I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of the state, but the idea that we're any less of a democracy because they're there is kind of silly.
I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against keeping the monarchy to be honest. They're a historical vestigial appendage of the state, but the idea that we're any less of a democracy because they're there is kind of silly.
At the very least they own huge parts of the country, and the Queen has (and exercises as per recent Guardian stories) vetos and opt-outs of the laws the rest of us must follow.
Regardless of that, even as a basic principle our country reeks of deference and class.
The first steps might be:
- An end to the honours system (entirely - even though many 'commoners' get them now it perpetuates the class concepts)
- Fair and universal application of inheritance tax to reduce the inequalities over the generations
- The taxation of assets (beyond a certain point so that people don't need to sell their home) and not just income
All those have arguments for/against, but it would be good for them to be honestly discussed and considered by those with the power to effect change.
That’s a great way to discourage investment and capital formation and encourage emigration. There’s a reason wealth taxes are not popular in OECD countries.
Well, there are two reasons: the Prisoner's Dilemma, and good old fashioned bribery (or "campaign financing" as we euphemistically call it).
Fortunately, however, the recent agreement for a global minimum corporation tax rate[0] shows that major economies can sometimes solve the coordination problem needed to avoid the "race to the bottom" that capitalists try to impose on nation states.
A modest proposal would be that the top 1% of wealth holders in the world would have to pay a 1% annual tax to their country of residence. The WTO could be tasked with determining the true wealth of any multi-millionaires who bribe national officials into under-reporting their holdings. Any country that defects from this agreement, and any multi-millionaire who hides in one of those countries, would be met with sanctions and treated like the corrupt oligarch that they are.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_minimum_corporate_tax_r...
And they would keep owning them if they were made to abdicate
(er, kidding in case that wasn't obvious)
I suppose I'm hoping that if people knew who really owned the country, and who would be the winners and losers of a LVT, there would be such strong support for one that it would be politically untenable to oppose it.
The idea that these mean we have no democracy is absurd, and does no credit to the reasonable arguments for disestablishmentarianism.
There are probably some antidisestablishmentarianists who disagree with that definition, though.
Tbh, if you look at the performance of the queen compared to the performance of recent prime ministers, well, let's just say it's not a shining example of democracy at it's best.
Maybe the reason the Queen is so respected is that she doesn't (visibly) exercise much power, and the lesson there is actually that Prime Ministers should be more limited in what they can do of their own volition (without broad consent from the public, in the form of a truly representative parliament and an independent judiciary enforcing a codified constitution).
Uh huh. I think reductio ad absurdum wants to have a word.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Ki...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Consent#Vetting_of_bil...
It's unlikely they talk about tea and biscuits.
But the real issue is that the Queen legitimises hierarchy and privilege. Instead of modelling democratic authority and meritocracy, she models the opposite - vast inherited wealth and land ownership, without accountability.
She is also the head of the armed forces, who swear an oath of loyalty to her personally - not to Parliament, and certainly not to the people of the UK.
In the UK she has Sovereign Immunity, which means she literally cannot be convicted of any crime. She can't even interviewed.
None of this would be a problem if she was in any way outstanding, but unfortunately the Royal Family have made some exceptionally poor choices. The Prince Andrew trial - and his $12m bailout - is just the most recent scandal in a long series of shady events and associations.
To be fair, a weekly chat at any other frequency would be quite eccentric!
Speaking as someone who was just such a person (although at the time I did it, in the service I was in, there was no loyalty oath at all), while I can see the issue with this, I would really not have felt comfortable going on record as loyal to parliament or the the people of the UK. We should just bin it entirely; it's a job, with legal conditions and requirements. No need for any weird oaths.
But that only proves that what we have now is an elective dictatorship where the Prime Minister of the day effectively exercises all the powers of the sovereign, without any real accountability or separation of powers.
Removing powers from the Queen (or even just codifying them in a written constitution) would be the first step towards fixing this democratic deficit and allowing the people to choose someone more suitable to hold those powers, with a proper mandate to support them.
The particular reform I propose is introducing a "Governor General" role for the UK, who has the power to veto laws, treaties, and wars, but remains nominally answerable to the Queen just as the Prime Minister pretends to be. To be eligible for the role, candidates would need to be nominated by 20% of MPs, and they would be elected in a national election using the Supplementary Vote method.
