Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-13 10:26am

Captain Seafort wrote:
2019-09-13 10:13am
K. A. Pital wrote:
2019-09-13 10:02am
What is “morally” superior and how? How does a head of state who is hereditary automatically receive moral superiority?
Because, as I explained above, an elected HoS is inevitably associated with a particular political viewpoint, be that a single party or a coalition. A hereditary HoS has no such inevitable association and is therefore a superior representative and embodiment of the entire country to the world, rather than just a subset of it. It's got nothing to do with duration of service.
But how does this relate to the strength of the moral claim to superiority over alternative models, precisely? Why is it more moral that one woman, purely by the circumstances of her birth, should possess powers that no other person may ever attain? Why is it more moral than, say, a mandatory lottery in which a random citizen (excluding politicians, as you believe that the presence of a political stance taints the morality - though might I suggest to you that the Queen in fact has a political stance that includes such things as the maintenance of the monarchy and the attendant anti-democratic values inherent to said political stance?) attains the position every ten years?

You need to define morality as you're using it, because otherwise I suspect the confusion will continue for quite some time.
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by Captain Seafort » 2019-09-13 10:36am

K. A. Pital wrote:
2019-09-13 10:19am
I asked how this relates to morals, because you said “morally”. Holding or manifesting principles of better conduct and relating to right and wrong.
In those terms I would say that complete political independence is a principle of better conduct for an individual in the position of HoS. How can any elected HoS honestly claim to be a true representative of all when at least part of the population (possibly a majority, depending on the electoral system) has explicitly said "I don't want you representing me"? This is the case even with ceremonial presidencies, and becomes far worse in the case of executive presidencies, when political opposition to the individual is almost certainly far more prevalent and far stronger. In individual's very presence in the role of HoS is a statement that "I am a representative of this entire country and every citizen thereof". If they're elected, then this statement is at best dishonest and at worst a bare-face lie. That is immoral.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-13 10:47am

Of course, a hereditary monarch in the modern era is likely to have quite a substantial part of the population who doesn't want them representing them...
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15162
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by Gandalf » 2019-09-13 10:51am

loomer wrote:
2019-09-13 10:47am
Of course, a hereditary monarch in the modern era is likely to have quite a substantial part of the population who doesn't want them representing them...
Not to mention the people who got the hereditary monarch because British ships showed up one day and never left.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20736
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by K. A. Pital » 2019-09-13 10:52am

A politically neutral and independent head of state is impossible. At the very least the head of state would be a nationalist of its own state, to a smaller or greater degree. The claim to neutrality is thereby void. Not just that - the ceremonial HoS will rubberstamp anything and everything. Did the Queen stop the invasion of Iraq - a war of aggression based on lies and forgery like Yellowcake? No. So...

An elected politician may, however, be an internationalist and even explicitly act against the nation-state inside which he was elected - see those who broke up empires as an example.

Finally, the accountability of a non-elected person is nil.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by Captain Seafort » 2019-09-13 11:10am

loomer wrote:
2019-09-13 10:47am
Of course, a hereditary monarch in the modern era is likely to have quite a substantial part of the population who doesn't want them representing them...
Of course, but that would be universally true of any Head of State, regardless of the mechanism of selection, and I consider the generic unhappiness of an undefined number to be less objectionable than someone pretending to be a representative of all when the only reason they're there is because party/coalition X wants them there.

Incidentally, your suggestion of a universal lottery is the only system I can conceive that is morally equal to a hereditary monarchy.
K. A. Pital wrote:
2019-09-13 10:52am
At the very least the head of state would be a nationalist of its own state, to a smaller or greater degree.
Of course not - their job is to be the representative or embodiment of their country, not the whole species.
Not just that - the ceremonial HoS will rubberstamp anything and everything. Did the Queen stop the invasion of Iraq - a war of aggression based on lies and forgery like Yellowcake? No. So...
That's what politically neutral means - the decisions are made either by elected representatives or by the population as a whole in a referendum.
An elected politician may, however, be an internationalist and even explicitly act against the nation-state inside which he was elected - see those who broke up empires as an example.
That's a matter of state policy, which is the job of the head of government, not the Head of State.
Finally, the accountability of a non-elected person is nil.
Good, because the inevitable counterpart to accountability is dependency, which brings us back to the arguments above against the concept of an elected HoS.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-13 11:16am

Captain Seafort wrote:
2019-09-13 11:10am
loomer wrote:
2019-09-13 10:47am
Of course, a hereditary monarch in the modern era is likely to have quite a substantial part of the population who doesn't want them representing them...
Of course, but that would be universally true of any Head of State, regardless of the mechanism of selection, and I consider the generic unhappiness of an undefined number to be less objectionable than someone pretending to be a representative of all when the only reason they're there is because party/coalition X wants them there.

