http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html Just had this shared to me on Facebook. It seems the Queen and Prince Charles are using their power of veto a lot more that was previously publicly known. In fact most people think their role is entirely ceremonial. It's not! Personally I think it is utterly outrageous that unelected individuals effectively have the last say on which laws pass and which don't. It's bad enough the Lords exists. But for these people who live a life of privilege at our expense to be making law is outrageous.
I'd prefer to see exactly what they're vetoing before condemning them over it. There's a few laws which I'd like to see vetoed.
Does that mean the queen shoot spider webs out of her butt? If so, I'd keep her. Seriously though, this is the first time I have ever honestly been glad we have a monarchy. But I think it would be prudent before slating or praising them too much to find out what laws are being vetoed.
To me, it's irrelevant if I agree with their vetoes or not. An unelected head of state and their eldest son, both guaranteed to be a white protestant brought up amongst only the most affluent people on the planet, doesn't sound too democratic or representative does it?
The veto isn't secret. Our current government doesn't seem either of those things though. I notice that the article mentions consent was sought on the civil partnerships act, which passed, so it's obvious they're not using the veto willy-nilly. Frankly I'd rather that things like authorising military strikes have a second level of approval - elected or otherwise - beyond parliament and so that veto I'd agree with. I'd also rather have someone looking out (at least in theory, and apparently in practice) for the good of the country as a whole with the ability to step in and block propositions by those who are only interested in popularity and maintaining their power.
Then again, the US sounds exactly what you'd like to have, on paper. How is it working out for them? Worse than for the UK imo.
Depending on what gets vetoed I'm fine with it, same as I'm ok with the house of lords. I agree with the democratic principles of elected officials and for the most part am fine with them having the power. However I do have reservations about the actions of officials who have to spend most of their time toeing a party line and worrying about winning the next election rather than actually acting in the good of the people an the country. And I'll be honest here, sometimes that involves going against what the majority want. I didn't see anything in that article to suggest the veto is being used abusively or to the detriment of the UK.
In the words of Jerry Maguire: "Show me the vetoed legislation!" Oh right - the list of bills they were asked for consent on is here, but with the exception of the going to war with Iraq bill, it doesn't list any changes to legislation made as a result of the consent request. I'd like more transparency, but honestly I trust the Queen and Prince Charles and their army of housekeepers to do the right thing for the country than I do any MP. So there's that.
The USA isn't the only republic on the planet. You might as well say "Look at Afghanistan, they're a republic and look at the state they're in!" Or pick any other example you want, if it 'proves' your point! In actual fact, there are far more republics than monarchies in the world. And some are in a better state than others. Crazy but true!
I could understand it if you said "more than many politicians", because as a breed they do tend to be lying, sneaky, self-serving parasites. But not every single one is that bad. Wherweas every single one of Prince Charles is a mad old fool who cheated on his wife from day one. Actually, he'd make quite a good politician, except that he'd think that no one was allowed to argue with him. Off with his head!
The way I see it, senior Royals have to work (or at least, be seen to work) in our best interests, because we have their entire family held hostage. If they behave poorly or fail to take that responsibility seriously, we can not only fire them, we can fire their children, their grandchildren, their nieces, nephews, siblings and every one of their yet to be born descendents and consign them to the history books as the Royal that brought down the British monarchy. And even if you believe the Royals are stupid inbred German blah blah blahs, the people who work for them and advise them are not. Politicians are corrupt because the system rewards corruption. The Monarchy is benevolent because we would (metaphorically) hang them if they weren't.
The idea of a bloodline being destined to rule is centuries out of date, philosophically speaking. It boggles my mind how some people can ridicule Bush jnr. believing in his "manifest destiny", and in the same breath support an institution that should have been done away with during the enlightenment. It's also particularly galling that they get to ignore legal social reforms to suit their antiquated sexist and racist employment policies: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/13/monarchy.race
This countries continued bended knee, forelock tugging and deference to this rather ordinary, and in some cases rather stupid and arrogant (I'm looking at you chuck), family is utterly beyond me. It's like some people aren't happy unless they can kowtow to someone they deem "higher" than them. Charle's meddling with the NHS with regards to homeopathy is enough now. Get rid of the fool. Pay him off, give him a house in the cotswolds and end it when the Queen pops off. This is 2013 for goodness sake. And we don't live in "Middle Earth".
So it's not so much the unelected family born to power you like, as the unelected advisors and "power behind the throne"? So Andy Coulson, Alastair Campbell, "sofa government" and the like are also good things? I'm really suprised at the "I'm alright Jack" reasoning behind some posts, and the way some people would seemingly rather live in a benign dictatorship than democratic state. Also at the blind trust placed on people you know virtually nothing about.
Yes, we can 'fire' them, but in practise we don't tend to do so, we just let them keep on bumbling along. We 'fired' Charles I and James II, but the first one was the result of a bloody civil war and the second one involved getting invaded by the Dutch. Neither of which is exactly an appealing prospect.