[Suetonius]

(Original post by gladders)
I see what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree: I think a ceremonial Head of State's source of appointment (election, selection, heriditament or otherwise) is irrelevant to democracy, because they have no impact on governance. If it had actual executive power, I think you'd have a point.

But having our Head of State elected would not make us more democratic in any way.

I don't think "governance" or "executive power" has much to do with it. Political status should not be guaranteed to anyone simply by virtue of their birth. Even if this was the case with one person (let alone a whole family) then it would be undemocratic, even to a minimal extent. Any position within State institutions should be awarded legitimately; not by random accident.

[gladders]

(Original post by Suetonius)
I don't think "governance" or "executive power" has much to do with it. Political status should not be guaranteed to anyone simply by virtue of their birth. Even if this was the case with one person (let alone a whole family) then it would be undemocratic, even to a minimal extent. Any position within State institutions should be awarded legitimately; not by random accident.

You're entitled to disagree with the monarchy, I have no problem with that. I just think your claim it's undemocratic is flawed: you could argue it's not meritocratic, unfair even, but I don't think democracy is the issue at all. Otherwise, you might as well claim judges are undemocratic because we don't elect them.

I'm not trying to make you change you mind, I hope you understand, I'm just trying to help you see that the issue is different from how you perceive it. I respect your republican viewpoint.

[Suetonius]

(Original post by gladders)
You're entitled to disagree with the monarchy, I have no problem with that. I just think your claim it's undemocratic is flawed: you could argue it's not meritocratic, unfair even, but I don't think democracy is the issue at all. Otherwise, you might as well claim judges are undemocratic because we don't elect them.

I'm not trying to make you change you mind, I hope you understand, I'm just trying to help you see that the issue is different from how you perceive it. I respect your republican viewpoint.

The thing is that the judiciary, and both the executive and legislature are in submission to the monarch, which makes a total mockery of the separation of powers - a fundamental democratic principle that dates back at least to Montesquieu in the early 18th century. It's not the same as judges not being elected, because the judiciary is meant to be independent of politics. Head-of-state is a political position, regardless of the power (or lack of) concentrated within it.

Also, the simple fact is that any citizen is able to become a judge, whereas with the monarchy the decision has already been made for us. You and I, as common citizens, are constitutionally unable to run to be head-of-state of our own country. I find it profoundly insulting and degrading, especially considering my lineage here probably stretches back further than that of most members of the royal family.

[gladders]

(Original post by Suetonius)
The thing is that the judiciary, and both the executive and legislature are in submission to the monarch, which makes a total mockery of the separation of powers - a fundamental democratic principle that dates back at least to Montesquieu in the early 18th century.

I disagree. It's semantics, and part of the dual-meaning of the Constitution that we have. It doesn't matter if the Constitution implies all power is in the hands of the Queen, because the very, very firm reality for the past three centuries is that this power is vested in Parliament - and within Parliament, vested in the elected Commons.

It's a point that's extremely well understood by MPs, Lords, the monarch, and the public at large - but not by republicans, it seems.

To flip it round, your argument would equate to saying the Soviet Union was actually perfectly democratic because the Constitution guaranteed free speech, free elections, and popular rule. We know that's a ridiculous statement.

It's not the same as judges not being elected, because the judiciary is meant to be independent of politics. Head-of-state is a political position, regardless of the power (or lack of) concentrated within it.

I disagree. All offices, regardless of their status, should have their method of appointment determined by their function. All else is putting the cart before the horse. If appointment means greater advantages over election, so be it. Same for inheritance.

I believe that election should be the 'first-favoured' option, but it is absolutely not going to be the best fit in every office. Your claim that the Head of State must be elected is refuted by the relevant rarity of that model worldwide - most republics appoint their Head of State.

Some American states have elected judges in direct contradiction to your point - they believe judges ought to be elected because they're part of the political process (such as Supreme Courts). I don't agree with them, but I mention it to highlight how everybody has a different conception of democracy.

Also, the simple fact is that any citizen is able to become a judge, whereas with the monarchy the decision has already been made for us. You and I, as common citizens, are constitutionally unable to run to be head-of-state of our own country. I find it profoundly insulting and degrading, especially considering my lineage here probably stretches back further than that of most members of the royal family.

I don't, personally; I find it liberating that the Head of State is barred from political activity and is absolutely not a politician; moreover, judging by the Jubilee celebrations, people find the Queen to be more one of 'them' than any of the people in Parliament.

