(no subject)

[danohu]

[Edit: as predicted, this was a case of a misleading article in the Guardian. See i_am_toast's comment.]
Plans to make schoolchildren take part in citizenship ceremonies pledging allegiance to the Queen

Yes, it's the Guardian selling papers by angering liberals, and somebody's always willing to say idiotic things to get himself back in the news. But it still leaves me feeling sour - and yes, these things can matter.

Worse - I hadn't realised (or had forgotten) that we make immigrants swear to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law"

sorry; I will stop posting so much about politics eventually. I just seem to have remembered in the past few weeks how beautiful the world is, and therefore also how fucked up chunks of it are

Comments

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

"a prospective citizen would necessarily already have permanent leave to remain"

having looked it up: yes, you're right. Yet again my mental map of the categories of residency etc. has very little connection to the (confusing) reality.

"You and I owe our allegiance to the Queen"
We live in a country where the queen has some powers, parliament and the executive have others, and there are various other rights and responsibilities scattered around the place. Few people would claim the Queen has the power to give me or you orders, except as a part of that system. I don't strongly object to asking people to pledge loyalty to the system.

But more generally I don't like arrangements where people are pressured to, or given incentives to, say things they don't believe in. It ends up penalizing people who refuse to lie, which feels deeply wrong to me. Compare to Irish nationalist MPs refusing to swear allegiance, or people wrongly imprisoned who are denied early release because they deny their guilt, or the Quaker teacher in California fired (briefly) because she inserted 'non-violently' into a loyalty oath. Even if Britain is a monarchy, and a majority want it that way, to make people swear allegiance to something 20-odd percent of Britons disapprove of is a recipe for hurting the honest.

[iain666.livejournal.com]

Erm, Her Majesty has absolute legal power over you, me and all her subjcitizens. The power wielded by the government belongs to the monarchy and is granted to the government by the monarch. Ditto the judiciary (HRH is the fount of justice). The executive powers of the government are devolved from HRH by convention and little more. There are may be acts of parliament which notionally limit her power and it might be 300ish years since a British monarach denied royal assent to a parliamentary bill but Her Majesty could, in theory, dissolve parliament tomorrow and appoint ministers at her whim. There's only the worry of civil war and/or mass-uprising to stop her. Sod all Gordon could do about it except look peeved.

The Queen is the system. You might be some kind of republican scum who should be sent to the tower (joke, mostly) but just because you don't like it doesn't stop it being true.

[oedipamaas49.livejournal.com]

What stops it being true is 800-odd years of British history (the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Act of Succession, Petition of Rights, etc, etc, etc). And no, she can't just ignore them - Elizabeth wouldn't be queen if her ancestors hadn't agreed to them.

As for the powers you mention: she certainly doesn't have the right to meddle with the judiciary (see: bill of rights, act of succession). Yes, she could theoretically dissolve parliament and appoint ministers - but they'd have to make do without tax or an army.

And in reality, there is no way she would - or could - do that. If she tried to claim more privileges than she has, she'd either get properly deposed or start a civil war. The monarchy (fortunately) has neither a monopoly on violence, nor the consent of the country to do more than perform her limited functions.

You're right about Godwin's law, though.