Interesting Links for 27-01-2014

[andrewducker]

• Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over laws
  (tags: monarchy politics uk secrecy )
• From one cell to many: How did multicellularity evolve?
  (tags: evolution )
• BeWifi lets you use your neighbor’s bandwidth when they’re not using it
  (tags: technology networking )
• Don't practice the same thing over and over - shuffle it up to learn more

Comments

[artkouros]

Good for the Queen. I'm glad she still has her hand in. Doesn't seem to be much point otherwise.

[andrewducker]

It's a risky business, prioritising the views of the unelected over democratic representatives. Some days they'll do things you like, and others they really won't.

[artkouros]

We have the same problem with congress - once elected, they almost cannot be un-elected.

[andrewducker]

That strikes me as an argument for more democracy, not less...

[artkouros]

I think I could deal with despotism better if ours came with nice hats.

[makyo]

You brought this same article up several months ago, remember?

To recap: this isn't and never has been "secret" (it's minuted in Hansard as a matter of public record) so why an FOI request was necessary is unclear. The only occasions when it's been invoked (rather than just nodded through as a formality) are when the government have instructed her to exercise the veto - which I agree is a problem, but it's a problem with the executive rather than the monarchy as that article seems to be claiming. In that situation, is she supposed to exercise the veto (thus apparently overriding democracy) or refuse the instructions of her ministers (thus apparently overriding democracy)?

More recently, there's a private member's bill in the Lords at the moment, intended to abolish Queen's and Prince's Consent and a couple of similar issues. Whether it'll get anywhere is entirely up to our "elected" government - I suspect not, because it's a useful little tool for them to silence backbenchers who have gone off-message.

[andrewducker]

Dammit, my brain saw the 15th of January and thought it was last week, not a year ago!

However, clearly it was secret - otherwise a court order wouldn't have been necessary!

I think it's a problem with the system - because it allows the government to override bills without doing so directly, and in an open/transparent manner.

I doubt a private members bill will get far, they almost never do. And in a case where it would undermine the power of the government to kill things it doesn't like without having to go before parliament, I suspect that they'll do their best to shut it down.

(My objection, obviously, isn't to the person of The Queen - I have nothing against her personally - it's against the use of back-channels to kill off bills, rather than having the dealing done as openly as possible.)

[makyo]

Yes, I think I agree with most of this - the real problem is that this constitutional anachronism provides a sneaky loophole that elected politicians, rather than unelected monarchs, sometimes use to stifle normal democratic processes

[andrewducker]

Also, as the article points out, it's not a case of whether they have used their veto, just knowing that The Queen/Prince Charles can veto thigns is enough to bend the laws around them, because the government will avoid areas which could cause a conflict. That in itself is worrying.