- Status
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Parliament has one and only one power over her: fire her, cause a new GE. But for the reasons I've argued already (both main parties split) as things stand now I can't see a majority forming for that before brexit happens. Plus, if it happened no deal would be guaranteed by default, without a government to execute either a deal or another postponement. For that reason too the opposition playing at opposing no deal cannot now remove her even if they know some tories would go along.
So she can say that and she can do that! The is no majority there to challenge her in anything other than denying her the deal. And in the end she'll be in a position to claim to be the one politician who told the truth: it's my deal or no deal. Corbyn at least tried to overthrow her with a motion of no confidence when there was still time. But will it even be remembered?
To be fair:
1. If there's a majority in Paliament for something, rather than against something, i'm not sure they want to make it easily available to find.
2. I - as a derpy outsider - have no earthly idea where Corbyn is on all this. Or how he's helping in any way, really.
For all naive old me knows he could as well do his pre-politics job.
Actually... does he have one? Or is he just a livelong activist/union bro/organizer of something something?
Anyway: Not helpful!
3. Kyriakos has a fair point: Where the heck is the royal family in all this, really?
Like... with this no show as a contrast i have a new found appreciation for this wonderful technology of having a ceremonial president.
Just last winter the dude was like: "Listen guys, you gotta get it together, because this here piece of paper says i iz Biggus Dickus."
Meanwhile these losers are... doing what exactly? Killing cute foxes? Herding corgies?
2. I - as a derpy outsider - have no earthly idea where Corbyn is on all this. Or how he's helping in any way, really.
For all naive old me knows he could as well do his pre-politics job.
Actually... does he have one? Or is he just a livelong activist/union bro/organizer of something something?
Anyway: Not helpful!
3. Kyriakos has a fair point: Where the heck is the royal family in all this, really?
Like... with this no show as a contrast i have a new found appreciation for this wonderful technology of having a ceremonial president.
Just last winter the dude was like: "Listen guys, you gotta get it together, because this here piece of paper says i iz Biggus Dickus."
Meanwhile these losers are... doing what exactly? Killing cute foxes? Herding corgies?
Not to defend May or anything.
I doubt any of them have any say even technically, besides one. And she's 92.
Herding corgies would already be greater achievement than most people her age are capable of.
Yes, good point of Kyr.
Where May and Corbyn have the preservation of their party interests conflicting with the national interests... so has the Queen the preservation of the Royal family as first priority. Would she ever risk that for this Brexit affair ? I think not.
Would she be able to interfere just before a cliff edge no-deal, without risking the broad support and continuity of the Royal family, and likely even strenghtening support for the Royal family ? Considering, estimating British culture (?!?) I am pretty sure she can use that small window of being "the only one" in the system that "represents" in her cohesion function the UK's past, today and future for all citizens. (a typical ceremonial President less strong in the aspect of the past).
But like the "whisper softly, and carry a big stick", the stick she has is a "one time weapon only" regarding the part that is likely to become public of such an action.
I guess that if May ignores Parliament and would go for a no-deal cliff edge in the last minute end phase despite a clear way forward of the Parliament yet crossing May's personal red lines, the Queen only needs to summon May to the palace and condemn May, in the appropiate words, for putting personal emotional opinions above the role of a PM, above the nation's interest and what a political party, like her Tories, should stand for in that respect.
May will not be so stupid to ignore that such an event is easily "leaked" to some Tory seniors and if necessary the public in the appropiate way in time for the appropiate U-turn.
May will have no choice, unless she prefers to have the legacy of the personally biased feeble pariah who will forever be remembered as the PM who.....
BTW since yesterday she is the PM who "lost" during the 21 months of her second ministry already 39 Ministers !!! Of which 29 because of Brexit and 10 for other reasons (of which 6 from scandals/abuse).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_resignations_from_the_second_May_ministry
Here BTW the King of Spain as example to interfere to counter the military coup of 1981 by Lieutenant-Colonel Antonio Tejero, who did hold with 200 armed Civil Guard the Spanish Parliament hostage for 18 hours at the election of a new PM.