Incidentally, your suggestion of a universal lottery is the only system I can conceive that is morally equal to a hereditary monarchy.
You still haven't given us your working definition of morality - or, for that matter, why it is more moral for me to be ruled over by a woman I am unable to remove from power except through violence (and even a peaceful referendum for republic is founded on the threat of violence, make no mistake) than one I can remove democratically.

Also, as you wish to argue that the monarch is going to be politically neutral, you need to explain how they overcome the inherent political position of supporting a monarchy.
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
Captain Seafort
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-10-10 11:52am
Location: Blighty

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by Captain Seafort » 2019-09-13 11:31am

loomer wrote:
2019-09-13 11:16am
You still haven't given us your working definition of morality - or, for that matter, why it is more moral for me to be ruled over by a woman I am unable to remove from power except through violence (and even a peaceful referendum for republic is founded on the threat of violence, make no mistake) than one I can remove democratically.
Yes I have, here. If you want it in bullet points:
  • A Head of State must be the representative and embodiment of the entire country
  • An elected politician is a representative of a subset of the entire country - those who elected them, or at the very least those who did not explicitly say "I do not want you to represent me/I want someone else to represent me".
  • Ergo, for an individual in the latter category to claim the former role is dishonest
  • Dishonesty is immoral
  • Ergo, an elected Head of State is inherently immoral
Also, as you wish to argue that the monarch is going to be politically neutral, you need to explain how they overcome the inherent political position of supporting a monarchy.
Because they don't - they simply fill the role, without expressing a political opinion on it. If the people of this country collectively wished to abolish the monarchy, the bill enacting that wish would receive Royal Assent.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe - Albert Einstein

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7046
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by ray245 » 2019-09-13 11:41am

Gandalf wrote:
2019-09-13 08:11am
So... a national mascot?
Effectively. But all country have a head of state in some form. In the US, that's the Presidency.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-13 11:48am

Captain Seafort wrote:
2019-09-13 11:31am
loomer wrote:
2019-09-13 11:16am
You still haven't given us your working definition of morality - or, for that matter, why it is more moral for me to be ruled over by a woman I am unable to remove from power except through violence (and even a peaceful referendum for republic is founded on the threat of violence, make no mistake) than one I can remove democratically.
Yes I have, here. If you want it in bullet points:
  • A Head of State must be the representative and embodiment of the entire country
  • An elected politician is a representative of a subset of the entire country - those who elected them, or at the very least those who did not explicitly say "I do not want you to represent me/I want someone else to represent me".
  • Ergo, for an individual in the latter category to claim the former role is dishonest
  • Dishonesty is immoral
  • Ergo, an elected Head of State is inherently immoral
This is not a working definition of morality. This is something you state to be immoral on the grounds that dishonesty is immoral - but not a definition of morality. I wouldn't be asking you if I found your present argument and its definition at all satisfactory, and while ordinarily I don't like to get caught in semantics on this fine a scale, any argument that hinges on 'it's moral!' must also be presented with a rigorous, thorough definition of morality if questioned.

Again, explain why it is more moral that I am ruled over by someone I am unable to remove from their birthright office save through violence than by someone democratically elected.

And, again - not everyone agrees that the Queen, or indeed any monarch, is in fact a fit and proper 'embodiment of the entire country'. In what way is a monarch not thus rendered unable to embody the entire country?
Also, as you wish to argue that the monarch is going to be politically neutral, you need to explain how they overcome the inherent political position of supporting a monarchy.
Because they don't - they simply fill the role, without expressing a political opinion on it. If the people of this country collectively wished to abolish the monarchy, the bill enacting that wish would receive Royal Assent.
The role itself is a political one, and by accepting it they in fact demonstrate a political opinion - namely, that they agree that the monarchy should exist and they should enjoy its rights and privileges. You have not demonstrated how they overcome that inherent political dimension - 'they hold it without an opinion!' is an assertion, not a fact, and not a particularly convincing one.
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 9730
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by Eternal_Freedom » 2019-09-13 12:25pm

