Brexit: Queen's speech says government priority is to leave EU on 31 October

[brooklynite]

Source: The Guardian

The Queen starts by saying the government’s priority “has always been to secure the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union on 31 October”.

She says the government wants a new partnership with the EU, based on free trade.

There will be new regimes for fisheries and agriculture.

An immigration bill, ending free movement, will be introduced.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/oct/14/brexit-latest-news-queens-speech-branded-farcical-as-talks-in-eu-still-fail-to-achieve-breakthrough-live-news?page=with:block-5da4506e8f083d8b3b9db837#block-5da4506e8f083d8b3b9db837

[hlthe2b]

1. Unseemly as hell, even if this is not unexpected. My fantasies had Liz becoming the monarch of old

and who might actually stand up to Boris and his ilk who actively deceived her. No, I don't need explaining to. I've read enough to know the "modern constraints." But, what about Boris Johnson is in keeping with "modern constraints?"

[Miguelito Loveless]

2. Thus spake Elizabeth, Regina, last monarch of the British "Empire"

As she threw in her lot with the powers of ignorance, hatred, greed, and death.

[jpak]

3. Hear Hear

yup

[obamanut2012]

9. No she didn't, it is not her speech, and she literally has to give it

[elleng]

14. Thanks

[Miguelito Loveless]

15. The story quotes "the Queen's speech"

If she didn’t write it and doesn’t agree with it she shouldn’t give it. Or is “I am just following orders” again an acceptable excuse for reprehensible actions?

[DavidDvorkin]

21. That is indeed the role of the modern British monarch

To just follow orders. The speech is written by the government.

[Miguelito Loveless]

26. And what compels her to speak it aloud?

The law? She is quite literally above the law.

[DavidDvorkin]

28. The constitutional tradition

That the monarch does as she's told. Her powerlessness is foundational to British democracy.

[Miguelito Loveless]

34. You do understand how utterly ridiculous that sounds, right?

Tradition does NOT trump morality.

[DavidDvorkin]

39. You can pontificate and posture all you want

But that's how their system works.

[Miguelito Loveless]

40. And anyone who blindly follows such a system

Is morally bankrupt, a fool, or both. This is no different than rabid conservatives demanding absolute loyalty from party members, even in the face of immoral/criminal actions. This is precisely the conduct we are condemning in Trump loyalists.

The fact I must point this out is depressing.

[Miguelito Loveless]

41. Also crushingly depressing,

having genuine ethical and moral objections being described as pontificating and posturing.

[3Hotdogs]

24. -- or give up millions of pounds of income.

[Miguelito Loveless]

27. Actually,

The income comes from the government paying, ny law, to lease lands the crown owns. They can stop paying for it when they change the law, which requires the Queen’s assent.

[lapucelle]

30. Agreed. The Queen is not an autocrat. She is a constitutional monarch and the steward

of the Crown. She knows her duty to the people, to the government, and to the constitution.

She might have a rarefied and privileged position, but at the end of the day, hers is a life of service.

[Miguelito Loveless]

35. It seems to me

that her duty is to do what is best for her “subjects”, and following Vladimir Putin’s game plan certainly isn’t it.

Boris Johnson and his gang’s plan to restore a border in Northern Ireland means a return to war and people dying.

If she is going to abdicate her morality, then she should go ahead and abdicate her throne.

[abqtommy]

4. Let's hear what everyone in government and The People have to say, too.

[brooklynite]

5. As soon as the Queen's Speech is over, Commons starts to debate it

[cstanleytech]

6. Might be time for her to step down cuz she's living in a dream world.

[Perseus]

10. England needs its monarchs, the problem is the monarchy is not engaged enough in politics

They are representative of the people but with little power and more in tune with the domestic and international relations of the country, serving as hosts and entertaining leaders without the politics. England needs a monarch who can be more in tune with the politics to make sure that someone like Boris Johnson cannot convince them of what they need to say or do, but instead for the monarch to have their own opinion based on the knowledge acquired from being closer to the politics.

IMHO I think it would be a mistake for England to get rid of its monarchy as many would like to see happen.

[BuddhaGirl]

13. Many other countries get slong

just fine without a monarchy, including ours. Monarchy is an anachronism which just reinforces class distinction.

[cstanleytech]

17. I didn't say get rid of the monarchy I said perhaps it's time for her to step down

as in allow the next in line to take charge which is Charles unless he decides to step aside as well in favor of his elder son.