Do mind that Greece, Spain and Portugal had all three military junta's up to the 70ies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Spanish_coup_d'état_attempt
Here a vid with the shooting:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-25/1981-coup-attempt-still-haunts-spanish
The link to an article that goes in to the conspiracy (joke) fake in 2014 that the coup was organised by the King himself to get a better image. When emotions flared up it was reveiled it was a "mock-umentary". The Spanish people were not pleased.
TBH IDK if this article is genuine that this mock-umentary really happened. Is not fake news itself ! But it does highlight how a people could react on Royal interventions.
Last edited:
Remember that this is the country where the tabloids blare almost daily about Remain traitors/thieves/conspirators and the "Will of the People", where the Prime Minister holds Parliament in the deepest contempt and where fake news about the EU has been a cottage industry for 20 years. What could the Queen do without being instantly vilified by the press?
Two things:
1. If i was subject to something as [let's say suspect] as a royal family i'd expect them to offer some bloody advise right now.
Like... they could call onto May and Corbyn to work together, get the 200 odd moderates in either party and agree to something (anything) with 400+ votes.
Whether the call is heard is another matter, but that they're not even clearly making it, is...
...i don't know...
2. You keep saying "she". I appreciate you're probably talking about that arguably slightly mummified lady.
You and Yeekim can go "92" all you want.
Still: Maybe these people have certain responsibilities however nebulous and undefined.
And maybe, just maybe, them not having this figured out, at all, and hiding behind the number "92" shouldn't pass muster.
Like what is this?
"Oh, we're the Royal Family and supposedly we do xyz. But right now we're on vacation for 25 years. Please, leave a message after the beep."
Like...
...really?
The Royal family is also a cottage industry for the tabloids
They need that "special" kind of celebrity news, that makes the UK also special towards other countries.
The recent movie with Churchill, 2017, Darkest Hour, also encouraging the influential role of the King. Easier there because "the people", Churchill and the King were all alligned towards the evil invader and current sentiments.
The card the Queen, the mother, grandmother, and grandgrandmother of the nation has is "all" the people + an impopular May. Not big a window indeed. The wording very important of what is leaked.
Will May risk that ?
And can the tabloids really risk that they get the full Royal family against them ?
Nice for the tabloids for a couple of months... but is it really a lasting business model ?
The kind of power the head of a royal family of a constitutional monarchy has is asymetrical to the kind of power of a government. It is not like being an owner or a manager.
The real power is that they harnass is the irrational but strong faith many people in such countries have in what a King or Queen should mean to the people and the nation.
It's more the power of that small Madonna shrine everywhere nearby. That power being what people think that power is their own Madionna delivers to them.
It is perceptions and expectations of all players, including the people. The "deal" between the government and the King/Queen, that the King/Queen anoints and gives the blessing of the nebulous higher aspects of the "nation".
In every country with a constitutional monarchy this will differ. In every country the value of this blessing, rooted in irrational faith elements, giving a traditional "populist" legitimacy to a government, will differ. And the "responsibilities" are coming from that perception and value. Also a Queen has to live up to expectations of her umfeld, her social environment.
And that's not only fox hunting. It is also keeping up a whole social village entangling everywhere in society, an enormous big pyramid. Is not really a 9-5 job, but really hard work ! The "deal" is that this happens to support stability.
Republicans for sure will abhor this, but it is like spraying some water resistant spray on your old raincoat. It works, it adds protection and usefulness and a sense of continuity to your raincoat. Common sense. Not using it for principled reasons a valid choice. Buying a new raincoat for principled reasons a valid choice.
But as Arakhor reminds me: the tabloids are the ones narrowing that window of interference.
But yeah... how much common sense these tabloids have already destroyed in Westminster ? Quite a lot.
Oh... a mummified old lady can be especially popular... I think that after the Lady Di affair, that growing age of the Queen helped healing that rift. She has by now enough credits she can spend on this Brexit affair.