Can we please not devolve into another argument about the British Monarchy? This is a thread about Brexit for goodness sake.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-14 12:19am

Unfortunately that ship sailed when the Queen granted the prime ministership to a man who demonstrably couldn't hold confidence, in breach of quite a bit of constitutional precedent. We can hardly leave her out of it when she's neck deep in the present prorogation scandal.
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7046
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by ray245 » 2019-09-14 04:19am

loomer wrote:
2019-09-14 12:19am
Unfortunately that ship sailed when the Queen granted the prime ministership to a man who demonstrably couldn't hold confidence, in breach of quite a bit of constitutional precedent. We can hardly leave her out of it when she's neck deep in the present prorogation scandal.
It feels like the Non-British are the ones giving the fuss about the monarchy when no one in Britain actually give a shit about what the Queen did. Whatever people feel about the British monarchy, it is ultimately the will of the British people to decide if they want to keep the monarchy. If there was a wide support for ending the monarchy, the British public can ask for a referendum and voting to end the monarchy.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-14 05:08am

ray245 wrote:
2019-09-14 04:19am
loomer wrote:
2019-09-14 12:19am
Unfortunately that ship sailed when the Queen granted the prime ministership to a man who demonstrably couldn't hold confidence, in breach of quite a bit of constitutional precedent. We can hardly leave her out of it when she's neck deep in the present prorogation scandal.
It feels like the Non-British are the ones giving the fuss about the monarchy when no one in Britain actually give a shit about what the Queen did. Whatever people feel about the British monarchy, it is ultimately the will of the British people to decide if they want to keep the monarchy. If there was a wide support for ending the monarchy, the British public can ask for a referendum and voting to end the monarchy.
That seems a peculiar view given the sizeable number of British opinion pieces I've read calling for precisely that referendum and the hand-wringing and legal challenges going on over whether the Queen was deceived or not. Those would seem to suggest that in fact quite a few British folk in fact do give a shit.

P.s., Australians are allowed to have opinions about the Queen, since she's our Queen too.
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7046
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by ray245 » 2019-09-14 06:20am

loomer wrote:
2019-09-14 05:08am
That seems a peculiar view given the sizeable number of British opinion pieces I've read calling for precisely that referendum and the hand-wringing and legal challenges going on over whether the Queen was deceived or not. Those would seem to suggest that in fact quite a few British folk in fact do give a shit.

P.s., Australians are allowed to have opinions about the Queen, since she's our Queen too.
A lot of those op-eds are from left-wing/progressive newspapers, which aren't really that popular in the UK compared to the right-wing tabloids and newspapers.

https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top ... rculation/

Daily Mail, The Sun and Times are all right-wing newspapers that are quite pro-monarchy. You have left-wing newspapers that are much more pro-republician, but a lot of their Op-Eds are targeted towards a relatively niche readership.

There's a funny Yes Minster clip that mentions the kind of readership that reads the different newspapers in the UK.



Yes, I know Australia shares the same Monarch, but even it is possible to abolish the monarchy in Australia but the British will still happily keep the Monarchy alive. Support for the monarchy is still incredibly high ( a supermajority in most cases)

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... onarchists

It's between 66-77 percent of the population that supports the monarchy. A lot of liberal Brits are more than happy to support the monarchy compared to other members of the commonwealth.

Maybe the British might change their mind soon, but it is not likely to change anytime soon. Maybe the subsequent monarchs might dwindle support for the monarchy, but Elizabeth is still an incredibly popular monarch. She's very much the personification of nostalgia to many British.


As to the point whether the British feel the queen was deceived or not, it really doesn't matter because the queen can't do much even if Boris Johnson deceived her. She is not supposed to do anything even if a PM did deceive her, as she is expected to remain neutral even if she is being lied to.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-14 07:02am

ray245 wrote:
2019-09-14 06:20am
loomer wrote:
2019-09-14 05:08am
That seems a peculiar view given the sizeable number of British opinion pieces I've read calling for precisely that referendum and the hand-wringing and legal challenges going on over whether the Queen was deceived or not. Those would seem to suggest that in fact quite a few British folk in fact do give a shit.