At the end of the day, the most important concern is that power lies with the people, even if on paper it is wielded by the Queen. Worrying about such things is a waste of energy given this is one of the healthiest and most stable democracies in the world.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Wow, you are an unbelievable tool.

As if the tone of this 'debate' had not descended low enough, you thought you would plumb new depths by throwing around petulant ad hominem attacks did you? Well two can play that game you dribbling knuckle-dragging retard. As for me being "dull", the phrase pot-kettle-black really doesn't cut it here; when you're misspelling four letter words, calling into question the intellectual capacity of others' just makes you look ridiculous I'm afraid.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
A law is only relevant so long as someone is willing to enforce it. The government is the enforcer of law in this country. Now tell me, exactly why would the government enforce laws that are contrary to their own interests?

Indeed it is and if the Queen were to appoint a new PM, which I've already demonstrated she is legally entitled to do, it would not necessarily be against the government's interests to enforce the law. It would merely be against the incumbent PM's interests, who once removed from his position would have no power to control the government, the army or anybody else. Whether the government decided to disobey the order, break constitutional law and essentially commit an act of treason, depends entirely on the context in which the power was used. Moreover, in the event that the government did resolve not to enforce constitutional law, it is perfectly feasible that the British Army would step in to fill the void, once again it depends on context.

With regards to context, during the previous 60 years of HM Queen Elizabeth II reign, she has proven to be considered, measured and to a large extent, politically passive. She has very rarely, if ever, intervened directly in political matters. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that in order for her to intervene in such a massive way in the future, developments of unprecedented pertinence would likely have conspired to force her hand; perhaps the discovery of extensive deep rooted governmental corruption for example. If she was perceived by the public as acting in the interest of the country she would likely receive the support of the government and the armed forces. Even in the event that the government disobeyed the order, it is by no means certain that they would receive the backing of the armed forces. It is quite conceivable that unless they had very good reason to, the army would not renege on its allegiance to the crown, once again it's all dependent on context.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Do you not realise that all revolutions, civil wars and coups are 'illegal'? We are not debating what the statutes say, we are debating what would happen in real life. There is no cosmic universal power that forces people to obey contempary law, and you are dull beyond comprehension if you unable to understand that. The government is not going to take orders from the Monarch, they are not going to accept a pawn PM and they are not going to cede control of the armed forces, and there is absolutely nothing the Monarch can do about that.

Of course I do you jumped-up condescending little prick. But as I've clearly stated several times, speculations about the possible tangents of a hypothetical civil war, beyond citing tangible data such as official allegiances and relevant aspects of constitutional law, does not interest me. I am especially disinterested in the semi-coherent ramblings of a 20 year old borderline illiterate former soldier.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Believe it or not, but the Army doesn't keep one holed up inside a broom closet until one turns 18. Nor do they treat us like simpletons. Of course you wouldn't know that, since you clearly don't have a clue about how the Army operates. During my 'brief stint', in which I was a lance jack thank you very much, I visited some three dozen different locations and interacted with hundreds and hundreds of soldiers, both non-commissioned and commissioned. I took dozens of courses and, being the nature of army life, worked pretty much every day. The oath of allegiance means nothing. It is a mere formality. The loyalty of the army is to the country. I find it amusing that you, a civilian, a dull one at that, believes you have a greater understanding of how the Army works than me. Stick to reading stuff off of wikipedia.

Include your two years of non-active duty if you must, you have still served only the minimum amount of time permitted by the British Army (four years), which I maintain hardly qualifies you to make the kind of imperious claims to knowledge about the likely happenings in an imagined civil war. Stick to rolling around in the mud firing blanks.

[Banana-Valid]

Compared, upon reading some statements above, to other's knowledge on this forum of the monarchy and political constitution etc I know an ashamedly small amount : S However, as a constitutional monarchy, evidently having a monarchy would not be against our current constitution. Against the word democracy I am not as sure.
The Athenians, whose eupatrid factionalism led to tyrannicides of a sort and eventually demos, believed that power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a single person unless they were voted in (and even then their power wasn't so absolute I believe). I'm not for one second conspiring that the Queen is somehow orchestrating a tyranny, but the principle of her merely holding power by virtue of birth, and not by the consent or wish of the general public I find wrong.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
And FYI although it's highly unlikely she'd ever use it, theoretically the Queen has enormous power.

