In Britain the Queen is the Head of State and from her all power derieves. Should she have not only the 'theoratical' right but the actual right to veto bills passed by parliament? This in my view would not be in any means undemocratic. In Germany the Federal president is NOT elected by the people and has the right and excersises it.
As Head of the Armed forces in the UK, should the Queen have the right stop a military action that the government is forwarding if she does not feel it to be justified? Only she can declare war and peace, but only with the 'advice' of responsible ministers...
There are many more questions like this I could ask...what's your take on it? Share your views.
2007-03-21 15:29:38 · 6 answers · asked by Lord Sean 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
The German president is still nominated by the elected chancellor and approved by the elected bundestag. The Queen is chosen by accident of birth. She is on much shakier ground than he is. It would be nice to have a check on the more outrageous decisions of the government - like invading Iraq - but a lot of people would have a problem if a hereditary sovereign started overruling the will of parliament. What we need is to preserve the current relative independence of the House of Lords, or as David Cameron suggests, giving the Queen's powers which are exercised by the PM to parliament. Imagine the foolish Prince Harry came to the throne - would you trust his judgement? In an enlightened country nobody chosen by accident of birth should have such powers.
2007-03-21 21:02:21 · answer #1 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
First, the united Kingdom is not Germany.
The Queen's power is strictly as a figurehead head of state, with one exception:
She can fire the Prime Minister of a minority government, if parliament is deadlocked, and he is not willing to resign. At that point, either a new election is called, or she calls on the leader of the next most powerful party to attempt to form a government.
Her power to veto a bill is strictly symbolic, following the "advice", as you say, of her ministers, now particularly the Prime Minister.
British history requires this. There has been much experimentation over the centuries, and this is the system that has worked.
2007-03-21 15:42:04 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They Queen does have all these powers, she does have the power to veto acts of parliament, but for constitutional reasons no monarch since Queen Anne has used the veto. She also has the right to declare war and crate peace on her own terms. There is no written constitution in britain, our system has developed over time with the monarch giving consesions to parliament and that is why we have a democracy, so I completly agree that it would not be undemocratic of her to use her power, as it is because of our stable monarchy that we have the democracy we have today.
2007-03-25 12:02:23 · answer #3 · answered by ccsmall1 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whether she should or not is purely academic! The truth of the matter is that the Queen has in fact, very little power to do anything. She does open Parliament, but has to read a speech written by the PM even if it goes against the grain. She is in fact, a figurehead and has no legal rights . Over the centuries, the Monarch lost rights and privileges.
2007-03-22 04:04:09 · answer #4 · answered by Alfie333 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theoretically, the Queen has that right. Practiacally, no monarch has refused to grant Royal assent to any parliamentary bill since Queen Anne (reigned 1702-1714).
2007-03-22 05:23:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, i definitely think the queen should have the right.
firstly, the queen hardly exercises these rights anyway, so there is no harm giving her these powers.
should she choose to exercise it, it would be good to have someone who is not a part of the parliament be involved in the major decision-making of the country.
although these powers have the potential to be abused, their pros outweigh the cons.
2007-03-21 15:39:35 · answer #6 · answered by silivren 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