PoliticsUK Jubilee Debates: "She is the living embodiment of our constitution."

She is the living embodiment of our constitution. A bit of paper can be ignored. A woman who owns complete control of the military simply cannot.

· · · Sunday at 19:43

2 people like this.
- Neil Barbour What constitution, We have no written constitution
  Sunday at 19:46 · · 2
- Ewan Valentine That's exactly my point, she IS our constitution.
  Sunday at 19:46 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall Well to be fair she doesn't have COMPLETE control of the Armed Forces...
  Sunday at 19:48 via Mobile · · 2
- Alan J B Wyllie The Queen is only commander in Chief of the Armed forces.
  All legal orders for the military comes via the normal chain of command which ultimately is the MOD.
  Sunday at 19:50 ·
- Steven Preece A legal paper cannot be ignored a person can. Just look at the gov to see how.
  Sunday at 19:51 ·
- Neil Barbour She is a constitutional monarch who has no powers other than ratification of parliamentary bills. She can no longer refuse to sign a bill if she disagrees with it. The monarchy is an out-dated concept which is a great tourist attraction but if any other tourist attraction cost as much for upkeep as the monarchy, it would've been disposed of years ago
  Sunday at 19:51 · · 4
- Steven Preece Still has power to declare war
  Sunday at 19:51 · · 1
- Neil Barbour Actually she doesn't have that right anymore. The right to declare war was transferred to the MOD in 1979. War is declared in her name but she has no legal right to declare war now
  Sunday at 19:53 · · 1
- Steven Preece or dissolve parliament
  Sunday at 19:54 · · 1
- Joel Zumokuta Hall Actually she can. Regardless of the last governments listing of Crown powers, the law is still the law.
  Sunday at 19:54 via Mobile ·
- Luke Welshy Grattan if anyone says "would you want another politician" well politicians mess this country but the monarchy just makes it WORSE
  Sunday at 19:55 · · 1
- Steven Preece Actually she can. See Foreign Affairs of the Royal Prerogative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative_%28United_Kingdom%29
  
  Royal prerogative in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  en.wikipedia.org
  
  The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity,...See more
  
  Sunday at 19:57 · ·
- Neil Barbour the monarch has the "right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn", her role involves no exercise of discretion.[
  Sunday at 19:57 ·
- Luke Welshy Grattan can't she choose whether or not there's a prime minister?
  Sunday at 19:57 ·
- Sam Marner Ewan you do know what will happen the second the Queen tries to take control of the military? She will be ignored.
  Sunday at 19:58 ·
- Steven Preece She can call a re-election or dissolve parliament and call re-election but cannot choose her PM ultimately
  Sunday at 19:59 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall I just cannot see how a monarch makes things worse? Perhaps you can elaborate. Also the Queen taking charge of the Armed Forces would not be ignored. Have you ever actually seen a military attestation and contract?
  Sunday at 20:03 via Mobile ·
- Sam Marner I know soldiers who would not follow specific orders from a monarch, one even refused to salute and got punished.
  Sunday at 20:04 ·
- Geoff Ludden
  The Prime Minister is selected by the Queen. It is usually the Party leader who can command a majority in the House of Commons. That person is HER Fisrt Minister, the First Lord of the Treasury and known these days as Prime Minister, a title which was adopted in the early twentieth century. No Goverbnment can be formed after an election unless the Queen invites a Party leader to form one. Sio much for democracy. So Steven you are wrong, she does choose the Prime Minister. Why do people assume that an Elected President has to bea Politician, the current Preseident of the Republic of Ireland is a famous Poet with no political allegiance. Ireland has hjada succession of very good Presidents and many of them have had no political allegiance.
  
