Republic UK | Hacker News Reader

Republic UK

republic.org.uk

22 pointsacqbu55 comments

It never really bothered me either way, being an American, whether the UK continued to have a monarchy. It seemed just a touristy thing, or like a very expensive reality show.

That was until Boris Johnson got the queen to suspend parliament so he could push through a no-deal brexit in 2019[0]

Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? The PM can just do an end-run around the elected members, pause everything to run out the clock, and then come back and force through his version of a highly contentious event for the UK?

Fucking bonkers. End the monarchy.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2019/08/28/754990771/britains-prime-mini...

I'd say this particular loophole has effectively been patched now, given the Supreme Court ruling that declared this incident unlawful. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_British_prorogation_contr... is a much more informative link than the NPR one.)

Didn’t this bill effectively reinstate that ability?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_and_Calling_of_P...

Oh, you're quite right. Cemented it in law, even.

It has not. Following the prorogation there was a general election. The Tories won a large majority and put forward the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. It, in part emphasized that relevant Royal Prerogative powers are non-justiciable. Essentially, it made it clear that the Supreme Court shouldn't interfere (In the UK, Parliament is the supreme legal authority—it can make laws that override the Supreme Court).

>That was until Boris Johnson got the queen to suspend parliament so he could push through a no-deal brexit in 2019[0]

>Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that? The PM can just do an end-run around the elected members, pause everything to run out the clock, and then come back and force through his version of a highly contentious event for the UK?

Having a non-monarch head of state wouldn't have inherently resulted in anything different.

> Having a non-monarch head of state wouldn't have inherently resulted in anything different.

The Queen is unelected and has the power to dissolve parliament. That’s fucked. At least without her the person doing the shitty thing is subject to being sacked.

If she (or any future monarch) were to exercise that power unilaterally, the monarchy would be finished. So in a roundabout way, they'd be sacked.

The process of dissolving the monarchy is certainly more arduous than a routine election, though.

The alternative would be having a head of state that, in many countries, is also not directly elected and has the power to dissolve parliament. If you want to argue from principles that the latter is better, fine, but it would have done nothing to avert what Johnson did; indeed, as a political figure, a president in her role would have had additional pressure to dissolve parliament.

That sort of misses the important details that [i] his gambit failed a legal challenge so he ended up calling an election instead and [ii] the reason he could try had everything to do with the broad executive powers of the PM and nothing to do with the Queen.

If you scrapped the Queen and kept the PM role as it is, he'd have had the same meeting with himself!

> Sorry, what kind of bullshit is that?

This bullshit is called prorogation. According to Wikipedia [0], there are a number of countries that have provisions for the prorogation of Parliament. They do not have to be monarchies. In absence of the queen, it could have been Boris himself who suspended the Parliament if the republic gave its prime minister (or president) such power.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation

It seems to me that having the queen involved provides a false sense of separation of powers. Prorogation in most countries is a routine process that signals the end of a particular session. It seems unique to the UK that this power move could even play out.

I’m not familiar with this process, which is why it surprised me. Are there any countries where the PM can routinely and/or for political purposes just end parliament without triggering an election?

It strikes me as a situation where , absent the monarchy, such a situation would have been so quickly abused that the constitution would have been patched to preclude it.

In any case, and on base principle, no unelected head of state should be able to dissolve parliament. Like, full stop.

It is common for PM-plus-president systems to have the PM govern and the president be allowed to dissolve parliament. They are usually independent enough unless the president is seeking reelection.

A Canadian perspective is given in "Prorogation: A Powerful Tool Forged by History"

https://www.lawnow.org/prorogation-forged-by-history/

In recent years, Canadians have tended to treat Prime Ministers who attempt prorogation with enmity:

https://archive.ph/nKG0a

Getting rid of the monarchy would imply establishing a written constitution as the current one strongly requires the presence of a monarch. It seems unlikely that a new UK written constitution would include a power for the prime minister or head of state to shut down parliament for an extended period of time in peace time (although with these idiots in charge everything is possible). So a republic is sufficient, but not necessary - you could just have a constitutional monarchy with a written constitution instead.