Sorry but I just do not accept this. Unless the application of power is a possibility, that individual has no power. Even in theory the Queen has no power - if she attempted to utilise it, a constitutional crisis would ensue with the likely outcome of forced abdication or worse still, abolition of the monarchy.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by Teaddict)
Sorry but I just do not accept this. Unless the application of power is a possibility, that individual has no power. Even in theory the Queen has no power - if she attempted to utilise it, a constitutional crisis would ensue with the likely outcome of forced abdication or worse still, abolition of the monarchy.

If you read through the the rest of the thread you'll see that I've already had this argument once and I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to have it again.

[L i b]

(Original post by Teaddict)
Sorry but I just do not accept this. Unless the application of power is a possibility, that individual has no power. Even in theory the Queen has no power - if she attempted to utilise it, a constitutional crisis would ensue with the likely outcome of forced abdication or worse still, abolition of the monarchy.

It is of course a possibility. In fact, I can imagine several scenarios where I think the Queen would be negligent if she didn't use her powers based on her own judgement.

As with any exercise of power, political realities must be accepted. That's why she doesn't go about doing it on a whim.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
As if the tone of this 'debate' had not descended low enough, you thought you would plumb new depths by throwing around petulant ad hominem attacks did you? Well two can play that game you dribbling knuckle-dragging retard. As for me being "dull", the phrase pot-kettle-black really doesn't cut it here; when you're misspelling four letter words, calling into question the intellectual capacity of others' just makes you look ridiculous I'm afraid.

What are you harping on about now? What four letter word did I misspell? If you're going to make a long rambling bitchey rant about something, at least make sure it's correct.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Indeed it is and if the Queen were to appoint a new PM, which I've already demonstrated she is legally entitled to do, it would not necessarily be against the government's interests to enforce the law. It would merely be against the incumbent PM's interests, who once removed from his position would have no power to control the government, the army or anybody else. Whether the government decided to disobey the order, break constitutional law and essentially commit an act of treason, depends entirely on the context in which the power was used. Moreover, in the event that the government did resolve not to enforce constitutional law, it is perfectly feasible that the British Army would step in to fill the void, once again it depends on context.

That's entirely what I've been trying to say you idiot; what the Government would do, not what the statute books say. I've never argued the law books say otherwise so you've been wasting both of our lives so far with your wikipedia quoting. And no, if the Queen attempting to remove the incumbent PM, there is no physical binding cosmic power that will force the rest of the government to abide by that and it is highly unlikely that they would.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
With regards to context, during the previous 60 years of HM Queen Elizabeth II reign, she has proven to be considered, measured and to a large extent, politically passive. She has very rarely, if ever, intervened directly in political matters. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that in order for her to intervene in such a massive way in the future, developments of unprecedented pertinence would likely have conspired to force her hand; perhaps the discovery of extensive deep rooted governmental corruption for example. If she was perceived by the public as acting in the interest of the country she would likely receive the support of the government and the armed forces. Even in the event that the government disobeyed the order, it is by no means certain that they would receive the backing of the armed forces. It is quite conceivable that unless they had very good reason to, the army would not renege on its allegiance to the crown, once again it's all dependent on context.

There is no Army alliance to the Crown, the Army has, since the civil wars been 'property' of Parliament. There is no physical power the Queen can bring to bear against the government. And we're talking here about a conflict between the Crown and the government, so she wouldn't have the support of the government, that's the entire point of this hypothesising.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Of course I do you jumped-up condescending little prick. But as I've clearly stated several times, speculations about the possible tangents of a hypothetical civil war, beyond citing tangible data such as official allegiances and relevant aspects of constitutional law, does not interest me. I am especially disinterested in the semi-coherent ramblings of a 20 year old borderline illiterate former soldier.

You silly doughnut, this is exactly why I called you a tool. We aren't debating 'tangible data' like constitutional law, yet no matter how many times I told you that you kept running your mouth off like it proved anything. You say you understand that civil wars, revolutions and coups aren't covered by laws, so why did you keep naming laws as if they were relevant? You've just admitted you were talking out of your arse all this time. Prick.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Include your two years of non-active duty if you must, you have still served only the minimum amount of time permitted by the British Army (four years), which I maintain hardly qualifies you to make the kind of imperious claims to knowledge about the likely happenings in an imagined civil war. Stick to rolling around in the mud firing blanks.

I never said it qualified me to make imperious claims about the likely happenings in an imagined civil war, I said it qualified me more than you, and it does. You clearly don't have a single clue about the Army, how it operates and it how it works, so stop pretending you do. And for that matter, how many years have you been studying constitutional law? Anything less than 70 hours a week for four years, then by your own logic, you should shut your mouth.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
What are you harping on about now? What four letter word did I misspell? If you're going to make a long rambling bitchey rant about something, at least make sure it's correct.

