and interests, and most of them are not actually fox hunting. Unfortunately, he's been in his mom's shadow for so long that it's likely he needs to deal with the same issues anyone might have being under their mom's shadow for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] it wouldn't make any difference; the monarch is ceremonial and has no real power.
Well, the current generations have none to speak of - at least since Edward or so. On the other hand, that's no guarantee of future monarchs, by any stretch. Imagine a monarch with enough political power and persuasion to take the reins and do it old-school...
I think I can help a bit on the contention, though...
I get the reason GP was so adamant about it - our governmental enterprise was founded on a tax revolt, against a king who had real life-or-death power and a rather powerful army at his disposal. The
Re: (Score:3)
Ceremonial power is real. All power is real. There is no such thing as "fake power", that is total nonsense. If she has no power then she isn't a queen. The basis of the problem is that Britons (and others) accept the concept that their leaders can be born into the role. That is an immoral belief. Moral people reject birthright. If you like the queen (and who wouldn't? she seems dandy) then vote for her.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should we honor and respect the head of state? Especially when the state is not worthy of honor and respect? Make the president earn his respect.
Re: (Score:3)
If the state itself is not worthy of respect, you have a bigger problem than deciding what figurehead to salute.
Presumably, in this day and age, most people at least profess to like the nation-state they live in, at least at some minimal flag waving patriotic level.
Re: (Score:3)
If the state itself is not worthy of respect, you have a bigger problem than deciding what figurehead to salute.
Yes, we have much, much bigger problems. Feigning respect for the President only serves to cover them up.
Presumably, in this day and age, most people at least profess to like the nation-state they live in, at least at some minimal flag waving patriotic level.
And that's the problem. Primative nationalistic sentiments have overridden the need for good government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because we should respect each other from the get-go, even if the person holds public office.
You're absolutely right. But holding public office is not a neutral act. If you hold power in a country with unjust laws, you are an agent of injustice and deserve to be treated like one. Our country exists in order to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, and to protect the rich from the poor. Anyone who is associated with that is completely undeserving of respect or honor.
I'll respect Obama when he star
Re: (Score:3)
1) The President - the head of state - does not make the laws. His authority over the laws is simply veto or sign. In many cases, his veto will be overridden.
And he should be judged by what he vetos and doesn't veto. And as executive, he should be judged by who he prosecutes (pot smokers and whistleblowers) and doesn't prosecute(racketeering bank executives). He should not be granted honor by default.
2) Not every law you happen to disagree with is "unjust"
3) Not everything that happens that you don't like
Dishonesty is not healthy. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
I lived in the U.K. for 5 months with an English woman. We were interviewing each other for marriage. It was my impression that allowing constant dishonesty helped English women manipulate English men. If the English culture is arranged such that the Queen can lie and be accepted, other women can lie and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
The "Queen" is just a normal person. (Score:2)
Pretending that someone is especially important only because she is the member of a family is not honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
You misunderstand. The speech is given by Her Royal Highness as Head of State. The speech for the Head of State is written by the Government formed by the Prime Minister. It isn't an expression of personal opinion, but of state policy set by the Government.
I'm curious - do you have a similar view about the lies of Bill Clinton? Did he empower all American men to lie as well? Or are we all responsible before God and our conscience for our own actions?
Re: (Score:2)
He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. The speech is all "The government will do X and Y", not "I think (shurely "one thinks" - Ed) Z". Where's the deception?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious - do you have a similar view about the lies of Bill Clinton? Did he empower all American men to lie as well?
Sadly, no - he only exemplified a common action that, to be honest, knows no borders.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You said, "The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own."
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
There is no dishonesty. The speech is written by the leadership of the governing party (not Parliament) and is phrased to make it clear that they are the ones actually speaking. So she will say "My government will..." rather than "I will..."
The only falsehood, if there is any, is the pretence that she has any significant control over "her" government.
Re: (Score:2)
You said, "The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own."
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
Are you deliberately being stupid? It's a constitutional convention, that the head of state states what parliament intends to do. It's historic, and nobody (except you) believes that she actually came up with the policies.
