A New Jersey Reader Says Britain`s Downfall Not Queen Elizabeth`s Fault
NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON`T want your name and/or
email address published when sending VDARE email.
Re: Sean Gabb`s article
Monarchy, Nation-States, And The Failed Reign of
“Elizabeth The Useless”
From: Steve Nagy [Email
shouldn`t be too hard on Queen Elizabeth. It is exactly
because the UK doesn`t have a written constitution
outlining each branch of government`s responsibilities
and powers that HM is in such a difficult position.
If there were a
written constitution that specifically allowed the
monarch to veto legislation and outlined the process as
to how Parliament could override such a veto, Gabb`s
criticism would be well founded—because then she truly
would be part of the problem. But if, in a
post-war, post-empire environment (especially
the 1960s) she were to exercise royal prerogative
that prerogative would be quickly legislated away.
As an example,
Grand Duke of Luxembourg vetoed legalizing
euthanasia and assisted suicide. [Luxembourg
strips monarch of legislative role,
AP, December 12, 2008] Luxembourg`s parliament took
away that right by amending their constitution.
I am a person
who firmly believes in a
powers", something Britain does not have in any way,
shape or form. The House of Commons
rules the roost. The
House of Lords is a joke. At least the
Queen has ceremonial value.
I am also a
person who believes that not every branch of government
needs to be elected directly by the people.
But I also
believe that a hereditary branch of government can
provide a valuable counterbalance to the politicians.
"democracy" and "universal
West`s new religion, regardless of the results. Why,
the US tries to
democracy on countries that don`t want it and may
not even be suited for it.
Unless a country
has a written constitution, instead a constitution that
can be changed on a whim, today`s monarch is in a no-win