In post 95 on page 5 of this thread you misspelled the word 'paid', instead typing "payed". When you change the tense of verbs ending with 'y', the 'y' changes to 'i' and the 'e' disappears.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
That's entirely what I've been trying to say you idiot; what the Government would do, not what the statute books say. I've never argued the law books say otherwise so you've been wasting both of our lives so far with your wikipedia quoting. And no, if the Queen attempting to remove the incumbent PM, there is no physical binding cosmic power that will force the rest of the government to abide by that and it is highly unlikely that they would.

You end this paragraph by repeating the same old baseless assertion you've been parroting for over three pages of this thread. You have offered no convincing argument as to why the government would choose to break constitutional law by rejecting the dismissal of the incumbent prime minister, no reason why the armed forces would obey the orders of a legally powerless government, and no reason why the armed forces would break their alliance to the monarch and side with a dismissed government.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
There is no Army alliance to the Crown, the Army has, since the civil wars been 'property' of Parliament. There is no physical power the Queen can bring to bear against the government. And we're talking here about a conflict between the Crown and the government, so she wouldn't have the support of the government, that's the entire point of this hypothesising.

I'm not wasting anymore time arguing with you about this allegiance business, anybody capable of conducting a goggle search and endowed with the ability to read can see for themselves that the British Army's allegiance is to the reigning British monarch /of argument. And what we are talking about is what would happen if the Queen attempted to exercise her constitutional powers, not necessarily what would happen in a conflict between the crown and the government. In any case, what would happen in such a conflict remains dependent on context. The British Army would be highly unlikely to side with the government in the event that extensive governmental corruption had been discovered, which is just the kind of thing that would prompt the Queen to use her constitutional powers.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
You silly doughnut, this is exactly why I called you a tool. We aren't debating 'tangible data' like constitutional law, yet no matter how many times I told you that you kept running your mouth off like it proved anything. You say you understand that civil wars, revolutions and coups aren't covered by laws, so why did you keep naming laws as if they were relevant? You've just admitted you were talking out of your arse all this time. Prick.

You (incorrectly) make the assumption that the Queen exercising her constitutional powers would, without exception, lead to a full-blown civil war, which if you look back through my posts you'll find that I refute from the beginning. Moreover, civil wars and coups being illegal does not make laws and allegiances completely irrelevant. Unless there is a very good reason for them to be broken, for the most part, laws will still remain an influence on proceedings.

In summary, my conjectures about what would happen in the hypothetical scenario in which the Queen utilized her constitutional powers is based upon the British Army's allegiance to the crown, British constitutional law and the character of the Queen (deduced from her previous 60 years reign). Conversely, yours is based on the fact that you were in the Army for a bit and whilst serving perceived the low ranking solders' attitude to be that although they quite like the Queen, their main loyalty is to the government. It's quite frankly pathetic I'm afraid.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I never said it qualified me to make imperious claims about the likely happenings in an imagined civil war, I said it qualified me more than you, and it does. You clearly don't have a single clue about the Army, how it operates and it how it works, so stop pretending you do. And for that matter, how many years have you been studying constitutional law? Anything less than 70 hours a week for four years, then by your own logic, you should shut your mouth.

And I maintain that it doesn't. You had zero contact with General Sir Peter Anthony Wall, the man who would make the decision in a crown versus government scenario. The opinions of the low ranking soldiers you subjectively perceived are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. You are thus, no more qualified than a civilian to make predictions about the actions of the armed forces in such an imagined scenario.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
In post 95 on page 5 of this thread you misspelled the word 'paid', instead typing "payed". When you change the tense of verbs ending with 'y', the 'y' changes to 'i' and the 'e' disappears.

Oh no, on an internet forum no less.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
You end this paragraph by repeating the same old baseless assertion you've been parroting for over three pages of this thread. You have offered no convincing argument as to why the government would choose to break constitutional law by rejecting the dismissal of the incumbent prime minister, no reason why the armed forces would obey the orders of a legally powerless government, and no reason why the armed forces would break their alliance to the monarch and side with a dismissed government.

Here we go again. Are you unable to grasp basic logic? What actions do you think the government would take if it was in a conflict with the Crown? The very nature of a civil war means that the Crown would be the enemy. Why would the government accept the constitutional powers of the enemy? You are the one who has not made any convincing argument explaining that.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
I'm not wasting anymore time arguing with you about this allegiance business, anybody capable of conducting a goggle search and endowed with the ability to read can see for themselves that the British Army's allegiance is to the reigning British monarch /of argument.