P.s., Australians are allowed to have opinions about the Queen, since she's our Queen too.
A lot of those op-eds are from left-wing/progressive newspapers, which aren't really that popular in the UK compared to the right-wing tabloids and newspapers.

https://www.agilitypr.com/resources/top ... rculation/

Daily Mail, The Sun and Times are all right-wing newspapers that are quite pro-monarchy. You have left-wing newspapers that are much more pro-republician, but a lot of their Op-Eds are targeted towards a relatively niche readership.

There's a funny Yes Minster clip that mentions the kind of readership that reads the different newspapers in the UK.

None of which establishes that no one in the UK gives a shit. I get that you were being hyperbolic, but the fact is that support for the monarchy is far from universal.
Yes, I know Australia shares the same Monarch, but even it is possible to abolish the monarchy in Australia but the British will still happily keep the Monarchy alive. Support for the monarchy is still incredibly high ( a supermajority in most cases)

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... onarchists

It's between 66-77 percent of the population that supports the monarchy. A lot of liberal Brits are more than happy to support the monarchy compared to other members of the commonwealth.

Maybe the British might change their mind soon, but it is not likely to change anytime soon. Maybe the subsequent monarchs might dwindle support for the monarchy, but Elizabeth is still an incredibly popular monarch. She's very much the personification of nostalgia to many British.
Yes, and? Australians love her too (most Republican support in this country is suffixed with 'but we might as well wait 'til Liz dies, because she's tradition'), but this has absolutely nothing to do with either of the following:
1. No one cares about the Queen (they care enough to support the monarchy - this is, in fact, a political position they take that indicates the exact opposite of your assertion)
2. The implied assertion that only the British are entitled to form opinions about the monarchy. Since, again, she's my Queen too I feel quite entitled to weigh in on the validity, legitimacy, and morality of her government and decisionmaking. That's what happens when you wind up with a bunch of countries with a single monarch. We all get an opinion on what Her Majesty does and does not do and whether she should hold a title or not.

As to the point whether the British feel the queen was deceived or not, it really doesn't matter because the queen can't do much even if Boris Johnson deceived her. She is not supposed to do anything even if a PM did deceive her, as she is expected to remain neutral even if she is being lied to.
The point of my raising the handwringing is that it actively disproves your assertion. People - especially pro-monarchists, in this particular matter - do care about the monarchy and the Queen, and what she's just done. People want a way to excuse her conduct, and the idea that she is powerless to resist the advice of the PM even when he's blatantly lying provides that excuse. This is the precise opposite of not giving a shit.
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7046
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by ray245 » 2019-09-14 02:05pm

loomer wrote:
2019-09-14 07:02am
None of which establishes that no one in the UK gives a shit. I get that you were being hyperbolic, but the fact is that support for the monarchy is far from universal.
Most governments rarely get approval ratings as high as 60 percent. Any party/leader in a democracy would love a approval rating that is as high as 60/70 percent. By political standards, that is effectively universal.

Yes, and? Australians love her too (most Republican support in this country is suffixed with 'but we might as well wait 'til Liz dies, because she's tradition'), but this has absolutely nothing to do with either of the following:
1. No one cares about the Queen (they care enough to support the monarchy - this is, in fact, a political position they take that indicates the exact opposite of your assertion)
What exactly was my assertion? Because I don't think I actually said anything like that. I don't think any of your points is addressing what I am saying, which is the monarchy is incredibly popular in the UK.
2. The implied assertion that only the British are entitled to form opinions about the monarchy. Since, again, she's my Queen too I feel quite entitled to weigh in on the validity, legitimacy, and morality of her government and decisionmaking. That's what happens when you wind up with a bunch of countries with a single monarch. We all get an opinion on what Her Majesty does and does not do and whether she should hold a title or not.
No? The UK and Australia might share the same queen, but the monarchy of Australia and the UK is still something entirely different. You can weigh in on whether Australia should support the Queen, but that is in regards to her as the Queen of Australia, and not as the Queen of the United Kingdom. Singapore is in the commonwealth and the monarch is still the head of the commonwealth. But we don't share the head of state with the UK ( Singapore elects a President instead). So how the British feel about the monarchy is still something different from how the Australians feel about the monarchy.

