Jump to content

R.I.P Queen Elizabeth


SneezeAbbie

Recommended Posts

I can't believe it! That woman was a legend and an icon of Great Britain. RIP.

Edited by Melody
Link to comment

It was so sudden as well, from the announcement of concerns over her health at 12:30 to the announcement of her death at 6:30pm - although the PM was told at 4:30pm so her health really declined quickly. Especially as she was seen standing up shaking the new PMs hand on Tuesday!

A sad day indeed 😢

 

Now we have to say "Long live the King" and I'm not quite sure that sounds the same ☹️

Link to comment

I thoughtmy brother was joking since he takes these types of things too lately...and I saw youtube.....I remember seeing her on the news...and some videos on youtube...was so sweet :( 

Link to comment

I'm a German but I was really shaken when I heard the Queen died. This woman was better than the German polititicans ;(

Link to comment

I have a question for those who understand British politics.  I've noticed people in progressive media celebrating her death, because she was apparently an imperialist or whatever they're saying about her.  The question is: How much power did she have to control politics?

Here's one article that talks about this:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/15/rypo-s15.html

I'm asking because I was surprised by a lot of the reactions to her death and I want to know how fair they are.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Plasma Blade said:

I have a question for those who understand British politics.  I've noticed people in progressive media celebrating her death, because she was apparently an imperialist or whatever they're saying about her.  The question is: How much power did she have to control politics?

Here's one article that talks about this:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/15/rypo-s15.html

I'm asking because I was surprised by a lot of the reactions to her death and I want to know how fair they are.

That's an interesting question. Technically and officially the Queen did have the power to veto any laws or decisions made by parliament. However, the role of the Monarch is to stay politically netrual so of course she would never intervene and say no to something that parliament had come to a decision on.

In fact, the only direct interaction with the government is the private chats with the PM that happens weekly. And from my impression these chats were purely informational and she does not advise the PM.

So in answer to your question, no she doesn't control politics and if she did there would be so much uproar from the country that it would risk the state of the monarchy

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Plasma Blade said:

I have a question for those who understand British politics.  I've noticed people in progressive media celebrating her death, because she was apparently an imperialist or whatever they're saying about her.  The question is: How much power did she have to control politics?

Here's one article that talks about this:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/15/rypo-s15.html

I'm asking because I was surprised by a lot of the reactions to her death and I want to know how fair they are.

Just trying to answer this question. I can copy/paste this to the Snake Pit if mods think this isn't the right place for it.

The UK is one of three countries in the world without a written constitution. A large part of this is because the monarchy holds absolute power. Only legislation that is signed by the presiding monarch is passed into law. This is why saying the Queen had the power to 'veto' is a big oversimplification. If she theoretically refused to sign the legislation, then the legislation would not have passed into law. It is only by her signature that laws passed. That much is the same as a veto. But as her signature is the key, she could also theoretically modify or amend legislation before signing. I would agree that this would probably not happen, as there would be an uproar - but it 'can' happen, and is 'probably not' good enough when it comes to matters of governing?

As the royal family's representative in parliament, this also means that the Prime Minister essentially holds absolute power in the UK. Every procedure witnessed in parliament is entirely rooted in tradition, and there are no formal checks or balances on the PM's power, which is derived from the perceived power of the monarchy. It's worth remembering that the PM is *not* voted for by the public, but is appointed by the presiding monarch. The Queen/King will always appoint the leader of the political party with the most seats, but can theoretically appoint anyone. The actual system of government within the UK does not recognize parties as unique groups - politicians individually decide if they sit with the opposition, or sit with the government. While the Queen would never appoint someone from the opposition as PM, she can technically do this. 

Sorry if what I'm saying sounds like a weird tangent, because it kind of is. The point I'm trying to make is that while people say the monarchy only 'technically' has real power, the word 'technically' here throws up a ton of issues with the British parliamentary system. Namely that it's a complete free-for-all with no real disciplinary procedures within the framework of government itself. Our previous Prime Minister was able to break the law with impunity, and there was very little that Parliament could do about it. It was an internal party dispute that eventually saw him resign.

More directly, the Royal Family were also allowed access to certain funds set aside for the public. There was a controversy a few years back when the family asked to use funding set aside to heat homes of families that couldn't afford their energy bills, to heat their own palace. While this particular request was denied, this isn't the only example of such a thing happening.

The state funeral, as well as the upcoming coronation for the next king, will cost the British taxpayer about 6 billion pounds. This is right at the start of a massive cost of living crisis, that is going to see people unable to afford basic neccessities throughout the upcoming winter. Parliament has also been suspended 'out of respect', at a moment when people need to see action happening the most. For someone with 'no real power', by simply dying the Queen has managed to suspend politics and basic public services (cardiologists cancelled appointments with patients, people were not allowed to purchase fuel etc.), as well leave the taxpayers with a 6 billion pound bill to foot. Doesn't sound like someone powerless, to me.

The entire British political framework is structured in this ridiculously archaic way, so as to ensure it can still say that the royal family function as a chamber of the parliamentary system. They don't have any real power, but they absolutely represent the UK's imperialistic past, function as a drain on the economy, and ensure that the political system remains outdated and unfit-for-purpose. Regardless of how much it suits Britain's interests to pretend otherwise.

Anyway, commiserations.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...