No, a Google search would tell one that soldiers take part in a ceremony where the have to swear allegiance to the Queen. Anyone with common sense would not take as seriously as you have. I take it you also believe people never lie in court?
And, pretty funny considering your first paragraph, it's 'Google' you moron.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
And what we are talking about is what would happen if the Queen attempted to exercise her constitutional powers, not necessarily what would happen in a conflict between the crown and the government. In any case, what would happen in such a conflict remains dependent on context. The British Army would be highly unlikely to side with the government in the event that extensive governmental corruption had been discovered, which is just the kind of thing that would prompt the Queen to use her constitutional powers.

No, we were talking about which side the Army would take if it had to, the Crown or the Government. There would obviously need to be a conflict between them for a situation to arise where the Army would need to 'take sides'.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
You (incorrectly) make the assumption that the Queen exercising her constitutional powers would, without exception, lead to a full-blown civil war, which if you look back through my posts you'll find that I refute from the beginning. Moreover, civil wars and coups being illegal does not make laws and allegiances completely irrelevant. Unless there is a very good reason for them to be broken, for the most part, laws will still remain an influence on proceedings.

I never made that assumption. The assumption I made was that the Queen attempting to take control of the Army would lead to a full-blown civil war, which is a rather sound assumption to hold.
The constitutional powers of the Queen are irrelevant, to the Government at least, because in a civil war between them, she is obviously on the other side, the enemy. The Government would heed the orders of the Queen as much as the Long Parliament did those of Charles I.

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
In summary, my conjectures about what would happen in the hypothetical scenario in which the Queen utilized her constitutional powers is based upon the British Army's allegiance to the crown, British constitutional law and the character of the Queen (deduced from her previous 60 years reign). Conversely, yours is based on the fact that you were in the Army for a bit and whilst serving perceived the low ranking solders' attitude to be that although they quite like the Queen, their main loyalty is to the government. It's quite frankly pathetic I'm afraid.

Firstly, as I have already explained, the constitutional powers of the Queen are irrelevant in a civil war, the British Army is not bound to the Crown, and you have made no mention of the character of the Queen.
Secondly, as I have already explained, I brang up my army experience in response to your false comments about the army chain-of-command, in fact the army in general.
You attempt to belittle me for doing 'only' four years, but how long have you done?

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
And I maintain that it doesn't. You had zero contact with General Sir Peter Anthony Wall, the man who would make the decision in a crown versus government scenario. The opinions of the low ranking soldiers you subjectively perceived are of absolutely no consequence whatsoever. You are thus, no more qualified than a civilian to make predictions about the actions of the armed forces in such an imagined scenario.

It doesn't matter what you maintain. You've all but admitted that your knowledge of the army comes solely from wikipedia searches. You have no grounds at all what-so-ever to attempt to give any insight into the workings of the army. You don't know a thing about the chain-of-command and you don't know a thing about soldier loyalty. Googling who the Chief of the General Staff is doesn't change that. Yes, General Wall trumps me, but General Wall isn't here. It's me versus you, and in that scenario, I win. I have four years experience, you have none.
And by the way, as the position of the Chief of the Defence Staff is currently held by the Army, the CGS is subordinate to the CDS, General Sir David Richards, so no, General Wall wouldn't be calling the shots you moron. That's just an example of how little you know about the Armed Forces. Stop trying to have an opinion on a matter you clearly know so little about.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Oh no, on an internet forum no less.

Whatever the context, going around calling other people stupid whilst concurrently displaying your own flagrant cognitive deficiencies by misspelling four letter words just makes you look like a right dick.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Here we go again. Are you unable to grasp basic logic? What actions do you think the government would take if it was in a conflict with the Crown? The very nature of a civil war means that the Crown would be the enemy. Why would the government accept the constitutional powers of the enemy? You are the one who has not made any convincing argument explaining that.

When the subject of a potential civil war initially came up on this thread it wasn't even proposed to be between the crown and the government, it was envisaged to be between disaffected civilians and the crown. The argument was that the people would not, in practice, accept the Queen exercising her constitutional powers, and in the event that she attempted to do so would simply remove her and found a republic. In response, I merely argued that it would not be as simple as that because the armed forces official allegiance is to the crown. The government never came into it until you waded in mid-argument and started shouting your mouth off.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No, a Google search would tell one that soldiers take part in a ceremony where the have to swear allegiance to the Queen. Anyone with common sense would not take as seriously as you have. I take it you also believe people never lie in court?

