This post was not written for the blog.
Just briefly consider the jobs our head of state is currently invited to do: She represents the UK at the European Council of Ministers, she represents the UK when required at the UN and especially at the Security Council and worse, she organises international treaties. In actual fact she delegates those responsibilities to someone who just happens to lead the party that won the most seats. That means that unlike France, the UK has no democratic representation on the Council of Ministers.
As a Eurosceptic I dream of the result were we to elect our Head of State. Would someone who relies on the votes of everyone directly give power away at EU negotiations? I think their power would be more successfully curbed by democracy than it currently is.
Of course if the UK were to take a nasty turn (a la V for Vendetta) then we would hope that at the moment the Queen would be able and willing to dissolve parliament. I doubt it though. Her backbone has been shown to be missing by her agreement to the curtailing of her powers brought about by Maastricht. If there’s any theoretical defence for the Queen being head of state then that is not a valid reason in practise. I would support the Queen remaining “Queen” but as Head of State her inability to make decisions is actually dangerous.
October 5th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Sorry Gav its me again, Quote: “As a Eurosceptic I dream of the result were we to elect our Head of State. Would someone who relies on the votes of everyone directly give power away at EU negotiations?”
I used to think the same thing, in fact as most of the Monarchs power has been passed to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, I just could not understand why someone with so much power as the Prime Minister would be willing to literally give it away.
I have sort of come to the conclusion that by moving the power up to the EU level the political executive is actually freeing itself from its own parliament and its own people, you are therefore of course quite right when you say “I think their power would be more successfully curbed by democracy than it currently is.”
I also agree that the Queen as head of state under the present circumstances is and has been proved to be dangerous. She is allowing the destruction of Britian as a nation state to happen without a word being raised and she has ignored several calls for her to act, in fact I know of one or two people who would claim that as the Queen has broken her Coronation oath she has in fact abdicated.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
The alternative, of course, is to increase her powers and bring her [or her successor William] into the decision making process. Are their no loyalists left? I’m as Eurosceptic as the next man.
October 5th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Gav, I disagree with you again.
)
The reason why the Queen should be head of state is the same as the Lords being hereditary. The Queen can do something about the way the country is going to the dogs but she won’t. She obviously considers that this is the best course of action for the country because I firmly believe she is loyal to her subjects and country.
October 6th, 2006 at 4:28 am
The Queen is,in fact, the head of 16 sovereign states which include Australia, Canada, Jamaica and Tuvalu- the Commonwealth realms.She reigns but does not rule.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Thanks for the comments all.
Wonko, The Maastricht Treaty made the Queen a citizen of the EU. In theory she is sovereign in the UK and we, the people, are not. The fact that she thinks it is okay that she is now a citizen of the EU and that she was entirely silent over the Constitution which, as Ken pointed out would make the EU into the supreme government of EU Member States, suggests that her role will never be used.
The US is a place we can learn from here. The separation of powers along with the constitution protect in much the same way as you would like the Queen to act as protector of the UK (or more likely England).