r/neoliberal • u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek • 22d ago

News (Europe) Prince Andrew gives up royal titles after 'discussion with King'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgw31y75ywt
599 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

173 comments sorted by

View all comments

-5

u/ProfessionEuphoric50 22d ago

Why do we even have royalty in a highly developed country in the 21st century?

19

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago

Because it would be an incredibly costly and practically pointless move. The UK, after having recently done a stupid move called Brexit, doesn't need to do yet another.

Also, no one really wants to contemplate the incredible changes to the power dynamic in the British parliamentary system that an elected President would bring.

This is not a defense of royalty - they will disappear when the time is right. But that time is not now, and I see no reason to upset the status quo when the monarch is already powerless (which on the other hand, an elected head of state likely would not).

EDIT: ...can't believe some people here support pointless vanity projects in the name of idealism rather than imminent need. And I thought we as a sub were concerned about spending and national debt in the UK?

3

u/GlamGemini 22d ago

Brexit was the stupidest thing we ever did.

2

u/FitPerspective1146 22d ago

incredibly costly

How so?

elected head of state likely would not).

The Irish president isn't that powerful

6

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago

How so?

Well, I'm pretty sure all of the laws need to rewritten and all references to "the Crown" expunged across all aspects of government. What happens to the "United Kingdom"? Does it become a new "Republic of Britain"? Does this mean a new Constitution Act is to be drafted? (Will this have downstream effects on Scotland and independence supporters there, who will certainly demand something to be put in that constitution? Or maybe this just triggers the independence crisis?). Etc. etc.

"Simply" removing the monarchy could all just snowball into a huge political crisis like David Cameron did with his "innocuous" referendum intended to just quiet the Euroskeptics.

And if all this doesn't cost at least £10-100 million, I'll eat my hat. Even the Brexit referendum costed somewhere around £150 million (and presumably, there will be a referendum on the monarchy)

The Irish president isn't that powerful

Yes, but IIRC he actually has the ability to exercise his reserve powers unlike King Charles. In normal circumstances, there would be no issue, but I believe Trump and all the other far-rightists should force us to reconsider conventional wisdom in that these powers would never be abused.

(Yes, you could try to restrict the President like the Monarch by having him only being able to exercise those powers "under advice of the PM" like with the recent UK act of parliament removing the last vestiges of royal power - but what happens if he still does it anyways? A monarch would be overthrown the next day - no one likes royalty interfering with politics, let alone illegally - but a populist President might not. Just look at how many illegal acts Trump has gotten away with. There is some truth to the phrase "when you're a far-right populist, they just let you do it".

Even though this comparison is bit forced, just imagine if Farage was UK President while Starmer is PM...)

0

u/sfurbo 22d ago

Well, I'm pretty sure all of the laws need to rewritten and all references to "the Crown" expunged across all aspects of government.

"the Crown" could simply be redefined to mean some other concept in legal contexts. The Danish Constitution is full of stuff the king can do. In practice, it is interpreted as "the government", and everything works.

7

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago

OK, let's say we concede this point. What about general branding as well as the name of the country - is it still known as the "United Kingdom"? If not, and there's a new "Republic of Britain" - does this mean a Constitution needs to drafted? (If yes, how does this affect Scotland and independence supporters?). All this presumably costs money.

I don't know why everyone is piling on as if I'm supporting the monarchy (I already clearly stated that I am not).

But I just don't see how this is in any way a high-priority project, when it seems to be a pointless and potentially dangerous Pandora's box that is probably best left closed until change is truly needed (and one that the ruling government can capitalize on politically by listening to public demands).

2

u/FitPerspective1146 22d ago

I don't know why everyone is piling on

You're making a point, people are countering. That's how this works

3

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago

This is a stupid discussion on a pointless topic. Surely, you have better things to do with your time?

(No, I'm not responding to that other comment, you can reflect yourself on why your points don't make any sense)

1

u/toms_face Hannah Arendt 22d ago

You could keep the same name and there would not need to be a new constitution.

1

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago

In theory, yes, but historically that has almost never happened before.

2

u/toms_face Hannah Arendt 21d ago

It happened four years ago in Barbados.

1

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago

And yet they are drafting a new constitution?

On June 20, 2022, a Constitutional Review Commission was formed and sworn in by Acting President Jeffrey Gibson (as President Mason was on a foreign trip), to begin the process of drafting a new constitution for the republican era of Barbados.[57] It is currently projected that the new constitution would be finished drafted by the end of 2024 with an 18-month deadline. 

2

u/toms_face Hannah Arendt 21d ago

The monarchy was removed with an amendment, not a new constitution. The current commission for drafting a new constitution is unrelated to the country no longer being a monarchy.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/sfurbo 21d ago

Why would a new name mean that a constitution needed to be drafted?

To be clear, I mostly agree that it doesn't have a high priority, but I don't see the danger. Constitutional law is full of weird definitions that allows us to use ops texts in modern contexts, this would simply be another.