[GulfCoast66]

7. I find the critics of the queen here somewhat ironic.

I would guess there is no website full of believers in a republic and haters of monarchy more than DU.

The monarchy in Britain has exactly no real power. Which short of no monarchy at all is, I would guess, what most on DU would want.

And that is what her speech represents. She has no choice but deliver what the government gives her.

While I detest the whole idea of Brexit, I hate the idea of a monarchy with real power even more.

[Perseus]

11. I would agree that monarchy should not have absolute power, but they should have deep knowledge

and not be forced to carry out the message of a corrupt prime minister. The monarch should have the ability to send back the messenger to discuss the issues at hand. The monarch should be surrounded with academics to help them understand the issues of the day.

It looks awful when the Queen has to give a speech that maybe she doesn't agree with. I am not saying she doesn't agree with Brexit and leaving the union October 31st, maybe she does, but for other issues they need to be able to have their own opinion and not carry water when its wrong to do so.

[hlthe2b]

12. For both traditional reasons and the fact it blunts criticism of the crown itself, she goes along

with the PM. Constitutionalists maintain she COULD have refused Boris' demand for prorogue AND she still retains the authority to reject to sign (and thus enact) any legislation passed by parliament. The fact the latter has not been done since the 1700s doesn't render the power null and void. The safer course for the throne is always to go along with the PM as it then deflects all criticism to the PM and parliament. That doesn't mean she is constitutionally POWERLESS. She chooses to be for self-preservation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/boris-johnson-asked-the-queen-to-suspend-parliament-why-didnt-she-just-say-no/2019/08/30/285aff50-cb2b-11e9-9615-8f1a32962e04_story.html

[Miguelito Loveless]

16. If she disagrees with the text

And did not write it, she has a moral obligation to not give it. This would not be a monarch asserting undemocratic power, but the rather a monarch refusing to assent to the destruction of the realm.

[Denzil_DC]

22. I'll bet in her long time in office, she's given Queen's Speeches which

include any number of items she disagrees with.

Long ago, when Labour was in power, would you have been happy with her refusing to read out any of the provisions the speech contained just because she disagreed with them? That's not how the UK constitution works.

Listen to any Queen's Speech, and you'll hear the words "My government will ...". That doesn't indicate that the queen "owns" the government or is anything more than a titular head with remnants of power that no monarch has chosen to exercise for centuries.

The queen's role is to offer advice in regular meetings with the prime minister, and to adjudicate if a vote of confidence is lost in parliament or if no party can command a sufficient majority of MPs to form a government.

It's the role of parliament to thrash out what actually happens as a result of the Queen's Speech. It's the government's wishlist. The government currently doesn't have a majority to carry any vote on its own, so it's up to the other parties what they do about it.

[Miguelito Loveless]

25. One more time

Brexit will destroy the UK. The Queen is a person with free will. If she cared about “the realm” she would have simply told them to bugger off with their speech. This does not require her to “exert” power, it requires her to refuse to be an accomplice. What would they do to her if she refused? Beat her with the black rod?

By speaking their words, she gave legitimacy to their hatred, bigotry, and greed.

[Loki Liesmith]

29. The Queen is NOT a person with free will.

The Queen is a function that has no free will at all.

[Miguelito Loveless]

32. Really?

I have never met someone with no free will above the age of majority.

[Denzil_DC]

31. You can repeat your line as often as you want.

It doesn't make it any more persuasive, and you seem not to understand UK politics.

What do you think the Queen's Speech actually does? Do you think it creates laws?

Nope. It sets out the government of the day's agenda - its wishlist, as I said above. It is the sovereign of the day's duty and function to read it out.

Elements of that agenda then have to pass through the mill of the Commons and the Lords and back and forth until they may ultimately be passed in more or less amended form. That's where democracy comes in, whether we like it or not or whether or not we think it functions well or at all.

In this case, it's pure electioneering, as the measures set out in this Queen's Speech have less chance of becoming law in the session the speech applies to than I have of becoming prime minister, or even queen.

[Miguelito Loveless]

33. Again, nothing compels her

to read the speech.

Contrary to the assertion made elsewhere, she has free will.

[Denzil_DC]

36. The fact she's queen compels her.

It's a role she's filled since 1953, through innumerable Queen's Speeches.

If you can't grasp that fact after so many have explained it to you, then you're on your own.

[Miguelito Loveless]

37. Right, she has no free will

and is simply a Disney animatronic who says what she is programmed to. So, if the government decides slavery is legal again, tradition compels her to endorse it.