This is wrong. The prime minister technically asks the queen to do everything, he is only an adviser to her. All of the PM's powers are actually the queens, if she was removed he would retain any of his powers (prorogation included). The only difference would be that he wouldn't have to ask, but the asking is more ceremonial, the queen has no real choice but to do as he says.

TL;DR asking the queen to do things is just a ceremony with no real impact on the PM's powers, removing the queen is removing the ceremony not the powers.

The Queen has the power, but she has no choice than to do what the PM says? This is autocracy with extra steps.

End the monarchy, end the bullshit ceremonies, and write up some rules for when you’re allowed to trash the government.

>This is autocracy

No it isn't. The monarch's position is purely ceremonial. The queen doesn't pose even the slightest risk to democracy in the UK. She has no power to act outside of the government's will, just a bunch of old documents that say she theoretically can.

>End the monarchy, end the bullshit ceremonies, and write up some rules for when you’re allowed to trash the government.

You don't have an argument here. You have a claim that the ceremonies and culture of another country should be destroyed, and accompanying it you have a request that legal loopholes in its system of governance should be resolved.

My counter-proposal is that the loopholes are resolved and the tradition remains intact.

it would be nice if you put some effort into how constitutional monarchies work before starting an ill informed rant

personally: I'd rather have our slightly flawed system that evolved to deal with various issues over the centuries

rather than the disaster that is the system designed from scratch that is used in the US (so bad it's essentially used by absolutely no-one else)

As governmental systems go, having an unelected head of state is actually kind of smart. Their lack of democratic legitimacy means they don’t try to exercise any real power, leaving that to the parliamentary parties. But they represent the nation and the military swears loyalty to them, so they effectively have a one use “sorry, but they’ve gone too far, I’m dismissing this government” card they can play in case of absolute dire tyranny. There’s no way to fire them, it’s very hard to bribe them, they’re trained for the job from birth and there are backups in place in case they die. The system avoids many of the problems found with elected presidents (whether US or parliamentary style) while preserving all the benefits of democratic government. My only complaint is that the system for choosing the next one could be a bit more representative than “firstborn child of the current monarch”. But changing only that part of the system now without ruining it would be pretty hard.

Oh, but they do exercise real power

However, in practice: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

> they effectively have a one use “sorry, but they’ve gone too far, I’m dismissing this government” card they can play

In reality, they don't have that card. The day the monarch tries to dismiss an elected government will be the day the monarchy is abolished and the UK becomes a republic.

During the invasion of Norway in WWII, the King was requested by the Germans to appoint a new nazi-friendly prime minister, which the King refused. But as you have pointed out, what the King actually did was to say to the sitting government that he would abdicate if the government gave in to the threats of the Germans. Later during the war, when the King was in exile in England, some parts of the parliament left in Norway (the nazi-friendly part) required the King to abdicate, which he refused.

These episodes are known as "the King's no" and were very important symbols for the resistance movement in Norway (https://snl-no.translate.goog/Kongens_nei?_x_tr_sl=no&_x_tr_...). The actual importance of these "nos" are controversial, but they carry a significant symbolic value and made it harder for the Germans to establish a new government with any legitimacy. I guess faking a vote would have been rather easy, trying to change King much harder

BDFL

A partisan elected president? No thanks. Boris should be in the Tower for misleading the Queen on the prorogation of parliament. First rule of government: don't put the monarch in an awkward situation. Our fault for electing a nasty narcissistic clown. There is plenty to fix in our system of government before getting to the monarch/president question.

Wait until you get a monarch that you don't like. I guess then you'll ask for a way of choosing one that you do. Or perhaps you're an obedient servant of the royals, no matter who they are?

