Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
Let's make this very clear shall we? You blame the 10 years of austerity on Labour. You do not accept the real cause. You constantly peddle the free market dream world in denial of the facts.
Your "point" is to perpetuate the lie that free market capitalism is the answer when everyone can see that this ship has sailed, hit the iceberg and all we see is you rearranging the deckchairs ...
---------- Post added at 22:21 ---------- Previous post was at 22:18 ----------
I feel the point here is that the Head of State should, with appropriate help, be in a position to validate the "advice" received from the Executive. If not, then what value does this individual contribute in terms of Government?
|
The Queen is entitled to be consulted and to offer words of advice. Beyond that she contributes little to government, which is as it should be. The wearer of the crown is not elected so should not exercise executive power.
The point of the Crown in our constitution is that it is where power is located. That power cannot be exercised by the person wearing the crown, because they are constitutionally restricted from doing so, and it cannot be appropriated by legislators who must swear allegiance to it as a condition of office. It cannot be taken by revolution because nobody can wear it but the legitimate heir.
Now we could junk all of this and opt for a republic with an executive presidency, with powers delineated by a written constitution, but that is no guarantee of better government or decision making. In fact our own Supreme Court, operating with years of precedent and Acts of Parliament (or lack of, hence “unlawful”, not “illegal” in the case of prorogation), dealt with that issue rather more quickly than the Americans are presently dealing with the potential impeachment of Donald Trump, and all the while the United States has a head of state that is a divisive political figure rather than a symbol of unity.
If we were setting up a country from scratch today, it’s highly unlikely we would create a constitutional monarchy. But the point is, we aren’t creating a country from scratch, we’re living in one whose democracy and institutions have remained stable for longer than just about anywhere else in the world, and much of that sense of stability, continuity and unity is symbolised by the Crown. Asking whether the Queen should involve herself in government more directly appears trivial by comparison.