  Sunday at 20:07 ·
- Neil Barbour Has a monarch ever gone against the will of the people and not ratified the leader of the largest party to become Prime Minister. No, if they did then it would be abuse of an outdated power. The problem in this country would be if we elected a populist president, we'd end up with someone like Simon Cowell or David Beckham
  Sunday at 20:12 ·
- Sam Marner so make the role ceremonial of remove it altogether.
  Sunday at 20:12 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall She has appointed Prime Ministers who weren't voted for yes.
  Sunday at 20:14 via Mobile ·
- Neil Barbour Forgive my ignorance then but as far as I was concerned, she has ratified the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons or a coalition of parties to reach a majority after every election
  Sunday at 20:18 ·
- Charles Patrick O'Brien Ewan in Scotland the people are still supposedly sovereign,and Scotland has a written constitution.
  Sunday at 20:18 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall Not really no. Think back to hung parliaments, appointment of John Major or Gordon Brown. There was no election then, and it's doubtful the outcome would have been the same if there was.
  Sunday at 20:22 via Mobile ·
- Sam Marner They were elected as members of their constituency.
  Sunday at 20:24 ·
- Sam Marner Oh and by members of their own party.
  Sunday at 20:24 ·
- Sam Marner Hah.
  Sunday at 20:24 ·
- Neil Barbour They were still the leaders of the largest parties even if no election was held.
  Sunday at 20:24 ·
- Milly Peede She seems to have abdicated her responsibility. She's just a puppet
  Sunday at 20:25 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall But not elected by us to become leader.
  Sunday at 20:29 via Mobile ·
- Neil Barbour She still has 'officially' got powers, but only for ratification purposes. I could go and look up my doctoral research on remaining rights of UK royal prerogative but it's Sunday night and comfy
  Sunday at 20:31 · · 2
- Neil Barbour
  Yes but Wilson led the largest party in the House of Commons even if not a majority. Both Major and Brown were elected leaders of the largest parties so took the role of Prime Minister. The monarch ratified those decisions. She did not dissolve parliament and insist they got a mandate from the country. It is well known she preferred Heath to Wilson so if was her choice/decision she'd have chosen Heath but went with the will of the electorate
  
  Sunday at 20:43 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall I think it's silly to assume in these times we vote purely for our constituency MP and not for a PM and government forming party. The politicans electing national leaders is more undemocratic than having a monarch.
  Sunday at 20:46 via Mobile ·
- Sam Marner Joel its a party system. They are elected to their constituency then elected by party members, trade unionists, MPs and so on to head the party. Bottom line is they don't have the power of a head of state and have to persuade their cabinet what to do.
  
  And nothing is more undemocratic than having a monarch. Being plopped out a very specific vag doesn't quite add up to a comprehensive and fair election.
  Sunday at 21:01 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall How is voting for a party full of MPs, controlled by whips, sucking up to the PM and voting against their own consciences and those of the constituents they represent, in order for self-preservation, while making questionable decisions whilst being linkd to dubious friends in any way 'democratic'? Having said that, what is so great about democracy anyway? Why do we defend it so much knowing it is basically a sham?
  Sunday at 21:09 via Mobile ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall Besides have you seen most cabinet members? Are you convinced that the lower house is a place for the average common to exercise their right to be part of the legislative arm of the government, or a farce full of well-educated, mostly from well off backgrounds who often have dealings on the side and do as they're told by their party? It's understood in the monarchy. It's a farce in the Commons.
  Sunday at 21:12 via Mobile ·
- Sam Marner Now that's just laughable. People like Dennis Skinner really work hard to represent their constituents, and you continue to believe that the removal of the monarchy will lead to a dictatorial PM, when (and I state AGAIN) they would gain no extra power, and would most likely be superceded by a ceremonial president or a simple lack of the head of state.
  Sunday at 21:19 · · 1
- Darryn Murphy Sorry, was that argument in favour or against monarchy. I mean, surely putting an individual as a constitution on the sole basis of birth, or anything indeed for that matter, has a most twisted form of worship of that individual. Also, a constitution isn't just words, it is the written ideals by which a nation under defines itself. Putting the monarchy as the constitution says a lot about Britain.
  Sunday at 21:21 · · 1
- Joel Zumokuta Hall Exactly what is wrong with it? Is the sole argument that the Queen is unelected? Much like the civil service, who basically run the government. Anyone know off the top of their head who the Permenant Secretary of the Treasury is? This person is in charge of the running of the treasury. Anyone here vote for him?
  Sunday at 21:34 via Mobile ·
- Darryn Murphy
  Not that she is just unelected, but rather because it is down to birth right and the position is permanent. You can talk about all of the flaws amongst politicians, along with all of the secrecy and the fact that most politicians owe their position also to going to private schools. Those are all flaws which deserve debate in itself, but the issue is the monarchy, and it's a complete fallacy to try to justify something with a criticism of another flaw, especially when both of these things exist side by side in a political situation which isn't paradoxical in that both exist.
  