Perhaps, but it is also possible to respect people one doesn't like and acknowledge that they may serve another role in society than being liked by me. The GP may enjoy being challenged by someone with other priorities than Tiktok (which optimizes for "liking"). I'm not arguing that the Royals are infallible, but I don't think we should dismiss the thought that having someone in a central position of society with other priorities than instant popularity and having to be liked can be useful

Then you live to serve them, not the other way around.

What do you mean with "live to serve them"? Why would I want them to live to serve me (if that is the other way around)? What does that even mean? I believe the Royals have a greater sense of duty and living in service of the nation than you and I have of living in the service of the monarch, wouldn't you agree?

Are you talking purely symbolically or about what people are actually doing and experiencing in their everyday life?

I don't agree with your statement at all. It seems to be largely based on faith, which I lack. IMO we all have own selfish vested interests and the system doesn't necessarily enforce good alignment between them. Put it this way, if you were to design a democracy from scratch for a given nation, I doubt (and I could be wrong) that you would try to recreate the British system. Now you might say that the UK is exceptional, but I would not.

You might think I'm overly reductive, but I feel if you have an exclusive ruling class, implicitly the role of everyone else is to support (serve) them.

I'm not in the UK and so I'm free of the powerful UK media bias towards the prevailing system (I would speculate that there are a lot of vested interests in keeping it as it is). How do you feel about other monarchies around the world? Are they equally great systems? Would you advocate that all countries should have monarchs?

Queen Elizabeth II has served her people for the last 70 years—in fact, since she was born 96 years ago. The constitutional monarchy requires that she and her heirs devote essentially their entire lives to service of the country. She has been driven by duty and service for longer than most of us have been alive.

Personally, I am profoundly grateful for how she has lived her life and what she has given to the UK.

She seems like a decent person. I don't know if the next one would be.

Criticising the UK royals feels like criticising a religion, and all that goes with that.

> Criticising the UK royals feels like criticising a religion

For the Queen and some Anglican believers that's literally true. She's an anointed monarch [0] and supreme leader of the Church of England. During the coronation, the anointing by the Archbishop of Canterbury consecrated and sacralized her—made her holy. The anointing has been the central part of the coronation for at least 1000 years. Of course, most people don't take all that seriously today (nor do I).

[0]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22764987

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration

I live in a constitutional monarchy. It's a constant parade of prime ministers I don't like, from a pool of candidates I don't like.

Think I'd rather have Elizabeth.

What about a scenario where it's someone like Prince Andrew?

you have summed up my feelings on politics pretty well.

If I were to dedicate my time to politics in any way, it would be to get a little check box on the vote that says "they are all rubbish, please go away and try harder to find decent candidates"

The abolition of the monarchy is extremely unlikely to happen. There's no appetite for it among the general populace. No major political party supports it. If we had a referendum about it today, it would be rejected by a massive majority. These people are cranks.

True, but that doesn't account for the speed at which the minority is growing, up to over a third now, nor the impact on public opinion of Charles vs Liz.

They may end up being caught offside quicker than expected.

Charles isn't very popular, but William is.

We'll see what the situation is in 20-30 years then. And if William hasn't already resolved to abolish himself by then. Stranger things have happened. William for President, POTUK.

From the polling it does indeed seem like the general population believes the monarchy is good for Britain. But that opinion is changing[1]. I certainly wouldn't call those promoting the view of the UK becoming a republic "cranks".

1 - https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/tzluoaf4hh/YouGov%20-%20Jubilee%...

True. And I'd go further: once the campaign stops becoming "get rid of the monarchy" and becomes "set up exactly this system X", support will go down even further. It's a very useful fiction that the monarch isn't political.

> These people are cranks

I'm not part of any organisation, but I would like us (I'm British) to become a republic.

I'm not a crank, I'm just outnumbered.

I think a large part of the resistance British people have to the idea of abolishing the monarchy is that they don't know what they would replace it with, and they think that having a royal family is a harmless fairy tale that makes Britain special.