Australia can have a system similar to Singapore in which you elect a head of state, and still be a member of the commonwealth.
The point of my raising the handwringing is that it actively disproves your assertion. People - especially pro-monarchists, in this particular matter - do care about the monarchy and the Queen, and what she's just done. People want a way to excuse her conduct, and the idea that she is powerless to resist the advice of the PM even when he's blatantly lying provides that excuse. This is the precise opposite of not giving a shit.
Yet part of the appeal of the British monarchy is that they are utterly powerless. The power of the monarchy is that they do absolutely nothing but agree with what the government says. If the monarch becomes more politically involved, then the basis of their power is gone. The "charisma" of the monarchy derives from their lack of political views. It's much easier to retain popular support when the monarch can be seen as politically neutral. ( Whether they actually are is a different argument) Monarchs that is more politically involved would not have accumulated the degree of influence they have on the public.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
loomer
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3204
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by loomer » 2019-09-16 01:41am

ray245 wrote:
2019-09-14 02:05pm
loomer wrote:
2019-09-14 07:02am
None of which establishes that no one in the UK gives a shit. I get that you were being hyperbolic, but the fact is that support for the monarchy is far from universal.
Most governments rarely get approval ratings as high as 60 percent. Any party/leader in a democracy would love a approval rating that is as high as 60/70 percent. By political standards, that is effectively universal.
Yes, and? An 'effectively universal' approval rating also serves to disprove your own assertion that no one gives a shit about the queen or what she's done.

Yes, and? Australians love her too (most Republican support in this country is suffixed with 'but we might as well wait 'til Liz dies, because she's tradition'), but this has absolutely nothing to do with either of the following:
1. No one cares about the Queen (they care enough to support the monarchy - this is, in fact, a political position they take that indicates the exact opposite of your assertion)
What exactly was my assertion? Because I don't think I actually said anything like that. I don't think any of your points is addressing what I am saying, which is the monarchy is incredibly popular in the UK.
You may wish to read what you post before you post it, then. Here:
ray245 wrote:
2019-09-14 04:19am
It feels like the Non-British are the ones giving the fuss about the monarchy when no one in Britain actually give a shit about what the Queen did.
That sure looks like an assertion, thus far unsupported, that no one in Britain cares about the Queen and what she's done. As for why I'm not addressing what you're saying? That's because it isn't under contention, and is in fact evidence against your own position. Here's what's actually being argued:
Me: People do give a shit about the Monarchy and not everyone is happy about what the Queen's just done.
You: People don't care about the Queen and/or what she's just done (explicit); also only the British should comment on this (implicit).

Evidence produced to show that people do give a shit about the queen isn't worth my time to engage with because, sure - no one is arguing otherwise other than you. If you wish to withdraw your assertion to the contrary, by all means, do so. At that point we'll have nothing to argue about because otherwise I agree with your explicit positions that the Queen enjoys popular support, the institution is well-regarded, and whether to do away with her is of course a matter for the British citizenry (though not one that other peoples may not form opinions on and engage in debate around - unless we're now advocating for universally closing the borders of political debate to only those peoples living within the nations under question, I see no reason to extend special privileges here to the British.)
2. The implied assertion that only the British are entitled to form opinions about the monarchy. Since, again, she's my Queen too I feel quite entitled to weigh in on the validity, legitimacy, and morality of her government and decisionmaking. That's what happens when you wind up with a bunch of countries with a single monarch. We all get an opinion on what Her Majesty does and does not do and whether she should hold a title or not.
No? The UK and Australia might share the same queen, but the monarchy of Australia and the UK is still something entirely different. You can weigh in on whether Australia should support the Queen, but that is in regards to her as the Queen of Australia, and not as the Queen of the United Kingdom. Singapore is in the commonwealth and the monarch is still the head of the commonwealth. But we don't share the head of state with the UK ( Singapore elects a President instead). So how the British feel about the monarchy is still something different from how the Australians feel about the monarchy.