  Sunday at 21:40 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall
  No it's not fallacy to criticise something which is touted as being a better alternative. Who cares if she was born into the position? Exactly how does that make her less qualified? In fact I would argue that from birth, growing up under the previous monarch, with daily exposure to Royal duties, being used to the obvious intrusion into everyday life, being nurtured and taught all later positions and goals, being trained in the arts of diplomacy, decision making, constitution and government whilst a child and having a character devloped to those ends by being surrounded be a whole environment of royal proceedings 24 hours a day, makes the Queen better qualified than anyone else to hold that position.
  
  Sunday at 21:51 via Mobile · · 1
- Darryn Murphy
  She has as much legitimate qualifications for monarch as the child of a doctor does for medical studies. One does not choose birth, and is entirely arbitrary to one's control or talents, meaning that birth shouldn't play any political role in one's life. You won't find me defending the current parlimentary system. It has many ugly flaws which exist in monarchy. I would replace it with another system of pure merit free of one's upbringing and localised democracy. On the last note, if that were the case then you've reduced politics to a more base form of 'knowing your place' Politics should be inclusive, with anyone capable being a potential head of state, not some absurd notion of birth. Elizabeth Windsor isn't the worst political figure, far from it, but she's far from the best. She's a decent political figure, but she's not the best the country could have. And if you want further proof of how flawed your argument is, look at the current first in line. I wouldn't say that Charles is in any way fit to be even an office manager.
  
  Sunday at 22:08 ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall
  A doctor's child does not grow up in a hospital, learning medicine from the moment they are born. Of course as far as politics goes, the monarch is essentially a non-political boss of the government. Both bodies act as fail safes against the uncontrolled power of the others. The biggest attack on our system is proposed abuses of the Parliament Act by Blair which can force through legislature without approval. A right that should at the least be diminished, if not removed completely.
  Being a head of state is of course nothing like entering a trade or profession. Much like civil servants, royals are groomed towards a position on which international relations often hinge greatly. You would be extremely hard pressed to find any suitable candidate who could be trained to fill this role with the sheer amount of background that must go into the process. Besides, given that Charles runs various endeavours very well, I don't quite understand your argument there.
  
  Sunday at 22:17 via Mobile ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall
  A doctor's child does not grow up in a hospital, learning medicine from the moment they are born. Of course as far as politics goes, the monarch is essentially a non-political boss of the government. Both bodies act as fail safes against the uncontrolled power of the others. The biggest attack on our system is proposed abuses of the Parliament Act by Blair which can force through legislature without approval. A right that should at the least be diminished, if not removed completely.
  Being a head of state is of course nothing like entering a trade or profession. Much like civil servants, royals are groomed towards a position on which international relations often hinge greatly. You would be extremely hard pressed to find any suitable candidate who could be trained to fill this role with the sheer amount of background that must go into the process. Besides, given that Charles runs various endeavours very well, I don't quite understand your argument there.
  
  Sunday at 22:17 via Mobile ·
- Joel Zumokuta Hall I have no idea why this posted twice...
  Sunday at 22:18 via Mobile ·
- Darryn Murphy
  And then by what means does one determine a monarch? You've relayed it back to merit. Politicians have much merit in the art of politics, not only being skilled and extremely informed, but also showing iniative to go into politics by choice. I don't think the current parliament arrangement is perfect as I've said before, it having it's own element of birth rights and oligarchy, but politicians are certainly apt to run the country, normally better than a monarch would do so. The monarchy today as well does little administration, preferring other powers they have. On the lack of suitable candidates, that's surely a good thing as in a correct meritocratic process the most talented would get to the top. Charles is a man who buys into absurd conspiracy theories, associates with crackpots and is generally not fit to rule.
  
  Sunday at 22:38 ·
- Donna Aston Think you;d find she can declare war or make peace - she is HEAD of the Armed Forces, not just a commander in chief.http://www.royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/armedforces/queenandthearmedforces.aspx
  
  Queen and the Armed Forces
  www.royal.gov.uk
  Profile of the role of the Sovereign in relation to the Armed Services.
  
  Monday at 17:54 · ·
- Diane Irving The present monarchy has far outlived their usefulness in a modern society, we no longer need "figureheads" to promote our country........they can no longer justify their place except through pageantry and therefore should step back and allow taxpayers money to be better allocated.
  Yesterday at 01:22 · · 1