Slashdot Mirror
Did the Queen Just Resurrect the Snooper's Charter?
DavidGilbert99 writes "This time last year the Queen officially introduced the Communications Data Bill (known as the Snooper's Charter to those opposing it). Last month it was effectively killed when the UK deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said it went too far and he wouldn't support it. Today the Queen was back and while there was no official mention of the Communications Data Bill, there was mention of 'crime in cyberspace' and a very strong hint that more legislation to monitor people's online activity is on the way."
I don't think the queen had much to do with it so I'm not sure why she's getting a mention. This would fall under "official duties that have to be carried out or I lose my allowance". The royalty just do as they are told by the politicians.
I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK). The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own.
Many Brits will agree (though not all), that having a monarchy does a great deal of good for our nation and the commenwelth, strengthening reltationships, and providing a massive tourist industry.
Worth every penny in my books.
The Queens speech is not written by the Queen.
It's a summary of the Governments plans for the next legislative period, written by the government.
She just reads it out.
The Queen's speech outlined the various bills that Parliment intends to bring in, and the "snooper's charter" wasn't one of them; the absence of any given bill from the speech is widely (and uncontroversially) taken to mean that the bill is dead. The government's comments that it intends to find other ways to address computer crime would seem to back this interpretation.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
..someone needs to read up on how constitutional monarchy works.
Agreed. The alternative, US style at least, a politically motivated president that we treat with honour and respect? No thanks. Lets keep our politicians where they stand, a PM that we can hate and bad mouth in the commons and a powerless head of state to do the ceremonial guff who we can treat with honour and respect.
I think you might be taking this argument to extremes. The gender of our monarch doesn't matter here. Be they male, female, or a pot of icecream, what is put in front of the monarch by parliament is what shall be read out.
The queen is actually very forthcoming with her own opinions, especially when talking to lawmakers both here and abroad. We should consider this only ceremony, and not try to delve any deeper into it.
I would disagree. It's nice to think that royaly has some for of power in the country, but in reality they do not (at least, not in the UK).
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that the royalty, and in particular the monarch, does have meaningful formal power, but that practically it could only be used in extremis? Anything else would probably result in a constitutional crisis.
I'm thinking, for example, of the dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in Australia in 1975.
1975 Australian constitutional crisis
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The Queen has all the power in England and has taken away all their guns so they have no freedom. She is a tyrant in Australia, UK, Canada, Britain, New Zealand and England and those folks cower before her and they don't know what freedom is. If we let Obama take our guns and our pipe bombs we will be defenceless and the Queen on England will come here and we will have SOCIALIST OBAMACRE like in England. You go to a doctor but you can not pay so he sends you to a hospital and you can not pay them either because the Queen's law says so, so the death panel KILLS YOU!
In America we have the first amendment to make us free and we have the second amendment to stop socialists who use the first amendment. Without guns the Queen of England would come here and take away all our elected Washington lobbyists and we would not even have our fair and balanced TV news to get the real truth. Wake up American sheeple !!!!!
You said, "The Queen's speech will have been written for her by Parliament, so in instances like this, her opinions are not really her own."
Notice that you are suggesting that dishonesty is acceptable.
There is no dishonesty. The speech is written by the leadership of the governing party (not Parliament) and is phrased to make it clear that they are the ones actually speaking. So she will say "My government will..." rather than "I will..."
The only falsehood, if there is any, is the pretence that she has any significant control over "her" government.
Prince Phillip is not going to be King, ever. And that's probably why no one has bothered to spend time correcting him. He's a guy who gave up his real naval career because his wife happened to become the Queen. Being a consort is no fun in this day and age when they don't actually expect (or want) you to become warleader or some other manly role. You sit around and go to charity benefits. I agree that this is definitely a First World problem, but at the same time, people's issues tend to be relative. To even give up his role, he would have to leave his wife or at least make her life difficult, or she'd have to abdicate, and there's every reason to believe that she believes she has a duty to do the job and be a good Queen.
As for the monarchy, there is a good reason that most countries have republics now, but a constitutional monarchy does have some benefits, if the royal family stays well behaved. And if you think the royals don't understand their place, consider that technically, the Queen has the same powers and authority that many of her more absolutist predecessors had, she just doesn't attempt to use the great majority of them.
There is actually quite a bit of British administrative law which is simply the Prime Minister and the Cabinet having a license to use the Royal Prerogative powers. Anything that is Royal Prerogative today is something the Queen could order herself, if she thought she needed to, and could get away with it. The Prime Minister's only official response would be to resign and force the Queen to attempt to rule on her own, risking revolt and deposition. If the revolt didn't happen, however...
The UK has no constitution, just the understanding that if it came down to Parliament or the Queen, Parliament would usually win because it actually represents the people. On the other hand, some people like the idea that the politicians might have to deal with someone who isn't as susceptible to having to buy votes, or be bought by moneyed interests. Or at the very least accept that there is some power theoretically higher than they are. Prince Phillip might be a fairly small price to pay for that, especially since he's not going to be the King.
Now, if you mentioned Prince Charles....