They still have a monarch, and he can not be voted against.
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)
Humanities & Cultures
2534 readers
2 users here now
Human society and cultural news, studies, and other things of that nature. From linguistics to philosophy to religion to anthropology, if it's an academic discipline you can most likely put it here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes we do have a monarch, but he isn't involved in government except for pageantry. Technically the government could vote to become a republic if there was any interest in doing so but there isn't.
There's many reasons to dislike the monarchy but it's not a threat to democracy.
Yes we do have a monarch, but he isn’t involved in government except for pageantry.
This is not true. The Monarchy directly intervenes in government without transparency or accountability.
The link redirects to a login page, do you happen to have one without, or be able to paste the text please?
Changed it to the oc source. Here is an archive as well
Lovely thank you.
That is horrific to read though, I appreciate the correction. I knew there was some form of consent granted in a "you've already decided this, I'm consenting for show only" kind of way but this is exactly the kind of abuse that a constitutional monarchy is supposed to avoid.
I knew there was some form of consent granted in a “you’ve already decided this, I’m consenting for show only” kind of way but this is exactly the kind of abuse that a constitutional monarchy is supposed to avoid.
ultimately a big problem with constitutional monarchy of any kind is it's still monarchy. it's hard to square the democratic values, fairness, or equality that is associated with liberal democracy with having a totally unelected institution whose claim to that position is derived almost invariably from religious legitimacy and being the "right" family. (and conversely, it's very easy for a monarchy to undermine democratic processes and take more power for itself than it ought to have)
Here's an example: Ministers sought Charles’s consent to pass conservation laws affecting his business
Environment minister Rebecca Pow wrote to the then Prince of Wales in 2019 to ask if he would accept section seven of the environment bill, which became law in November 2021.
Technically the government could vote to become a republic if there was any interest in doing so but there isn’t.
Sorry yes I should have been clearer there, I mean there's no wish to from the two major political parties.
And that is where this video hits the nail on the head, in a more progressive system views such as this might gain some traction, but as it stands British people can only really choose between what the Tories want and what Labour want. If what you want doesn't align with either, then do you really have a voice?
I mean there’s no wish to from the two major political parties.
Just wait. The Queen's death has left a major dent in the monarchy's charme.
It did, and hopefully we'll soon see the day that Prince Andrew stands trial.
But on the topic of the OP I don't think the monarch is a threat to British democracy. If he actually tried interfering that 40% would skyrocket very quickly, he's not stupid. He knows keeping quiet is how he keeps milking money.
Was it ever really one
In short: get rid of First Past The Post