(As an American) this is a more pessimistic view of how it appears to me. Maybe I'm being naive but the voice of the people does appear to provide accountability. The idea that David Cameron felt the need to resign after the Brexit vote because he no longer had the support of the public seems like a big deal to me. We're not really big on admitting defeat over here.
Our constitution is built on the so-called 'good chap theory of governance', which is that power is in the hands of people 'like us', and therefore reasonable. If the PM loses a vote of no confidence he's obliged to resign. What makes him? Nothing. But that's the convention and it's been followed until now.
It's also a constitutional convention to resign from ministerial office if caught lying to Parliament. (Yes, really!) That one, though, looks defunct: Boris Johnson is a serial liar, and has managed to get himself referred to the Privileges Committee of the Commons for lying over his lockdown breaches despite his majority in the Commons. Will he resign? Will he hell. He doesn't want to, and all the Commons can do is bring the whole government down (and even then only if he is prepared to resign then). He's made it clear he doesn't care, and the Conservative Party in the Commons has made clear they're not willing to face an election over it, so that's that.
A similar thing happened over the Prorogation of the House just before Brexit. That was fairly straightforwardly a contempt of Parliament, and the advice to prorogue was found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. But nothing of consequence happened to those in charge as a result.
I'm grateful our political culture isn't quite as buggered as that of the US at this point, but I'd be grateful for slightly stronger guardrails against misconduct than simply hoping it doesn't happen.
So the plan goes something like this: pass the Statute of Proclamations[0], optionally repeal by proclamation section 4 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022[1] to keep your complaisant Parliament in place indefinitely, optionally make a proclamation preventing them from meeting, definitely refuse Royal Assent to a Disabling Act, and then govern by decree as you please.
Obviously this isn't failsafe in any way. Dictatorships aren't stable just because they've got legal cover, and the politics would need to be carefully managed. But there's nothing in our constitution that would prevent it.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_by_the_Crown_Ac...
No it doesn't. It just means it's irrelevant to ordinary life.
What they have has no bearing on how I live. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
That may be technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the details are more interesting:
"Since the sixteenth century no [British] monarch has actually signed a Bill themselves. Instead, the monarch signs what are known as Letters Patent which announce that an assent has been given."
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/law/what...
At least in Norway, laws have to be signed by the King and the prime minister (with a few exceptions); for example, in 1975 the King did not sign a law passed by Parliament/Stortinget and the law did not become effective (this was, however, a special occation related to a strike where the two parts found an aggreement after the law was passed by Parliament but before it was signed by the King and the prime minister, so the government recommended the King not to sign). See https://lovdata-no.translate.goog/artikkel/vil_kongen_nekte_...
The monarch chooses the PM, it's 'her majesty's government' according to law and tradition; she refused Australia's choice of PM in the past IIRC.
Perhaps, but rather bad looking than bad functioning; I'm not intimate with how the Stuart Restoration worked, but the monarchy in Norway was introduced in 1905 by vote and has been widely popular since. If the monarchy and its role in the constitution and the sosicety have continuous support by a majority of the population, then it is a good look for a country claiming to be democratic?
That being said, our Presidents have not real power in the legislative process, pretty much like most Monarchs do.
Playing this process, like in your example, is fair game if doesn't happen all the time.
It's like a schoolchild having to explain themselves to the headmaster.
There is little other reason to keep the monarchy, but that's enough.
Furthermore there's an argument to be made that the UK system of government is considerably more modern that that of the US. After all, their system is essentially a direct copy of the UK system of the time, with a few minor tweaks. The house is parliament, the Senate is the House of Lords, and the President is an elected King George V. Signing laws is Royal Assent, dissolving the House is Prorogation, he can even pardon criminals. I say George V specifically because the powers of the crown have been massively reformed since, really from Queen Anne onwards, but the US system has remained frozen in time.
Not really, almost all of the things done by government for the daily management of the country are not related to the constitution and are already codified.
You would need to figure out, agree and codify a mechanism for changing power, but you can arrange it so that you have years to do it and codifying that small part is not that huge of a task; USA had long conventions but that was more because of the need to actually create a country; and many other countries post-revolutions have functioned quite reasonably while codifying the constitutions, because it really doesn't affect the daily things, and you can run on interim rules (in UK's case, continuing as before for a limited time) until it's done.
