(no subject)

[skull_bearer]

Being a Brit, it can be rather hard to be against the royal family. The usual arguments against them are that they're a throwback to days before democracy, they cost the taxpayer millions, and are generally useless.

And while the monarchy does have some power in the UK, there's a sort of unspoken agreement between the monarchy and everyone else: the monarcy has this power and doesn't use it, and everyone else lets them keep it. The monarchy is there to look pretty, make us billions in tourist revenue, do a few diplomatic things and be trotted out for special occasions. And occasionally add their support for harmless causes (such as Prince Charles' vendetta to keep the London skyline aesthetically pleasing).

And now apparently, we're asking them to break the deal.

There's some new healthcare reforms in the UK, and they couldn't be more unpopular if they'd nominated Hitler for Prime Minister. Everyone agrees it's a phenomenally bad idea, particularly the actual healthcare providers. It's basically a way to scuttle the NHS and push people into private companies.

The population doesn't like it.

The doctors don't like it.

Hell, even the politicians don't like it, mostly because they've realised this is going to poison their party for years. There is no way in hell they'll be getting elected after this.

But the current Prime Minister has decided to make his mark, and since you can't do that by invading another country any more (it's all the rage right now), he's going to shut down his own.

So the NHS and various branches are asking the Queen to withdraw her royal assent from the bill, which has not been done in something like 200 years.

Comments

[sorion.livejournal.com]

So the NHS and various branches are asking the Queen to withdraw her royal assent from the bill, which has not been done in something like 200 years.

They are what??? O_o
Oh, hell.

I've been following the bill's progress (degress), and this is... Actually, I don't know what it is -_-

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Trouble it that it would be as unconstitutional as anything Cameron and his cronies are getting up to.

But what do I know? I'm a republican! That's what you get for being a historian of the Civil Wars. :o)

The political comm who stated immediately after the election that this would be a one term government begins to look more and more prescient.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

thing is...im not sure it would be. the queen holds the power. no statue has ever taken it away. its a genune royal perogotive. as it stands, royal perogitvies are worked enterly by the HM goverment on her behalf, but...

it would, however, cause a consitunal crises. its leagal. but...well...yes.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

futher to my comment, wikipedia, that most unimpachable of resorces, gave me this

"An exception is sometimes stated to be if bills are not passed in "good faith", though it has been difficult to make an interpretation on what this might constitute."

someone else linked to the story. as far as i can tell, there aruging from a bad faith perspective, that it was spesificly aginst the conservitive menfesto, witch promised no top down reorganistions of the nhs, was not in the coalition agreement, and was not in the queens speech, witch is praticly writen by goverment.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/03/16/queen-petitioned-to-reject-nhs-bill/

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

Well, it'd be a worthy cause to breech etiquette for at least... And I doubt it'd be more than etiquette at this point. But I have to admit my neck hair goes up at any actual involvement of a monarchy in politics. Wouldn't want to give them any restoratory ideas.

[ars-belli.livejournal.com]

Well, it'd be a worthy cause to breech etiquette for at least...
Etiquette breeches! Just like etiquette trousers, except two centuries out of fashion? :)

[shadowvalkyrie.livejournal.com]

I wear them all the time! You mean you don't?
>_>
*facepalms at self* English with its stupid homophones will be the death of me some day! (My favourite crime against language was a "disapproving stair", though. :p )

[ars-belli.livejournal.com]

Well, at least it would give the monarchy something useful to do. It's not as if the Commonwealth has King Ludwig II on the throne (who to give him credit managed to ruin his country's finances without any constitutional power at all). More to the point, asking the Queen to withdraw her assent is legal. I'm more concerned that her doing so would precipitate a law removing that power, because it's inevitable that one day there will be a law that really needs vetoing, given how little the general populace seems to learn from history,

And after Her Majesty does so, perhaps she'd like to intervene in the circus that is Australian politics too? We've had one PM dismissed by the Queen's representative in a century, can we have another one and then the resignation of the Opposition Leader? Yeah, I wish.

[kathie-d.livejournal.com]

I'm a royalist, and against the healthcare reforms..... and I still don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, the Queen bitch-smacking Cameron down would be awesome. On the other hand, royals actually influencing politics gives me all sorts of icky feels. :-/