Comments by "Valencetheshireman" (@Valencetheshireman927) on "US Constitution: Rethinking an American Myth" video.
-
8
-
1
-
1
-
@nicholasevangelos5443
Democracy itself is not enough to ensure the continuation of democracy.
Unless we have powers that represent other interests than that of a temporary and often manipulated majority, we will be dominated by the contest for electoral superiority, and determined by the unlimited rule of those who win.
Could alternative centres of power have helped to stop Hitler and Mussolini's fascist tyrannies?
Monarchy helps to sustain the democratic process by mixing a power other than that of democracy with democracy.
And in this respect, mixed constitution - the combination of the rule of the many, the few and the one - is more effective than the division of powers in preventing elected tyranny.
Monarchy - the rule of the one - acts as a kind of umpire which ensures that the democratic process itself cannot cannot be subverted and that it displays a certain rule of fairness. In short the monarch upholds the rule of law.
Thus of some 40 constitutional monarchies in the world, 16 of which recognise the Queen as sovereign, all have clearly observed constitutional procedures.
Constitutional monarchies also comprise some of the world's most developed, wealthy and democratically accountable states.
According to the UN, seven of the top 10 countries in the world in terms of quality of life are constitutional monarchies.
Twentieth-century tyrannies abandoned this legacy of mixed constitution. Both communism and fascism were examples of how democracy thought of as self-sufficient collapsed into tyranny.
In either case they denied that any absolute should constrain the will of the people - whether regarded as a class, race or nation.
But in Britain we never fell into extreme tyranny because we always thought that beyond the will of the people lay absolutes not invented by human will, but which human will, individually and collectively, can ceaselessly try to discern.
Certain inherited institutions: the king, the lords and the church, representing the one, the few and the transcendent; stood guard over the notion of the objective good and the common good.
By doing so they did not subvert but rather upheld democracy. They protected the role of the many in trying further to work out the nature of the good life.
So to defend democracy, we need more than democracy.
Were we to abolish or further limit the power of the British monarch therefore, we would remove the very lynchpin that has secured our liberties, equities, social mobility and sense of economic justice over hundreds of years.
1
-
1
-
@david6532 “pointless and useless”
She can’t use the power because the majority of people would not want her to and in what way would it make a difference? The powers she does have can’t topple government or remove unelected civil servants. She is useful.
Economically.
The Queen is the most prominent symbol around the world of Britain’s heritage and tradition, something that UK companies can amplify when marketing their goods and services to international markets.
She is such a well-known face and instantly brings a sense of history, giving British brands an edge and distinctive advantage that can be utilised. Not only does the Queen play a large part in the annual £5 billion that tourists bring to the UK, but her marketability contributes to the country’s £625 billion annual exports, especially luxury goods.
When Chinese consumers were asked what words they associate with Britain, top of the list was the Queen, with 25.1 per cent instantly thinking of her. And when asked what are the most important factors influencing their purchase intention of luxuries, having a royal connection was in the top four with 17 per cent alongside excellent quality, brand meaning, and status symbol.
The Queen is a constitutional monarch - while she is the head of state, her powers are symbolic and ceremonial, and she remains politically neutral.
She receives daily dispatches from the government in a red leather box, such as briefings ahead of important meetings or documents that need her signature.
There is no official record of what is said. It is completely private. She also performs a number of Parliamentary functions:
Appointing a government - the leader of the party that wins a general election is invited to Buckingham Palace, where they are formally invited to form a government. The Queen also formally dissolves a government before a general election
State opening and the Queen's Speech - the Queen begins the Parliamentary year with the State Opening ceremony, during which she sets out the government's policy plans, in a speech delivered from the throne in the House of Lords.
Royal Assent - when a piece of legislation is passed through Parliament, it must be formally approved by the Queen in order to become law.
Apart from those, the Queen has regular audiences with the prime minister and members of the Privy Council, hosts visiting heads of state, and meets foreign ambassadors and high commissioners based in the UK. She also normally leads the annual Remembrance event at the Cenotaph in London.
The Queen is Royal Patron or president of more than 600 charities, military associations, professional bodies and public service organisations.
Seriously mate, you need to watch the crown.
1
-
1
-
@DS9TREK An example of what you are asking actually took place in Spain in 1981 during an attempted coup by the Military. The King of Spain went on TV in his Military uniform and gave his support to the democratically elected Government; this is believed to have had a major impact in defeating the Coup. The Military had been telling “people” that they were acting with the King’s authority; the broadcast clearly showed otherwise and people who might have supported the coup quickly turned their backs.
But to your question, this situation is exactly WHY Her Majesty retains Reserve Powers and Royal Prerogative; All the powers the Government exercises “belong” to her as Queen, she merely “loans” them to the Government of the day.
It’s a common misconception that Her Majesty is merely a Figurehead; this simply isn’t true. A good example of a Figurehead would be the Emperor of Japan; he has literally NO reserve powers or royal prerogative powers to exercise, Her Majesty clearly does.
If we all accept that this is a highly unlikely scenario, I would say that it is EXTREMELY likely that Her Majesty would intervene, but she would do so BEFORE the UK actually fell to tyranny, IF such tyranny were to come about in the same fashion that Hitler “took over” Germany; that is to say, legally. (One could actually make the argument that if the Kaiser had still been around, Hitler would have been unable to obtain power in the manner he did)
The example I always give (as an admitted “out there” example) is if the Prime Minister somehow pushed legislation through the both Houses that removed the right of all people to vote; this can not become law until Her Majesty signed it. Her Majesty would, rightfully and lawfully, refuse to sign such a bill and keep it from becoming law.
As for the Military, (again, presuming a “legal” take over) would be in an interesting position. Each member of the British Armed Forces swears an oath to her personally, and she is the undoubted Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. By the strictest interpretation, all members (and particularly Officers) are “duty bound” to obey her orders as a result of their Oaths; indeed, they already do, it’s just that her authority over the Armed Forces is devolved to the Cabinet and the Secretary of Defence/Prime Minister in paticular. If they would “honour” this oath is the question; I suspect this would depend on the Chief of Defence Staff and his/her thoughts on what was happening.
If the UK were to fall to tyranny though revolution or, say a military coup, then all of this is moot anyhow.
1
-
1
-
1