Australia can have a system similar to Singapore in which you elect a head of state, and still be a member of the commonwealth.
Certainly - and I don't say otherwise. But since she's my Queen, I'm entitled to form opinions on her conduct in any of her holdings. You will note I did not claim that the views of Australians are the same as or determinative of the views of the English - only that your implicit suggestion that only the British should have opinions on the British Monarchy is invalid for Australians as your monarchy and our monarchy are so fundamentally entwined as to be identical, vested in the same person by the same rules of succession. Our governmental bodies and national sovereignties are distinct, but our monarchies are in fact one and the same body of personages despite the different title they enjoy. Accordingly, the conduct of my monarch is a perfectly appropriate topic for me to form an opinion on, wherever it takes place, as it is still carried out by my monarch even when she acts within a different governmental structure.

If you'd like us Australians not to form an opinion, perhaps you might like to force the Queen to abdicate and dissolve the title of Queen of Australia so that your monarch is not our monarch. Until that time, we'll keep doing so, though we may just have some very vocal opinions on that as well.
The point of my raising the handwringing is that it actively disproves your assertion. People - especially pro-monarchists, in this particular matter - do care about the monarchy and the Queen, and what she's just done. People want a way to excuse her conduct, and the idea that she is powerless to resist the advice of the PM even when he's blatantly lying provides that excuse. This is the precise opposite of not giving a shit.
Yet part of the appeal of the British monarchy is that they are utterly powerless. The power of the monarchy is that they do absolutely nothing but agree with what the government says. If the monarch becomes more politically involved, then the basis of their power is gone. The "charisma" of the monarchy derives from their lack of political views. It's much easier to retain popular support when the monarch can be seen as politically neutral. ( Whether they actually are is a different argument) Monarchs that is more politically involved would not have accumulated the degree of influence they have on the public.
Yes, and? This still does nothing to prove your assertion that no one is upset by what the Queen's just done. They are, regardless of whether the Monarchy is utterly powerless (it's not) or have no political views (they do). The handwringing over whether she was deceived cuts to the heart of the issue: People want an excuse to maintain their faith, because they are upset and rattled, and it's easiest if they can say 'well, Boris lied to her! She didn't know better!' Far from being any kind of proof no one gives a shit, the handwringing is proof of the precise opposite - that people give quite a shit, because what just happened threatens their (innately incorrect) view of an apolitical and uninvolved monarchy.
"You're wonderful, and you're alive, and you deserve every little bit of happiness that the universe has to offer anyone, no matter who or what you like. Never forget that." - Achewood

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7046
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by ray245 » 2019-09-16 10:09am

loomer wrote:
2019-09-16 01:41am
Yes, and? An 'effectively universal' approval rating also serves to disprove your own assertion that no one gives a shit about the queen or what she's done.

That sure looks like an assertion, thus far unsupported, that no one in Britain cares about the Queen and what she's done. As for why I'm not addressing what you're saying? That's because it isn't under contention, and is in fact evidence against your own position. Here's what's actually being argued:


I think you have misunderstood the point I was making, and I'm aware my phrasing could be a whole lot better. I am saying the anger or outrage directed at the the queen "accepting" Boris Johnson's "advice" is a non-issue in the UK. The anger and outrage is with Boris Johnson lying to the queen, and not over the queen accepting the "advice" of Boris Johnson to prorogue the government.

My point was directed at people like TRR who had harp about how the queen is bad for accepting the advice of the PM. That's the issue that no one in the UK gives a shit about.

Me: People do give a shit about the Monarchy and not everyone is happy about what the Queen's just done.
The bulk of the anger is directed at Boris Johnson and not at the Queen in the UK. Aside from a few backbenchers from labour and Op-Ed in more progressive but less well circulated papers, there has been no real discussion in the UK over the Queen's actions.
You: People don't care about the Queen and/or what she's just done (explicit); also only the British should comment on this (implicit).
That's not the point I am making. I'm saying people care about the Queen in the UK, but they don't care about the issue about the "Queen has done something wrong by listening to BJ". That's not a major discussion point in the UK. From what I've seen, it's only a major discussion point outside of the UK ( with people overestimating the degree of influence the monarchy has in the UK).

Evidence produced to show that people do give a shit about the queen isn't worth my time to engage with because, sure - no one is arguing otherwise other than you. If you wish to withdraw your assertion to the contrary, by all means, do so. At that point we'll have nothing to argue about because otherwise I agree with your explicit positions that the Queen enjoys popular support, the institution is well-regarded, and whether to do away with her is of course a matter for the British citizenry (though not one that other peoples may not form opinions on and engage in debate around - unless we're now advocating for universally closing the borders of political debate to only those peoples living within the nations under question, I see no reason to extend special privileges here to the British.)
My original point was to say "no one give a shit about the queen accepting the advice of the Prime Minister ( even if it is a shit advice by BJ)". The only people giving a shit about this particular issue seems to be the non-British ( people like TRR and etc).

