Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Is it better to be Queen, titular leader of a smallish country, but who has all sorts of monarchical perks and wealth and news coverage and PR (e.g., the Downton Abbey movie, for crying out loud), or is it better to be the Queen, relic of a now-useless monarchy, gradually diminishing in importance under EU democracy?

If there is actually a volcano-level problem with the UK's constitution (what was it when there were actual riots in the streets of London, and murdered heirs, and dukes duking it out; asteroid-level???), maybe it is better to be Queen of the UK with a hope of regaining some limited executive power under a reworked constitution...

by asdf on Sun Sep 22nd, 2019 at 05:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There is nothing within the Treaties governing EU membership preventing the UK bestowing greater powers on HRM beyond the general requirement that the UK be a democracy. Indeed it can be argued that symbols of national uniqueness become more important, not less, in a situation where much sovereignty is pooled and many of the more boring, mundane, technical governmental decisions are taken at EU level.

Regulating food standards, for example, no matter how important and well done, is not the stuff that inspires patriotism, national fervour, and pride in and identification with the worthy organisations which perform such tasks. Insofar as many people need stuff to identify with, be it their favourite football club or their national armed services, identifying with Royalty is possibly less harmful than some other options, even if it does tend to amplify and perpetuate class divisions.

However that is for individual member states to decide. Subsidiarity and all that...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Sep 23rd, 2019 at 11:03:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series