No. The British Army's OFFICIAL ALLEGIANCE is to the crown. Get that into your thick as pig **** head.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No, we were talking about which side the Army would take if it had to, the Crown or the Government. There would obviously need to be a conflict between them for a situation to arise where the Army would need to 'take sides'.

It wasn't the original topic of this discussion. In any case, what side the army would take is almost entirely dependent on context. The Queen's record over the past 60 years strongly suggests that she would be very unlikely to intervene in political matters unless very extreme circumstances forced her hand. Under such conditions the armed forces would almost certainly adhere to their allegiance to the crown.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I never made that assumption. The assumption I made was that the Queen attempting to take control of the Army would lead to a full-blown civil war, which is a rather sound assumption to hold.
The constitutional powers of the Queen are irrelevant, to the Government at least, because in a civil war between them, she is obviously on the other side, the enemy. The Government would heed the orders of the Queen as much as the Long Parliament did those of Charles I.

The Queen already has control over the British Army you blithering imbecile. Under the Royal Prerogative, only the Monarch has the power to declare War and peace. In a government versus crown scenario in the UK, the government would have no authority to issue orders to the Armed Forces. The army would not side against the crown apart from under exceptional circumstances, circumstances that would very likely never unfold under the rule of Elizabeth II.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
..you have made no mention of the character of the Queen.

Oh really:

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)

..during the previous 60 years of HM Queen Elizabeth II reign, she has proven to be considered, measured and to a large extent, politically passive. She has very rarely, if ever, intervened directly in political matters. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that in order for her to intervene in such a massive way in the future, developments of unprecedented pertinence would likely have conspired to force her hand; perhaps the discovery of extensive deep rooted governmental corruption for example.

Evidently your ability to read is as dubious as your ability to write.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Secondly, as I have already explained, I brang "brought" up my army experience in response to your false comments about the army chain-of-command, in fact the army in general.
You attempt to belittle me for doing 'only' four years, but how long have you done?

What "comments about the chain-of-command"? I don't recall making any, aside from highlighting the fact that the Queen has ultimate authority over the British Armed Forces. And believe it or not I didn't originally raise the point about the length of your service to belittle you. I brought it up because it means that you would not have had enough time to achieve a sufficient rank to have direct contact with the high ranking decision makers. My point was that the opinions of the relatively low ranking soldiers you did have contact with is of no consequence within this debate, because it would not be those soldiers who made the decision about who to support in a conflict between the government and the crown.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
It doesn't matter what you maintain. You've all but admitted that your knowledge of the army comes solely from wikipedia searches.

I've not admitted to anything the sort. I've never even mentioned Wikipedia, you've apparently repeated yourself so many times that you've convinced yourself that it's true.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
You have no grounds at all what-so-ever to attempt to give any insight into the workings of the army. You don't know a thing about the chain-of-command and you don't know a thing about soldier loyalty. Googling who the Chief of the General Staff is doesn't change that. Yes, General Wall trumps me, but General Wall isn't here.

I'm not attempting to give an "insight into the workings of the army". All I need to know to make the point that I'm making is that soldiers follow orders and that therefore only the Head of the Army's opinion matters. My point was that since you've had no contact with the head of the Army you have zero insight into what actions he would take in a government versus crown conflict.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I have four years experience, you have none.

That four years experience makes you more effective in a battlefield and gives you superior survival skills; for the reasons I outlined above it does not make you more qualified to speculate about which side the army would take in a crown versus government civil war.

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
And by the way, as the position of the Chief of the Defence Staff is currently held by the Army, the CGS is subordinate to the CDS, General Sir David Richards, so no, General Wall wouldn't be calling the shots you moron. That's just an example of how little you know about the Armed Forces. Stop trying to have an opinion on a matter you clearly know so little about.

Well if you want to be pedantic the sovereign is the de jure Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, so

You can reply to this post if you must, but I shall neither read nor offer a retort to it. We've been going round in circles and name-calling for a while now and it's frankly just a waste of both of our time.

[MostUncivilised]

(Original post by Cinnamon_Twist)
I don't think it does as our Queen has no real political power.

If the Queen had no power, then there would be no point in having her.

The Queen generally exercises her power on advice from ministers, but in a constitutional crisis, or a dispute between political parties about who won an election, or if a government had been discovered engaging in vast criminality in a way that demanded an immediate election, the Queen would exercise her reserve power and she would be the one who independently chose when to do so, and the manner in which it would be done. It is a fact of British political life that the Palace is a significant, independent centre of power. That it is qualitatively different from party political power does not mean that it is not power.

