Something going on in Parliament - RIP QE2

[vetran]

Which part of reform are you not understanding.

Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?

only after we adopt sharia law, we can apply it to those living in sin!

OK it might be stoning but vive la difference!

[ladymuck]

If you cant be bothered to find out then perhaps stop digging....

Here's a hint. The reigning monarch is the state

Which part of reform are you not understanding.

Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?

[malvolio]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ivate-property



I don't believe the Monarchy should be above the law. Law reform should be part of KCIII's reign to remove the exclusions.

I don't see why going back to Charles I makes exemption from today's laws acceptable.

If you cant be bothered to find out then perhaps stop digging....

Here's a hint. The reigning monarch is the state

[d000hg]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ivate-property



I don't believe the Monarchy should be above the law. Law reform should be part of KCIII's reign to remove the exclusions.

I don't see why going back to Charles I makes exemption from today's laws acceptable.

Democratically elected MPs are also excluded or protected from certain laws. The King wouldn't/couldn't go repealing laws that apply to the Crown, that would be for the government to bring a bill.

[ladymuck]

I don't think they paint the whole article though. We are a constitutional monarchy so while we have a head of state the power to amend and pass legislation sites with parliament. The head of state may be presented with the bill and they put their Monica on it as the top person in the chain i.e it's vetted by them I don't believe they have any power in it really. Happy to be proven otherwise if something untoward is going on but that's how I believe it to be. Did they meddle in some, I expect they have but that's not really their role and it won't have been done as Head of State with full and final control. I think there is a bit more to that story than just the having a look and signing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ivate-property

As monarch, the Queen has a public and a private legal persona. The first, Elizabeth II, is the public figure who serves as head of state and owns historic assets such as Buckingham Palace or the royal art collection, which cannot be sold. The second, Elizabeth Windsor, is a private individual who can buy and sell investments and assets like any other citizen. Although famous for their royal association, the Sandringham and Balmoral estates are private assets of the Windsor family.

Unlike other private individuals, however, Elizabeth Windsor has also had personalised carve-outs and exemptions written into swathes of British law, often in areas where she has private interests or investments.
...
The most controversial exemptions ban the Queen’s employees from pursuing sexual and racial discrimination complaints. Even the most modern piece of anti-discrimination law, the Equality Act 2010, is designed not to protect those employed by the Queen.

Other laws contain carve-outs exempting the Queen as a private employer from having to observe various workers’ rights, health and safety, or pensions laws. She is fully or partly exempt from at least four different laws on workers’ pensions, and is not required to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
...
Thirty-one laws contain Queen’s immunity clauses banning police or environmental inspectors from accessing the Windsor family’s private properties unless they obtain her permission first. Sixteen relate to Scotland, where she is the owner of the 24,800-hectare (61,500-acre) Balmoral estate, which is held on her behalf by a private trust.

Three laws contain clauses immunising her private property holdings against compulsory purchase. In a case first reported last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied for her to be immune from parts of a major Scottish law cutting carbon emissions.

I don't believe the Monarchy should be above the law. Law reform should be part of KCIII's reign to remove the exclusions.

I don't see why going back to Charles I makes exemption from today's laws acceptable.

[northernladuk]

Well yes there is more to it. Go back to Charles I and start reading. When you understand how and why our constitutional monarchy works then you can argue against it.

This is true.

[malvolio]

I don't think they paint the whole article though. We are a constitutional monarchy so while we have a head of state the power to amend and pass legislation sites with parliament. The head of state may be presented with the bill and they put their Monica on it as the top person in the chain i.e it's vetted by them I don't believe they have any power in it really. Happy to be proven otherwise if something untoward is going on but that's how I believe it to be. Did they meddle in some, I expect they have but that's not really their role and it won't have been done as Head of State with full and final control. I think there is a bit more to that story than just the having a look and signing.

Well yes there is more to it. Go back to Charles I and start reading. When you understand how and why our constitutional monarchy works then you can argue against it.

[PCTNN]

Tax arrangements I don't really have an issue with as that's what all rich people can afford to do.

What I am uncomfortable with, which the Grauniad ran some articles on over the past year or more, is the way the Royal Family are able to influence and amend legislation and therefore have themselves exempted from many laws that affect their interests.

Like this time?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-law-exemption

Annoying, isn't it?

[northernladuk]

Tax arrangements I don't really have an issue with as that's what all rich people can afford to do.

What I am uncomfortable with, which the Grauniad ran some articles on over the past year or more, is the way the Royal Family are able to influence and amend legislation and therefore have themselves exempted from many laws that affect their interests.

I prefer our head of state to be a member of the royal family, as a ceremonial figurehead who can be consulted and provide advice from a position of independence. I don't think that status should give them the right to have laws changed to better suit them. Queen's Consent (or King's as it will be now be known) looks harmless as a lovely bit of tradition and that's all it should be - however, the reality is somewhat different.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...queens-consent

I don't think they paint the whole article though. We are a constitutional monarchy so while we have a head of state the power to amend and pass legislation sites with parliament. The head of state may be presented with the bill and they put their Monica on it as the top person in the chain i.e it's vetted by them I don't believe they have any power in it really. Happy to be proven otherwise if something untoward is going on but that's how I believe it to be. Did they meddle in some, I expect they have but that's not really their role and it won't have been done as Head of State with full and final control. I think there is a bit more to that story than just the having a look and signing.

[Gibbon]

You're a classy lot, could at least wait until the funeral is done, but hey ho.