"The Basic Laws of Sweden (Swedish: Sveriges grundlagar) are the four constitutional laws of the Kingdom of Sweden that regulate the Swedish political system, acting in a similar manner to the constitutions of most countries. ... Together, they constitute a basic framework that stands above other laws and regulation, and also define which agreements are themselves above normal Swedish law."[1]
You're right, though, that sounds a lot like the arrangement that Israel has, and the Wikipedia article for the "Basic Laws of Israel"[2] says (without citation):
"Israel is one of 6 countries (along with Canada, New Zealand, San Marino, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom) that operates entirely or in part according to an uncodified constitution..."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada
There are places with written constitutions that have turned out better than the US one, but if you look at parallels between the UK and other nations, the US is the most likely one for the UK to follow. That way lies ruin.
2nd amendment ruined society, exactly how? The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law. What is in ruins?
[edit: on re-reading, the above is not true. I meant to claim that removing the 2A was heresy. My bad]
Look, this is just an opinion, but from the outside looking in, your society is frankly awful at looking after its people, and the everyone-gets-a-gun made sense a few hundred years ago with frontier justice, but certainly doesn't today. The gun culture doesn't create (as claimed) a "polite society", it creates a society based on fear, where everything is much more dangerous because guns are, at least potentially, involved.
I've been stopped by the police twice in my lifetime for speeding - once when I was a kid just passed his test, once a decade or so ago driving up the 280 to SF Airport and running late. The one in the US was a far more fraught affair - I suddenly remembered advice to keep your hands visible, don't make any sudden moves, etc. etc.
In contrast the UK one was a walk in the park. Got the ticket, the policeman even cracked a joke to reduce the tension, and the worst part was telling my mother (I was still driving on her insurance).
That's an anecdote, not data, but it's a microcosm of any interaction with the police. Over here every tinpot town has military hardware and SWAT teams because the criminals might have guns, the police are poorly trained in general, SWAT teams included, and the interaction between police and policed is far more tense, controlling and authoritative as a result. Because of guns being so prolific, the Peelian principles of policing are pretty much impossible to apply, and so US police do their job with overwhelming force for the given situation and employ fear as a standard tactic...
Every shopkeeper is more alert for guns; Another anecdote: I was being driven from McCarrean airport to a hotel in Vegas for a trade show before I started living here, and my cab driver pulled out in front of someone, who chased him, got alongside and pulled a gun (!!!). My cab driver pulled one right back at him (!!!!!!). They yelled at each other and went their different ways. Could have gone a lot differently. This sort of thing doesn't happen in civilized society.
> The US still enjoys the largest economy and military in the world respectively. Religious and personal freedoms are codified in law
Well, great ? It doesn't change how American society interacts. And the abuse of "religious freedoms" to oppress people is another huge problem in American society in general. I wouldn't go claiming that one, personally.
To be clear, I didn't mean that the 2A was the only reason American society is ruined, but it's more along the lines of (with apologies to EI, this is from memory):
"The gun doesn't kill people, people kill people"
"Well, yes, but the gun helps, doesn't it? I mean, if I walked up behind someone and yelled BANG! they're not very likely to drop dead, are they ? They'd have to be pretty dodgy on the old ticker for that to kill them"
In the same way, the 2A hasn't killed American society, but it helps.
Feel free to disagree :) I don't really care about fake internet points, and I realize this isn't a popular opinion in America, but from the outside looking in - y'all are nuts.
The core societal question is do we still believe that?
If one believes that it isn't, then the constitution should be amended to reflect the tradeoff between safety and security the populace is willing to accept.
If one believes it is, then one must look for other ways to moderate risk and accept that any group that has power will sometimes abuse it.
Well, in life, you might come across some situations where running away isn't really an option. I've got an (American) wife who likes it here, and a kid whose schooling I don't want to interrupt.
Yes. If it were just me, I'd leave. I've made enough millions that I could live quite happily back in my home country, but, you know... Life. Not just your own opinion counts...
American society is screwed up, IMHO. A large part of that is due to the policy of fear used by authorities, due to guns, and another large part is due to the wide "independent" streak within the society - I put it in quotes because it's really just selfishness, and guns are the poster-child for that attitude.
shrug Nothing I say can matter, I can't even vote, but it doesn't mean I don't have eyes to see.
(Answer is 3, albeit they’re different sets apart from the UK)