That the Queen rarely exercises her power independently does not mean she doesn't possess power of a kind. The monarchy has acted independently; she appointed Alec Douglas-Home as PM despite the fact he was not preferred by the majority of the Conservative parliamentary party. There was no clear and unambiguous successor to Macmillan, and so the Queen made a choice based on her own preferences and that of certain groups within the establishment. A constitutional crisis or dispute is an infrequent event, but it is one in which the judgement and preferences of the monarch are given expression and exercised.

Equally relevant is that the monarch has considerable informal power and social influence. The royal family also exercises a degree of behind-the-scenes influence on certain pieces of legislation. We know that the Prince of Wales regularly lobbies ministers on certain subjects, and has been known to get his way. The Labour government also secretly consulted the royal family about legislation that had no fundamental constitutional implications.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/fe...veto-documents

The Queen also receives a lot of classified material in the cabinet papers in red boxes, and we know she reads it. If knowledge is power, she is indeed powerful. And the social cachet and deference rendered to the royal family is also form of power that is a function of the fact that the executive power has been vested in a certain family as a hereditary inheritance. This is not a democratic state of affairs.

A lot of the debate seems to fundamentally misunderstand the issues; no-one is saying the Queen is a dictator, or that she could not be removed if there was a groundswell of popular support for such a move. But while the monarchy retains the powers that have been vested in her, she does indeed have power and influence.

I believe that you could minimise the drawbacks I've mentioned by separating the functions of the monarch as the premier citizen and leader of the nation in a quasi-spiritual sense from the executive functions of dissolving parliaments, calling elections and issuing orders-in-council and letters patent. The monarch's only role would be to appoint a Governor-General, on advice, who would be the person to exercise all executive functions. You could find a nationally independent, trusted figure for such a role; a figure along the lines of Sir David Attenborough, and the Queen would retain the function of the "heart" of nation, around which the country could rally etc etc.

[gladders]

(Original post by MostUncivilised)
If the Queen had no power, then there would be no point in having her.

The Queen generally exercises her power on advice from ministers, but in a constitutional crisis, or a dispute between political parties about who won an election, or if a government had been discovered engaging in vast criminality in a way that demanded an immediate election, the Queen would exercise her reserve power and she would be the one who independently chose when to do so, and the manner in which it would be done. It is a fact of British political life that the Palace is a significant, independent centre of power. That it is qualitatively different from party political power does not mean that it is not power.

I think we have to separate two kinds of power here - the Queen has plenty of formal power and I could grant she has a function to play in resolving an unforeseen constitutional crisis, but day-to-day, policy setting power she has nil.

That the Queen rarely exercises her power independently does not mean she doesn't possess power of a kind. The monarchy has acted independently; she appointed Alec Douglas-Home as PM despite the fact he was not preferred by the majority of the Conservative parliamentary party. There was no clear and unambiguous successor to Macmillan, and so the Queen made a choice based on her own preferences and that of certain groups within the establishment. A constitutional crisis or dispute is an infrequent event, but it is one in which the judgement and preferences of the monarch are given expression and exercised.

On the subject of Macmillan's successor, the Queen was put in a spot as they Conservative Party had not been without a clear successor to a sitting PM in many a decades. As consequence of this incident the Conservative Party brought in a formal selection procedure for its Leader, so such a circumstance will probably not happen again - at least when the Tories are in power!

Equally relevant is that the monarch has considerable informal power and social influence. The royal family also exercises a degree of behind-the-scenes influence on certain pieces of legislation. We know that the Prince of Wales regularly lobbies ministers on certain subjects, and has been known to get his way.

I've no doubt he haves frank words with ministers on subjects he feels strongly, but that is the purpose of the Heir Apparent, and something the Queen is meant to do as well. However neither of them have absolutely any means by which they can force their will onto ministers. If ministers end up following their advice it is by dint of persuasive argument, not being leant on. The minister remains absolutely accountable for what he decided.

The Labour government also secretly consulted the royal family about legislation that had no fundamental constitutional implications.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/fe...veto-documents

Actually, this is a constitutional requirement, called Prince's Consent. If an Act of Parliament impinges on the personal property and interests of the monarch and the Heir Apparent, it has been a centuries-long practice for their consent to debate these matters being discussed in Parliament to be secured, as a courtesy. The fact you overlook is that neither of them has said 'No' in a very, very long time.