Certainly - and I don't say otherwise. But since she's my Queen, I'm entitled to form opinions on her conduct in any of her holdings. You will note I did not claim that the views of Australians are the same as or determinative of the views of the English - only that your implicit suggestion that only the British should have opinions on the British Monarchy is invalid for Australians as your monarchy and our monarchy are so fundamentally entwined as to be identical, vested in the same person by the same rules of succession. Our governmental bodies and national sovereignties are distinct, but our monarchies are in fact one and the same body of personages despite the different title they enjoy. Accordingly, the conduct of my monarch is a perfectly appropriate topic for me to form an opinion on, wherever it takes place, as it is still carried out by my monarch even when she acts within a different governmental structure.
Because I see a possibility in which the commonwealth countries might still keep the monarchy even if the British did abolish the monarchy. The monarchy is vested in the same person, but it is still two different monarchies. As the UK and Australia are considered two different countries, I see the monarchy of Australia as being entirely different from the monarchy of UK. Especially when Australia had a constitutional crisis because the representative of the monarchy in Australia, the governor-general of Australia in 1975 dismissed the Prime Minister from his office and gave it to the opposition.

So the representative of the monarchy in Australia have a more recent history of being directly intervening in political affairs compared to the monarchy in the UK. I think that's an important point we should bear in mind. I think it is valid for you to hold an opinion on the British monarchy, as I don't think you need to be British to have an opinion on it. But I think as outsiders ( in which I am one, even if I am living in the UK and have a right to vote as a commonwealth resident in the UK), we should not confuse our perspective with the perspective of the British. Generally speaking, I think international commentators should not have the same weight as domestic commentators regarding local affairs. We can lack some of the local context of an issue, and ended up making ineffective arguments as a result.

If you'd like us Australians not to form an opinion, perhaps you might like to force the Queen to abdicate and dissolve the title of Queen of Australia so that your monarch is not our monarch. Until that time, we'll keep doing so, though we may just have some very vocal opinions on that as well.
I'm not saying don't form an opinion, but I just want to say the opinions of the non-British ( unless you are a resident of the UK, and you have a right to vote in UK elections as a result of being a commonwealth citizen) doesn't matter as much in the grand scheme of things. In an international web-forum like SDN, we can comment all we want but our views doesn't really matter compared to the viewpoints expressed by the locals. An argument by an Australian, Canadian or Singaporean about why the British should abolish or keep the monarchy is going to be worth a lot less than the same argument made by someone who is British.



Yes, and? This still does nothing to prove your assertion that no one is upset by what the Queen's just done.
My assertion is no one is upset by what the Queen herself has done, because in the UK, she is pretty much acknowledged as an effectively powerless figure that have no choice but to accede to any request made by the PM. They are upset with what Boris Johnson has done, which is a different thing altogether. The target of most people's anger is with BJ and not with the queen.
They are, regardless of whether the Monarchy is utterly powerless (it's not) or have no political views (they do). The handwringing over whether she was deceived cuts to the heart of the issue: People want an excuse to maintain their faith, because they are upset and rattled, and it's easiest if they can say 'well, Boris lied to her! She didn't know better!' Far from being any kind of proof no one gives a shit, the handwringing is proof of the precise opposite - that people give quite a shit, because what just happened threatens their (innately incorrect) view of an apolitical and uninvolved monarchy.
Even if Boris Johnson didn't lie to her, there is unlikely to be much outrage directed at the queen. People gave a shit about what Boris Johnson has done to her, which is different from what she has personally done. The outrage is about "Boris Johnson DARED to lie to the queen?" and not "poor queen has to listen to Boris Johnson because she received an advice which was a lie".

You might think the two things are the same, but I will disagree. The direction of people's outrage matters. If the anger is directed at BJ, then it means the outrage is used to further support the monarchy as the physical embodiment of the nation. So it becomes an issue of BJ lying to the "physical spirit of the United Kingdom". If the anger is directed at the monarchy, then it is an issue about the monarchy failing in the eyes of the British.

