[Aeschylus]

(Original post by Chronist)
What?

You'd have 2 options

1) A political election for 'president' - a similar figure head, with all the political sleaze that comes with such an election

2) you have someone with vague cross-party appeal elected by a smoky room of politicians. Given the riven nature of our political landscape, I can't see that happening.

If it ain't broke etc. The Queen gives us a huge amount of soft power.

[gladders]

(Original post by Aeschylus)
If it ain't broke etc. The Queen gives us a huge amount of soft power.

You have a very, very good point, and one which is overlooked. The Queen in particular and the monarchy in general is well-respected and hugely popular worldwide, regardless of the actions of our government. People can despise Blair, Brown, and Cameron, but the Queen herself will be greatly respected, along with the rest of the family. It's a valuable part of international diplomacy.

[sclez1]

(Original post by madders94)
No, because life isn't completely black and white. She doesn't have any real power but there is a certain tradition and ceremony to the state opening of parliament and the dissolution of parliament and the head of the elected political party going to the Queen and asking for permission to form a government, and it would be a shame to see that go. That's like saying "Well, if you're going to rape someone, you may as well go the whole hog and murder them too".

I see it as saying "I hate sweets, so I'm not going to eat any", rather than "I hate sweets, so I'll only eat a few". It's just an extension of the logic. If people think a monarch holding power is undemocratic, they shouldn't want her to hold any. If they see it as not black and white - some power is ok in some forms - then they should make this clear in their stance. I'm not necessarily for or against the monarchy, I'm just criticising that perspective; it seems to shrug off important details.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Cinnamon_Twist)
Yes/no and reasons please.
Personally, I don't think it does as our Queen has no real political power.

Could you make this a poll?

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by Roaroaroar)
She does that regularly before general elections. I don't see the big deal. If she did dissolve parliament on her own accord then we would simply get rid of her and become a republican. And this is irrelevant to the above definition.

Her current role is merely ceremonial formality.

I'm fairly certain if it was for the good of the people she would dissolve parliament, how is that a bad thing?

[sclez1]

(Original post by gladders)
Quite the opposite. There are certain constitutional powers that can't be used by the legislature or the executive, for fear these powers would be abused by the wielder for their advantage - for example, the power of appointing the PM. It wouldn't do for the outgoing PM to choose his successor, and it would be difficult for Parliament to choose a PM even to operate on a short-term basis, in some circumstances.

Placing the power in the monarch, separate from Executive and Legislature, is the practice of power denial: she is forbidden from abusing the power and must use it as little as possible, or run the risk of it being removed, or even of her being removed from power entirely.

It's easier to make a monarch follow this principle than an elected president, who would be tempted to argue that their elected origin gives them the right to use the power as they see fit.

It's a check-and-balance.

As for the other powers which are run exclusively on the advice of ministers - you could argue to remove them entirely from the monarch, but what benefit, exactly, would we gain? We'd be going through a very time-consuming and expensive legislative process just to return exactly where we are now: an expensive PR change, essentially.

So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't strip power from the monarch? Ok, but are you therefore saying that people that advocate the stripping of some power hold the above views? If so, I think their position needs to be clarified. That's all I'm saying.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
What is your point? I know the Queen has the power to dissolve Parliament. In reality, in the event of this hypothetical civil war between Crown and Parliament, Parliament will simply ignore any command to dissolve. Why on Earth would they obey some one they are at war with?

The power to dismiss the government is not the same thing as the power to dissolve parliament. Legally speaking, a dismissed government would no longer have the power to command the British Armed Forces. Whether or not the government would attempt to ignore the law and disobey the Queen is mere speculation.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
You're having a laugh if you think the government would let Her Majesty's pawn PM just waltz down into Whitehall and take control.

Once again, legally speaking, they would have absolutely no choice in the matter. A dismissed government would hold no official power whatsoever. whomever the Queen appointed in lieu of the dismissed Prime Minister would thereby have control of all governmental bodies and assets including the Armed Forces. At risk of repeating myself, the armed forces' allegiance is to the reigning monarch so there is no reason to presume that they would disobey orders deriving from the Queen's newly appointed Prime Minister. If they did so they would indeed be defecting.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I find it very amusing that at the same time you say this, you yourself are attempting to give a definitive answer of the views of the entire British Army. All soldiers go through the same basic training, we are all moulded the same. We use the same weapons, the same equipment, we eat the same food, we observe the same disciplinary and fitness standards. The tiny fraction of the Army I came into contact with is more than enough to give a representative view, and it's clear you actually don't have a clue on how the Army works if you think the Crown has any de facto power over us. Come on, seriously, walk me through a timeline of how exactly you think a Royal Coup d'état is going to play out.