I used to have some understanding, and even sympathy for the monarchy. But as she has no moral compass, I withdraw that sympathy.

[Denzil_DC]

38. Then why don't you write her a letter and scold her some more?

I'm not sure she's a DU regular.

This particular Queen's Speech is being roundly savaged in the media and by the Opposition, and is very unlikely to be voted through. That's the way it's meant to work.

Their criticisms are directed at where they belong - Boris Johnson and his benighted Cabinet and advisers. But I'm sure you have a stronger grasp of the UK's politics and constitution than they all do.

[Miguelito Loveless]

42. So, by this logic

we should have excused the Vichy government, because they had no choice but to follow Nazi laws, because they were laws.

[Denzil_DC]

43. Well, you can invent your own logic to shore up your arguments all you like.

It's not persuasive, and in the end it won't change what's happening to us in the UK one jot.

[Miguelito Loveless]

44. I have not "invented" any logic

the analogy is applicable. If Trump passes a law requiring tomorrow requiring everyone to report any "illegal" they know, or think they now under penalty of death, that will not compel me to pick up the phone. It is even less morally compelling if Trump managed to adopt a "tradition" that I do this. Tradition and law be damned when it involves doing what is wrong.

What exactly is the penalty to the Queen refusing to give a speech she disagrees with? (If she does disagree with it. If she doesn't, well that settles the morality question immediately). Will a bunch of doddering, fossilized old white men have their monocles pop out? Will a bunch of old women with black rods clutch their pearls?

[Miguelito Loveless]

45. Again, the woman is pretty much beyond the law

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2019/02/could-the-queen-get-away-with-murder-legally/

To me there seems to have been a social/legal contract. The secular government would not abuse their power, and neither would the crown. The secular government has abused their power, thus the contract is broken, and the Queen is free to act in the best interests of the realm, if she so chooses.

As of her speech, she sided with tyranny, masquerading as democracy.

[rockfordfile]

19. Damn straight I don't like monarchs. I'm a American it's in my blood.

[melm00se]

46. I was discussing this with a British friend of mine

and he pointed out that while the Queen does not have power backed by the rule of law, the Queen, despite what a small vocal minority says, has the love, respect and admiration of the British people (her "approval" rating is north of 70% and less than 10% give a negative rating).

Most people in Britain have far more respect for the Queen than they do of any politician and, in is opinion, is that the Queen not only talks the talk, she also walks the walk which is far more than most, if not all, politicians have done.

Having that implicit power in her back pocket puts her in a formidable position whether she uses that power or not, it is there.

[Politicub]

47. Well, I detest the idea of people being subjects

All monarchies need to be abolished.

[GulfCoast66]

48. I find nothing I disagree with in your statement.

For some reason the people of Northern Europe disagree. I don’t know why.

[Politicub]

49. People get comfortable with what they're used to

Dissolving a monarchy would be a major change. I think that’s why toothless monarchies persist.

[GulfCoast66]

50. They support a bunch of tourism jobs. So I guess not all bad.

But hey, I enjoy being a Citizen of the oldest republic around. I’ll leave being a Subject to others.

Not that they don’t kick our ass in many areas of general governance.

[dalton99a]

8. Boris Johnson wrote her speech

The Queen’s Speech is the centrepiece of the State Opening of Parliament: the official start of the new session. It normally takes place in May, but this can vary, particularly in a year when a general election is held.

The speech itself is written by the Government and is delivered by the Queen in the Chamber of the House of Lords. Its main function is to announce the Government’s priorities and to list the bills that they plan to introduce in the coming session.

MPs are summoned to the Lords Chamber by Black Rod (a Lords official) to watch the Queen deliver her speech.

When the ceremony is complete, MPs return to the Commons Chamber and begin debating the contents of the speech. The debate usually takes place over six days, with each day being assigned to a policy area, such as ‘the economy’ or ‘home affairs’.

https://beta.parliament.uk/articles/jbJM4p4H

[Miguelito Loveless]

18. Again, she has the option

of saying she refuses to read a speech she sees as advocating policies detrimental to the country, crafted, arguably by corrupt government officials doing the bidding of a foreign enemy.

It’s “tradition” is not a morally defensible. If it’s the law, then she has a moral imperative to the country to disobey.

[msongs]

20. the monarchy is a tourist attraction whose primary function is to generate income nt

[mwooldri]

23. "My government" or "The government"?

The government would be tell tale that Lizzy Windsor disagrees.