UK Constitution and Royal Family (Split from Brexit thread)

[RegisterMe]

watch as the Constitution crumbles..

Why do you keep talking about a Constitution when the UK doesn't have one? It's very confusing.

I don't thing that's entirely correct pjknibbs, I think we do have one but it is unwritten, being based instead on precedent, tradition and law. Though I grant you that's a little nebulous.

It's a little like the current kerfuffle over the Speaker's acceptance of that new Brexit amendment, it's within his power but it is new and against precedent and tradition, hence the uproar. Of course all those uproaring are conveniently forgetting the Government's own frequent and recent breaches precedent and tradition .

[Bishop149]

I think we do have one but it is unwritten, being based instead on precedent, tradition and law. Though I grant you that's a little nebulous.

Its a complete and utter bloody mess is what it is.
If you try looking into literally any constitutional question in the UK you will be no more than about 5 minutes in before you start encountering things along the lines of:

"In 1742 when monarch X contradicted monarch Y, a new precedent was set which was subsequently interpreted by the 16th Earl of Essex (Groom of the Stool) to mean Z. This formed the basis of the antecedent (3 times removed) of [thing tangentially related to the thing you are looking in to]"

[Antilogic]

Its a complete and utter bloody mess is what it is.

I sometimes think we need a written one.

Then I realise I don't want any of the people from any party writing it.

[RegisterMe]

Its a complete and utter bloody mess is what it is.

I sometimes think we need a written one.

Then I realise I don't want any of the people from any party writing it.

S'ok, I'll do it .

[JSDD]

first you shoud get rid of the god damn queen, then you can talk about a written constitution (like almost every other modern country has and is proud of) ... having a queen/king around is kind of a funny thing, as long as he/she has NO influence in political things, everything else is absolutely not tolerable (at least not to me) ... but thats a bit off-topic

[BugMeister]

- I think not..
- not ever..

[felter]

I'm not a royalist or anything like that but I'm also not stupid, the queen and the rest of her cronies make a hell of a lot of money for this country and it would be gone if we got rid of her. So simple economics 101 says keep her. Besides who would you put in her stead, someone like DJT, or maybe you think you could do the job yourself.

[Morkonan]

S'ok, I'll do it .

/waiting

"I bet it'll have something about "tea" in it," he says, conspiratorially.

I'm not a royalist or anything like that but I'm also not stupid, the queen and the rest of her cronies make a hell of a lot of money for this country and it would be gone if we got rid of her. So simple economics 101 says keep her. Besides who would you put in her stead, someone like DJT, or maybe you think you could do the job yourself.

Obviously, I'm not a royalist, but I don't mind a Western nation having symbolic "royalty" and such. If anything, they're a great tool and could be pretty interesting leverage in foreign policy situations and public relations. They're the highest form of "Ambassador," really, even if they have little true power.

[Antilogic]

S'ok, I'll do it .

Ehhhh heh let's make you an officer in SHC first as a trial run.

Also I assume some comment about removing the royal family was made. While I strongly dislike the concept of royalty, they are currently a useful tool with a large amount of soft power for the UK. Rather split on it overall.

[Mightysword]

I think the symbolic position of most modern royal houses are helpful. Looking at these countries like Thailand, Japan, UK, in time of political strife or even non-political strife, they had stepped up as the unification symbol for the people where nobody can bring themselves to trust the politician. The previous king of Thailand even though had no power, had enough population support to force an end to the long cycle of c'oup. Japan completely lost faith in its government after WW2, and the Emperor was seen as the only force to keep the country together. For the UK ... well, I think the crown is still the best symbolic leadership figure for the Commonwealth because can't see any politician or group politicians can hold that position.

Yes, it's not like they're beyond reproach or anything, and there is always gonna be a scandal once a while. But I think people tend to be cynical when it comes to "royalty" and make the occassional issue "as if". Corruption? Scandal? Wasteful spending? Whatever irk you have against the royal houses, it's almost guarantee there are far more of it in the mainstream politicians.

[RegisterMe]

Takes a while to watch but is relevant. If it's of interest, which, to be honest, it won't be to many .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXe4-g1EG60

[pjknibbs]

Doesn't that belong in the Brexit thread, not this one that was split from it?

[RegisterMe]

The (initial) detail is related to Brexit. The broader process is constitutional.