Fortunately that still leaves room for compromise with those who prefer a more egalitarian constitutional system, and I think this is something that organisations like Republic should consider (at the risk of shrinking the Overton window).

As a transitional step, then, towards one day abandoning the monarchy, Britain should introduce the role of a Governor General for the country, who would be given a democratic mandate to exercise the powers that people assume the Queen can still wield but which are in practice held by the Prime Minister (depriving the country of the checks and balances that republics generally have).

Specifically, the Governor General would be able to veto laws, treaties, and wars, but would be kept accountable to parliament through the possibility of impeachment, which would trigger a new election for their replacement. Eligibility for the role should be limited to citizens who are nominated by at least 20% of MPs, and I would propose that the Supplementary Vote system be used for these elections.

How do you ensure that the Governor General is apolitical?

The monarchy is essentially a system for rearing apolitical figureheads. Any change towards a president would therefore be concrete change to how things are run and I’m not sure it would be a change for the better.

> How do you ensure that the Governor General is apolitical?

How do you ensure the monarch is apolitical?[0] How do you ensure that the person effectively wielding the monarch's powers under the current system is apolitical? That isn't even a claimed feature of the current system, because those powers are wielded by the PM who is decidedly not apolitical.

The only concrete change of introducing a Governor General would be that some powers are removed from the PM and given to someone with a democratic mandate to (rarely) use them. These powers would be just as political as they are now, except they would be properly shared between two people, providing a separation of powers that is common outside of autocracies.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_consent#Vetting_of_bil...

I think the monarchy in the UK still has a good 30 years or so. I suspect William will be the last consitutional monarch before the country adopts a presidential system.

The tourism benefits of the monarchy are proven to outlast the monarchy itself — France's monarchy still brings in millions of euros each year, despite not having existed for over 200 years.

This seems to breach the HN guidelines - it's deeply political.

The UK monarchy is a circus that should be taken off the air! I can't believe this corrupt family is a matter of so much media attention! Just ignore these clowns! It's the 21st century and monarchy should be abolished entirely everywhere! Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing!

> The UK monarchy is a circus that should be taken off the air! I can't believe this corrupt family is a matter of so much media attention! Just ignore these clowns! It's the 21st century, and monarchy should be abolished entirely everywhere! Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing!

These are strong opinions and claims but you haven't provided any substantial arguments for them. Why should monarchy "be abolished entirely everywhere" if the monarchy has a clear support by a majority of the population in these places?

> Enough of these fairy tales about princesses, princes, and frog-kissing!

For many, the royals are actually important and beloved public figures who gives a voice to minorities and "the voiceless" that are easily forgotten by politicians, providing stability across generations and unity across political orientation. You may not respect them, but calling them "clowns" and "frog-kissing" without reason does not stimulate to good discussions

The former colonies/dominions/outposts of the British Empire have increasingly abandoned the monarchy, with Barbados being the latest to the best of my knowledge without looking it up. Public opinion in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand tends to swing very tightly between monarchy and abolition in recent times.

The major problem in the UK is that Parliament is overpowerful. There is nothing to balance or check them. The monarchy is merely a rubberstamping ornament. What parliament says goes, and this was confirmed by the supreme court, Parliament is supreme.

All you need is a majority in the house of commons to pass whatever law you want. If the supreme court declares it illegal, you can just go back and change the whatever laws you need to to make it legal or just abolish the supreme court.

The reason the monarchary was restored after Cromwells Commonwealth was because legally it was the only body that could check the power of Parliament, parliament protects you from the monarchy but who protects us against parliament.

Unlike the Queen an elected head of state would be divisive, they'll inevitably be biased towards one or the other political parties.

I dont know what an acceptable solution would be.

You want your government shadow run by a monarchy or corporate lobby groups? We haven't seen a new government structure that limits corruption in a long time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com