Quite contrary to your assertion, I am not offering any conjecture upon the collective views of rank and file British soldiers. Indeed, I've already stated that their opinions are largely irrelevant considering their role is to merely follow orders. My speculation on what would unfold in this hypothetical scenario is based upon the constitutional law as it stands and the official allegiance of the British Armed Forces. Unless you achieved a rank amongst the highest echelons of the Army and thereby had extensive contact with high level decision makers, your anecdotal recollection of the attitudes and opinions of your comrades is completely worthless in the context of this debate.

[gladders]

(Original post by sclez1)
So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't strip power from the monarch? Ok, but are you therefore saying that people that advocate the stripping of some power hold the above views? If so, I think their position needs to be clarified. That's all I'm saying.

I'm saying that there are some powers which have to be separate from the executive and judiciary and would in any case be put in the Head of State, whatever their appointment origin - and I believe their incumbence in an impartial monarch is optimal.

But the other powers - the day to day stuff used by the government - formally removing those powers from the monarch would be pointless, as you would be copping out loads of time and money to give us the status quo - an expensive and futile image change for zero benefit.

[gladders]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
The power to dismiss the government is not the same thing as the power to dissolve parliament. Legally speaking, a dismissed government would no longer have the power to command the British Armed Forces. Whether or not the government would attempt to ignore the law and disobey the Queen is mere speculation.

Once again, legally speaking, they would have absolutely no choice in the matter. A dismissed government would hold no official power whatsoever. whomever the Queen appointed in lieu of the dismissed Prime Minister would thereby have control of all governmental bodies and assets including the Armed Forces. At risk of repeating myself, the armed forces' allegiance is to the reigning monarch so there is no reason to presume that they would disobey orders deriving from the Queen's newly appointed Prime Minister. If they did so they would indeed be defecting.

Actually, there's an important point to make here: the Army is commanded by the Queen, but is established and supplied with money and material by Parliament. The standing army is kept in existence by an annual Act of Parliament.

Without Parliament there, the Army would soon enough cease to exist. Without a government there, Parliament would simply refuse to vote the money for supply, and again the Army would cease to exist. The balance of power is in this alliance.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by gladders)
True, but there's just too many variables there for it to be easy to extrapolate, at least right now - I'm sure someone may study it one day. Plus, a lot of that might be down to opinion, while they kept themselves with stuff which can be made a little more empirical.

I disagree. I'd say they simply picked variables which would give a desirable result.

Am I? How? I've brought the table up as a means to show there is some evidence from an esteemed source that constitutional monarchies are perfectly democratic. You've disagreed with that source, and that's fair enough, but I've not seen a single authoritative source from republicans showing monarchies at the bottom of the pile.

Well, that's kind of my point. People have been arguing that monarchy makes us undemocratic, and I've shown that according to an esteemed source, the indication is the opposite: that they tend to be associated with very stable democracies. I'm willing to meet you halfway and state that the presence or absence of monarchy has no bearing on democracy.

Personally, I tend to avoid the monarchy is undemocratic argument because it's more a matter of appearances than other factors. If you have a position with no power, then whether you elect them or not is largely irrelevant to whether you have democracy, which is why I oppose the idea of a ceremonial head of state altogether. In fact, just make the PM head of state if you insist on calling someone by that title.

The problem I have with the monarchy in this regard is that people want to pretend they have power, and that for me does cause a problem with democracy, albeit if its only a principled rather than practical one.

I wouldn't, personally; I think the Swedish system is less than perfect, as it places powers over Parliament in the hands of the Speaker, and it makes the position a political football - as an office meant to be impartial, it's an important thing to avoid.

So, what powers does the Speaker hold in Sweden that you don't think they should.

And an office can never be impartial.

Furthermore, the ceremonial functions in all such offices is very important (I know you'll dismiss it, but it's a fundamental part of human nature to seek out and value ceremony and ritual). The monarchy is best placed to carry out those functions with gravitas. I doubt many would be as impressed by Mr. Bercow!

I don't think it's human nature, it's elite nature.

I think your proposal would fail in a referendum on that basis: people would expect a monarchy to be seen and to do something.

In particular, the monarchy would be expected to travel round the country, opening buildings, meeting people, making speeches and so on: it's a very, very busy job, and also costs a lot to maintain. You won't get away with making such a thing free of charge.

Argh, the number of times I've seen monarchists say 'polls support the monarchy' or 'we would win a referendum' or something similar....

The point of debate is to persuade others. Simply stating that one side is currently more popular is equivalent to Cameron/Miliband standing up in the TV debates before the election and saying "We must be better, because we're ahead in the polls."