One sort of anger reinforce support for the monarchy, the other sort of anger undermines support for the monarchy.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
GrosseAdmiralFox
Padawan Learner
Posts: 314
Joined: 2019-01-20 01:28pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by GrosseAdmiralFox » 2019-09-16 10:03pm

Another problem is that the House of Lords and the House of Windsor has had practicall all their power taken away for the past century and change. Quite literally. Given that the House of Commons effectively controls the bureaucracy...

... yeah.

The House of Windsor is essentially a puppet for the House of Commons because the House of Commons has all the power in Britain right now.

User avatar
Zaune
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6496
Joined: 2010-06-21 11:05am
Location: In Transit
Contact:

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by Zaune » 2019-09-16 10:34pm

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-09-16 10:03pm
Another problem is that the House of Lords and the House of Windsor has had practicall all their power taken away for the past century and change. Quite literally. Given that the House of Commons effectively controls the bureaucracy...

... yeah.

The House of Windsor is essentially a puppet for the House of Commons because the House of Commons has all the power in Britain right now.
I could swear I remember there being a brief period where that was widely agreed to be a good thing.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)


Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin


Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon

I Have A Blog

User avatar
GrosseAdmiralFox
Padawan Learner
Posts: 314
Joined: 2019-01-20 01:28pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by GrosseAdmiralFox » 2019-09-17 05:12am

Zaune wrote:
2019-09-16 10:34pm
GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-09-16 10:03pm
Another problem is that the House of Lords and the House of Windsor has had practicall all their power taken away for the past century and change. Quite literally. Given that the House of Commons effectively controls the bureaucracy...

... yeah.

The House of Windsor is essentially a puppet for the House of Commons because the House of Commons has all the power in Britain right now.
I could swear I remember there being a brief period where that was widely agreed to be a good thing.
It was never a good thing in the first place, because it allows for situations like this to happen. The three branches (the House of Lords, House of Commons, and House of Windsor) of British government must have a high degree of separation of powers to function, and without that, well, we're seeing what happens when you don't.

Remember, Hobbes and Locke are far closer to the true condition of man than most others in Philosophy. Ignoring it won't change much.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15162
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by Gandalf » 2019-09-17 06:49am

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-09-17 05:12am
Zaune wrote:
2019-09-16 10:34pm
GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-09-16 10:03pm
Another problem is that the House of Lords and the House of Windsor has had practicall all their power taken away for the past century and change. Quite literally. Given that the House of Commons effectively controls the bureaucracy...

... yeah.

The House of Windsor is essentially a puppet for the House of Commons because the House of Commons has all the power in Britain right now.
I could swear I remember there being a brief period where that was widely agreed to be a good thing.
It was never a good thing in the first place, because it allows for situations like this to happen. The three branches (the House of Lords, House of Commons, and House of Windsor) of British government must have a high degree of separation of powers to function, and without that, well, we're seeing what happens when you don't.

Remember, Hobbes and Locke are far closer to the true condition of man than most others in Philosophy. Ignoring it won't change much.
Because nothing says good government like someone literally inheriting a bit of it? :P
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
GrosseAdmiralFox
Padawan Learner
Posts: 314
Joined: 2019-01-20 01:28pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by GrosseAdmiralFox » 2019-09-17 07:32am

Gandalf wrote:
2019-09-17 06:49am
GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-09-17 05:12am
Zaune wrote:
2019-09-16 10:34pm

I could swear I remember there being a brief period where that was widely agreed to be a good thing.
It was never a good thing in the first place, because it allows for situations like this to happen. The three branches (the House of Lords, House of Commons, and House of Windsor) of British government must have a high degree of separation of powers to function, and without that, well, we're seeing what happens when you don't.

Remember, Hobbes and Locke are far closer to the true condition of man than most others in Philosophy. Ignoring it won't change much.
Because nothing says good government like someone literally inheriting a bit of it? :P
If it keeps those who would basically burn it all down just to get a quick buck from getting power? Sadly yes.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7046
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Brexit and not very united kingdom politics II

Post by ray245 » 2019-09-17 09:26am

GrosseAdmiralFox wrote:
2019-09-17 07:32am
If it keeps those who would basically burn it all down just to get a quick buck from getting power? Sadly yes.
The trade off is you have to hope there isn't a Charles I in power.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

Post Reply