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
Regarding the Royal family (and these days it is as much Prince Charles as Queen Lizzie), they may well take the view that:
re UKExcite
(a) public voted to Leave
(b) EU not offering a deal for Leaving
(c) therefore UK Leaves without a deal
and the royal WE are keeping well out of it.
re Prime Minister
(i) If Theresa May resigns
(ii) up to conservative party to identify a replacement.
(a) If the conservative party can not identify a replacement,
then Buckingham Palace might appoint a temporary prime minister
(b) if that can not be achieved, she might ask Jeremy Corbyn to form a minority admin
(c) if that fails, then Buckinghan Palace tells the HoC time for a general election.
re UKExcite
(a) public voted to Leave
(b) EU not offering a deal for Leaving
(c) therefore UK Leaves without a deal
and the royal WE are keeping well out of it.
re Prime Minister
(i) If Theresa May resigns
(ii) up to conservative party to identify a replacement.
(a) If the conservative party can not identify a replacement,
then Buckingham Palace might appoint a temporary prime minister
(b) if that can not be achieved, she might ask Jeremy Corbyn to form a minority admin
(c) if that fails, then Buckinghan Palace tells the HoC time for a general election.
I'm not sure who made the clip but they are a bit confused - in the images at the end they included Blarney Castle, the library in Trinity College Dublin and Collins Barracks - complete with Irish flag.
I do not expect the royal houses in Europe to be really anti-eu, unless there is something personal affected by the EU. In general they, as part of the "establishment" in the EU are moderate. And that means neutral to moderately in favor of the EU.
It is also not their prime concern. I think that in good nobility tradition the preservation of their own royal family's interests in their own country will be prio 1. And usually their role for national cohesion prio 3 after their personal life with prio 2.
From what I picked up, according to royalty tea leaves readers the Queen seems not pleased with the divide in the UK, but IDK if the Queen has really an opinion about Brexit. I can imagine, thinking now on it, that her husband voted Leave and Charles Remain.
I am not really betting on the Queen to save the nation
But that element is there in the Brexit equation.
And having value for the government and part of the citizens in varying natures and degrees does ultimately means having influence. Even if you cannot catch that influence in public definitions, as is done with public institutions and public roles.
I have yet to see formal systems that work properly over a long period of time without informal systems being the practical lubricating or complementary tool to keep it going. Logical system thinkers don't survive practical managing and leading roles, however intelligent and persistent
That influence being there, it becomes then more a matter of how you define interference, and how big the effect is.
Royalty can be compelling nasty beneath their velvet gloves. Our former Queen Juliana simply threatened with resigning to protect her hubby against something. Our PM did not want to lose votes having already a small margin in majority. The Queen while using that argument, killed immediately the arguments of all the politicians that thought that they could force the Queen with threatening her that she would have to resign.
And ofc a compromise was found: her hubby was no longer allowed to wear military uniforms, and got less pocket money from his wife
What would happen if the Queen would promise in private to May, in line with all those Ministers, I resign, because I cannot bear having a PM that cannot unite the country ?
Will May like to live with that legacy ?
And if it would become public later on... or when May would defy it and when the Queen actually resigns, does that really give the Tabloids good fuel ?
Last edited:
EnglishEdward
Deity
I understand your point. I suspect that the HoC assumes that having passed a motion asking for an extension
and Theresa May having 'agreed' the EU's offer to extend, overrides the date set in the UK Act.
The legal issue being whether an extension to an international treaty overrides a domestic law.
I think that this is a something must be done syndrome:
https://harridanic.com/wiki/Something_must_be_done
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Chances of the queen interfering in this way are zero. I don't think she'd be personally opposed to leaving without a deal anyway, but in any case the issue of leaving has been voted on and deciding whether a deal is done or not is up to the government. Not the queen and not Parliament. Parliament already wasted its powers, so it's up to the government. If the queen replaced the government now no-deal exit would be sealed, on the 29th. I actually believe it is already, Monday was the last day to properly change the date, and the deal is not going to be approved this week.
you seem to have no idea how the real world ticks.
Do mind I noted those red lines of May, not the Brexit decision.
Do note that I made this remark in the following post #156
- Status