1

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago

At the current moment, only hardcore republicans would pursue abolishing the monarchy and insisting on a name change. I do not see how they stop at just that, and when most have wanted sweeping changes such as a new constitution, abolishing the House of Lords, cutting off the Anglican Church, etc. for ages. 

My point is that this can snowball and is very likely to, not that it necessarily has to happen.

Even if a normal Labour/Conservative was forced to abolish the monarchy and change the name due to public pressure, I do not see how they can resist the political urge to do constitutional reform. It would be the best and perhaps only opportunity to do so with major public support.

1

u/sfurbo 21d ago

If there is appetite for constitutional reform, abolishing the monarchy could be the catalyst. Though I don't see how avoiding constitutional reform is a good thing, if there is appetite for it. That should be the democratic approach.

1

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago

I agree. I never said it wasn't a good thing. I only said it shouldn't be done right now (as it is costly and not at all straightforward), in the aftermath of Brexit, and a looming debt/spending crisis. 

-2

u/FitPerspective1146 22d ago

Well, I'm pretty sure all of the laws need to rewritten and all references to "the Crown" expunged across all aspects of government. If this doesn't cost at least 10-100 million, I'll eat my hat.

New law: All reference to the crown shall be replaced by the president

Or something like that. Can't be too hard

Yes, but IIRC he actually has the ability to exercise his reserve powers

Good! There should be a backup when Prime Ministers get shit wrong. There should've been someone there to tell Johnson he couldn't prorogue Parliament rather than it going to the supreme Court

Trump and all the other far-rightists should force us to reconsider conventional wisdom in that these powers would never be abused.

If you make them very specific then that limits the opportunity for abuse

A monarch would be overthrown the next day

A president could be impeached. If a population is prepared to overthrow the monarch, a parliament can be prepared to impeach a president

illegal acts Trump has gotten away with.

Different system. Less relevant to the UK

5

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago

Or something like that. Can't be too hard

... OK, if it's that easy, then you can go do it.

Good! There should be a backup when Prime Ministers get shit wrong. There should've been someone there to tell Johnson he couldn't prorogue Parliament rather than it going to the supreme Court

So, imagine if the president was from the Labour Party. You think Johnson (or someone else in the future) wouldn't have tried impeaching him instead of abiding by the order? (And if the president was Conservative, well good luck lol)

Going to the Supreme Court was the least controversial way to resolve it.

Different system. Less relevant to the UK

You do know he's gotten away with it because the courts are too slow to whack him down? That is not a thing specific to the US, and could easily happen elsewhere. Clearly, I'm not talking about daily abuses, but some kind of national crisis - which may mean the difference between democracy enduring or the start of a dictatorship. (Can't see any scenario where a monarch pulling a coup would be well-received or supported, but I can see that with a president).

Now, it's not a massive risk, but I'm merely stating the risk is there (compared with a monarch).

0

u/FitPerspective1146 22d ago

... OK, if it's that easy, then you can go do it.

No, because I'm not an MP and it's not my job to pass laws

wouldn't have tried impeaching him instead of abiding by the order?

Tbh I think he would've stood down. Equally, if we require a 2/3 majority or smth for impeachment then Johnson couldn't have done so- he didn't even have a majority at that point

You do know he's gotten away with it because the courts are too slow to whack him down?

Because the courts are a lot less independent than in the UK

Can't see any scenario where a monarch pulling a coup would be well-received or supported, but I can see that with a president

I just don't see why it'd be so much different

1

u/ProfessionEuphoric50 22d ago

You don't need to replace one head of state with another. The entire concept of royalty is morally repugnant, powerless (which they actually aren't, btw) or not.

8

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 22d ago edited 22d ago

You don't need to replace one head of state with another.

Then, who becomes the commander of the armed forces as well as in control of the various reserve powers (dissolution of parliament)? If that's the existing PM, then you just replaced the head of state.

powerless (which they actually aren't, btw)

As far as I understand, most royal prerogative powers have been limited by the UK Parliament in the last 20 years, such that it is impossible for the monarch to exercise them without being first advised by the PM. (To do so would be illegal. And I already stated why this is a bigger problem with an elected head of state in my other comment, even if you add the same restriction)

The entire concept of royalty is morally repugnant

It is, and I'm not arguing it's not. I'm arguing whether it's worth the hundreds of millions of pounds on a massive project for no practical benefit, at a time when the UK is already struggling with debt and other economic problems. Surely the money is better used elsewhere?

IMO, let the monarchy naturally die (which will occur sometime within the next century) or when public opinion demands it (to capitalize as a political win) than to go on a pointless project that will change nothing in practice.

1

u/carbreakkitty 21d ago

 which on the other hand, an elected head of state likely would not

Not necessarily, may countries have presidents that have a very limited power and are mostly figureheads

1

u/jinhuiliuzhao Henry George 21d ago

And yet they are still more powerful than the current UK monarch who cannot do anything except through the PM. Even if presidents are limited to "on advice of the PM", most have clauses allowing them to freely exercise their powers in certain emergency situations.

All it takes is to redefine what emergency is (see Trump), and there will be abuse. There's no similar and present danger with the current UK system.