I lived in the U.K. for 5 months with an English woman. We were interviewing each other for marriage. It was my impression that allowing constant dishonesty helped English women manipulate English men. If the English culture is arranged such that the Queen can lie and be accepted, other women can lie and their lies will be accepted.
*Ohh*... I see. You're judging 30 million women and a culture based on your one experience. Good job!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about dishonesty, but do you want to know something that's really, most definitely not healthy?
Having to interview for marriage, and having a homepage with an about section that obsesses about a small Brazilian girl.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The Queen usually uses the phrase in the speech: "My Government will do this...", so who is writing the speech is pretty plain.
Probably the biggest fib is that it really is *her* government, but technically, this is the case, so it is not an actual lie.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
you having a laugh?? this is the 21st century! why the hell should an accident of birth dictate your station in life or the influence you have over affairs of state??? :-
As it happens the queen and prince Charles DO have a fair bit of say and have actually VERY much influenced things and can VETO bills and acts of parliament and have done so on various occasions
check these
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262613/Queen-Prin [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the Queen cannot actually veto Legislation? If Parliament wants to fire her they can do that. They have, in fact, done exactly that to monarchs who they suspected were going to become Catholic.
What she can do is not that different from what you can do: promise to raise a big stink if laws she doesn't like are passed. Since she is significantly more popular then most politicians this gives her a lot of influence. But if her approval rating was the same as yours she wouldn't have any influ
Re: (Score:2)
Uh. The ability of Parliament to "fire" the Queen is not exactly uncontroversial. Like the Queen could *try* and withhold Royal Assent on her own to veto bills, Parliament in the past has voted into place laws that remove a King or Queen. The validity of those laws, however, has more to do with who is actually able to enforce them than any actual "official" impeachment process.
The UK "Constitution" contains a lot of what I would call informal agreements and understandings based on a previous appeal to po
Re: (Score:2)
the armed services don't get a choice, it's not a matter of fact that they "like" the queen, it's a matter of fact that the oath says that they swear "allegiance to her majesty the queen, her heirs and successors and the officers set above me"
i know as i once took that oath as a member of The Parachute Regiment and to be quite frank none of us gave two flying fucks about t
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize the UK Government makes more money off the Queen then they pay to support her right? The Queen and her family still own all of the royal lands they are leased to the Government in exchange for them supporting the royal family. The lands make 130+ million pounds a year for the government and the royal family only costs around 40 million to support and it all reverts back to the royal family if the government stops supporting them as stupid people seem to want them to do which mean taxes would
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true how did Lizzy ever become queen? And why do Fergie's bints rank before Viscount Severn?
If there's any truth to genetics that's unlikely.
Re:Royalty? Just say no. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
This *is* the power the queen has, her Governor-General is simply exercising the power of the Queen ... in this case he overstepped his remit (by how much is debatable)
The Queen/Monarch of the UK has the same power and has exercised it (to a small degree on advice) when we have had a Hung parliament ...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever form of government you have, some sort of Head of State representing ALL people, not just the party that won the last elections, is going to be a good thing.
The recurring cost of election or appointment of such a Head of State are going to be significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And given that it's a coalition government, and the one party that gives the government has already said "no" to the Bill, it's not likely that this bill be enacted.
I'd be surprised if they don't try to enact something vaguely related to Cybersecurity, with at least some of the objectionable features of the first bill, just to save face. But if they enact the exact legislation Clegg already killed he'll lose face, so that is truly dead.
Re: (Score:2)
The Cybersecurity issue is highly vexing. The Conservatives in Opposition were the "good guys" against attempted extension of those powers by the (then) Labour Government. Now they've been corrupted since they came to power and have succumbed to the Dark Side.....
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's like having to build a new theme park when you already have Disneyland. Why bother just because you don't personally like Mickey?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We need to stop treating our president like he's the "king" of the U.S.A., and treat him/her more like the civil servant that they really are and were supposed to be originally.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite certain that Barack Obama is quite clear that he is President and not King at the moment. I'm also reasonably certain that if asked he would be happy he is not a Prime Minister, subject to Prime Minister's Question Time [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Probably, but I get the feeling that some Prime Ministers are the sort of bloody minded bastards who love Question Time, just so they have a reason to be snarky right back.
And yeah, I don't see Obama as that type of guy.