The Queen also receives a lot of classified material in the cabinet papers in red boxes, and we know she reads it. If knowledge is power, she is indeed powerful. And the social cachet and deference rendered to the royal family is also form of power that is a function of the fact that the executive power has been vested in a certain family as a hereditary inheritance. This is not a democratic state of affairs.

I disagree. You're right that the Queen reads all of her papers, but again, this is her job - her function is to be informed, encourage and warn ministers, to give them one final opportunity to think over their policies before enacting them. As I said earlier, the monarch has absolutely no means to force their will on the minister, and they can be as frank as they like in private but must keep schtum in public. Deference has nothing to do with it: I'm sure people like Tony Benn would have relished at the opportunity to grass up on the Queen influencing policy when they were ministers, but they don't, because they can't.

It's perfectly democratic, as the minister continues to have absolute freedom of choice.

A lot of the debate seems to fundamentally misunderstand the issues; no-one is saying the Queen is a dictator, or that she could not be removed if there was a groundswell of popular support for such a move. But while the monarchy retains the powers that have been vested in her, she does indeed have power and influence.

Only in the loosest of senses, though: 99% of power is vested in Parliament. The Queen has an authority to resolve constitutional emergencies, but they're not really meant to happen frequently!

I believe that you could minimise the drawbacks I've mentioned by separating the functions of the monarch as the premier citizen and leader of the nation in a quasi-spiritual sense from the executive functions of dissolving parliaments, calling elections and issuing orders-in-council and letters patent. The monarch's only role would be to appoint a Governor-General, on advice, who would be the person to exercise all executive functions. You could find a nationally independent, trusted figure for such a role; a figure along the lines of Sir David Attenborough, and the Queen would retain the function of the "heart" of nation, around which the country could rally etc etc.

I think that's an awful lot of effort just to separate the monarch from the Prerogative, which is not a big issue. Moreover, as you seem to suggest you're unhappy with an unelected monarch having extensive power, why is it better to have an unelected Governor-General having extensive power instead?

[MostUncivilised]

(Original post by gladders)
x

Progress, of a sort. At least you're admitting the monarch and royal family do wield power; if you believe that having such hereditary power and influence is unproblematic, that's fine. At least now we're arguing the principle rather than bizarre assertions like "the Queen has no power".

I've no doubt he haves frank words with ministers on subjects he feels strongly, but that is the purpose of the Heir Apparent

To influence policy?

they can be as frank as they like in private but must keep schtum in public

Why should they be expressing any opinion whatsoever? The only reason anyone is listening to their stupid opinions is because they came out of a particular vagina.

Actually, this is a constitutional requirement, called Prince's Consent.

Not a requirement so much as a courtesy as a vestige from an age of excessive deference to royals. And the fact that it was not well-known publicly until recently is entirely consistent with the way the royal family operates. It's a "constitutional requirement" that has never been put to the British people for their consent, and is entirely inconsistent with the way a modern democratic body-politic should operate.

I wonder how many other secret constitutional conventions there are?

If an Act of Parliament impinges on the personal property and interests of the monarch and the Heir Apparent, it has been a centuries-long practice for their consent to debate these matters being discussed in Parliament to be secured, as a courtesy.

So we need the consent of the royal family to legislate matters that might affect their interests? How 'bout parliament is sovereign and if they don't like it we can secure the services of an appointed or elected executive?

[wilson_smith]

Their not a priori theoretically inconsistent, but monarchism is deeply inconsistent with contemporary liberal democratic culture, in which the dominant values latent within the public political consciousness is that of people being free and equal - I don't think it takes any elaboration to demonstrate why monarchism contadicts these values.

[lauren_a]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Of course it does, hereditary rule is the antithesis of democracy.

And FYI although it's highly unlikely she'd ever use it, theoretically the Queen has enormous power.

Exactly!
Even if, in practical terms, she doesn't have a vast amount of power, the concept of a hereditary head of state is completely opposed to everything democracy stands for.

[MostUncivilised]

(Original post by lauren_a)
Exactly!
Even if, in practical terms, she doesn't have a vast amount of power, the concept of a hereditary head of state is completely opposed to everything democracy stands for.

I agree, but if British monarchs were uncontroversial vestiges of reserve constitutional power, even that would be far more acceptable than the current state of affairs, where you have the most expensive monarchy in Europe, with hundreds of courtiers, assorted royal hangers-on, incalculable social influence (and conventions like "Prince's consent"), unaccountable behind-the-scenes lobbying and policy influence and exemption from FOI requirements.

[py0alb]

So many people seem confused. The queen has no more power than a beefeater in the Tower of London.