But this is what I meant by what I said earlier; monarchists want to mimic absolute monarchy. People expect lots of things (for example, they expect the England team to do well), but we don't say the state should use tax money to enforce that these things happen.

[gladders]

(Original post by anarchism101)
I disagree. I'd say they simply picked variables which would give a desirable result.

That's the nature of all such tables really.

Personally, I tend to avoid the monarchy is undemocratic argument because it's more a matter of appearances than other factors. If you have a position with no power, then whether you elect them or not is largely irrelevant to whether you have democracy, which is why I oppose the idea of a ceremonial head of state altogether. In fact, just make the PM head of state if you insist on calling someone by that title.

I think this runs into the principle of the separation of powers at the very least. As above, there are certain powers which are by necessity placed into a third party separate from the legislature and the executive, to prevent their abuse by either. Power denial.

If it was such an obvious and straightforward thing to do, I think we'd have found at last one parliamentary state without a President or monarch - but there is none..

The problem I have with the monarchy in this regard is that people want to pretend they have power, and that for me does cause a problem with democracy, albeit if its only a principled rather than practical one.

I see what you mean, but I don't think it causes a problem for democracy at all. To flip it around, you could claim that the North Korean constitution claiming power from the people makes it actually any more democratic.

So, what powers does the Speaker hold in Sweden that you don't think they should.

Appointment and dismissal of the PM, chiefly.

And an office can never be impartial.

Never fully, of course - but you can minimize it as much as possible.

I don't think it's human nature, it's elite nature.

Funny, I think elite nature tends to dislike ritual!

Argh, the number of times I've seen monarchists say 'polls support the monarchy' or 'we would win a referendum' or something similar....

The point of debate is to persuade others. Simply stating that one side is currently more popular is equivalent to Cameron/Miliband standing up in the TV debates before the election and saying "We must be better, because we're ahead in the polls."

That's not my point. My point is that it's expected of the monarchy to do these things as part of the allure and interest in the institution. The monarchy's legitimacy rests an awful lot these days on the positive impact it gives to individual's lives.

But this is what I meant by what I said earlier; monarchists want to mimic absolute monarchy. People expect lots of things (for example, they expect the England team to do well), but we don't say the state should use tax money to enforce that these things happen.

I don't want to monarchy to mimic absolutism at all! On the contrary, I'm a huge fan of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which put paid to absolutism here. What I'm against is useless tinkering with the constitution where all it will do is bring us back to where we've started. The functioning of the government and its responsiveness to the people's wishes is absolutely unharmed by the present 'fiction' of the executive powers of the monarch.

If you could provide any evidence at all that the present arrangement in any way undermines the will of the people, and that formally removing the monarch's powers would improve the situation, I'd see your point. But all I see is statements of personal misgivings.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
The power to dismiss the government is not the same thing as the power to dissolve parliament. Legally speaking, a dismissed government would no longer have the power to command the British Armed Forces. Whether or not the government would attempt to ignore the law and disobey the Queen is mere speculation.

The Monarch doesn't have the power dismiss solely the government, and you're clearly a tad delusional if you think the government is ever going to abide by any attempt to do so.

Once again, legally speaking, they would have absolutely no choice in the matter. A dismissed government would hold no official power whatsoever. whomever the Queen appointed in lieu of the dismissed Prime Minister would thereby have control of all governmental bodies and assets including the Armed Forces. At risk of repeating myself, the armed forces' allegiance is to the reigning monarch so there is no reason to presume that they would disobey orders deriving from the Queen's newly appointed Prime Minister. If they did so they would indeed be defecting.

I think you're having a bit of trouble understanding the difference between de jure and de facto. In reality, as soon as the Crown makes it's power play, it will be 1642 all over again.
The Armed Forces allegiance is to the country. The oath is a ceremonial formality. Again, in reality it means little. Soldiers might be sympathetic and generally loyal to the Monarchy, but a lot of that will evaporate if Her Majesty attempts to meddle in politics.

Quite contrary to your assertion, I am not offering any conjecture upon the collective views of rank and file British soldiers. Indeed, I've already stated that their opinions are largely irrelevant considering their role is to merely follow orders. My speculation on what would unfold in this hypothetical scenario is based upon the constitutional law as it stands and the official allegiance of the British Armed Forces. Unless you achieved a rank amongst the highest echelons of the Army and thereby had extensive contact with high level decision makers, your anecdotal recollection of the attitudes and opinions of your comrades is completely worthless in the context of this debate.

Your entire speculation is garbage. How exactly can you speculate on the allegiance of the Armed Forces when you clearly don't have a clue about how the Armed Forces works? When you clearly don't know a thing about the chain-of-command? You also need to understand the difference between legal formalities and reality. There's a reason the Queen has bugger all to do with politics.
As I said, walk me through a timeline of how you think things are going to play out.

[DaveSmith99]

Yes, having a monarchy flies in the face of democracy and social equality. It's quite ridiculous how we still have one in this day and age.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
The Monarch doesn't have the power dismiss solely the government.

Yes she does.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
The Armed Forces allegiance is to the country.

No it isn't.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Your entire speculation is garbage..

An ironic inference to say the least, considering that most of what you have said is utterly erroneous and demonstrably so. I have provided links which detail the monarch's constitutional powers. Whilst a quick wiki search will confirm that the British Army's allegiance is indeed to the monarch, not to the country. Your whole argument is based on little more than the fact that you served a brief stint as a grunt in the army, it's lamentable I'm afraid.

If you've nothing of substance to offer, kindly spare me any further vacuous tripe, there's a good chap.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Yes she does.

No she doesn't.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. They're payed by the government, supplied by the government and run by the government. The Oath means nothing. I suppose you also believe people always tell the truth in court?

An ironic inference to say the least, considering that most of what you have said is utterly erroneous and demonstrably so. I have provided links which detail the monarch's constitutional powers. Whilst a quick wiki search will confirm that the British Army's allegiance is indeed to the monarch, not to the country. Your whole argument is based on little more than the fact that you served a brief stint as a grunt in the army, it's lamentable I'm afraid.

If you've nothing of substance to offer, kindly spare me any further vacuous tripe, there's a good chap.

We're not debating the Monarch's constitutional powers you little ingrate, we're debating what would happen in reality in a conflict between the Crown and the Commons. Your inherit belief that some cosmic universal power is going to force people to follow the letter of the law is rather amusing. Since the Glorious Revolution, Parliament has taken steps to insulate the Crown from the running of the country. Today, the Crown exists because Parliament says that it can. The Crown has no leverage or clout at all to force Parliament to do anything. The moment Her Majesty attemps to interfere in politics, you can say good bye to the United Kingdom, hello British Republic.
I brought up my 'brief stint' (don't pretend that you know anything about me) to counter your comments regarding the chain-of-command, which were utterly false.
It's clear you don't have a ****ing single clue how the Armed Forces work in real life, so don't pretend that you do.

[gladders]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Yes she does.

She only does if you believe that anyone would take her seriously in her using it. She might have the formal power, but the actual power isn't there.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by Cinnamon_Twist)
Yes/no and reasons please.
Personally, I don't think it does as our Queen has no real political power.

Its not just whether she has political power, but her ridiculous wealth that also annoys me. The royal family pay no inheritance tax, but conversely get paid out of the public purse, simply for being born "better" than everybody else. This is a system that favours circumstance and privilege over merit, which should not be the values our democracy should be based upon.

[gladders]

(Original post by Alistair122)
Its not just whether she has political power, but her ridiculous wealth that also annoys me. The royal family pay no inheritance tax, but conversely get paid out of the public purse, simply for being born "better" than everybody else. This is a system that favours circumstance and privilege over merit, which should not be the values our democracy should be based upon.

They have wealth by dint of their personal funds which have nothing to do with taxpayer's money.

The taxpayer's money is supplied for the operation of the actual office of Head of State - the official residence, the staff, the official duties, the travel, stationery, food etc - and is prevented from being spent on personal jollies for the monarch or her family.

The cost would remain under a republic. In fact, the Queen currently gets zero for her personal enjoyment from the public purse - not even a salary. A president would expect one.

[Alistair122]

(Original post by gladders)
They have wealth by dint of their personal funds which have nothing to do with taxpayer's money.

The taxpayer's money is supplied for the operation of the actual office of Head of State - the official residence, the staff, the official duties, the travel, stationery, food etc - and is prevented from being spent on personal jollies for the monarch or her family.

The cost would remain under a republic. In fact, the Queen currently gets zero for her personal enjoyment from the public purse - not even a salary. A president would expect one.

And I suppose its part of her duty to have so many servants, which, I may add have terrible pay and working conditions. And yes she does take money from the taxpayers, which come from farming subsidies from the EU. The queen gets approximately £500k and prince Charles £100k for simply owning land! Please tell me also how with the threat that roads are going to be privatised, as well as many public spaces, we cannot instead privatise the royal art collection valued at at a minimum of £4bn.
The money that you speak of is not earn't honestly by hard work, but instead through ownership, and paid by the people who work.

[limetang]

In theory yes in practice no.