republicans, over here!

[arghpleasestop]

OK, it's been 24 hours now.

Can I say it yet?

Long live the king - any king! - you must be joking. How on earth can it be the 21st century and there is still a hereditary monarchy of 'special people with the right blood' who wear crowns, live in palaces and play a formal role in politics?

I can see from other threads that others feel upset and are following it all closely. This thread is not to deny those feelings and for sure Queen E worked hard shaking hands for a long time - but to say, WTF, bring on the republic please.

Yes... but as the royalists keep telling everyone else: "there's a time and a place"

National Mourning period only means the plebs can not do things. Same rules do not apply to the Royal Family.

"The most controversial exemptions ban the Queen’s employees from pursuing sexual and racial discrimination complaints. Even the most modern piece of anti-discrimination law, the Equality Act 2010, is designed not to protect those employed by the Queen."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

Here's the throwaway sentence in the Equality Act 2010 that exempts the sovereign:

"...The section does not affect the Sovereign in her private capacity."

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/4

From the same article, linked above,

"Other laws contain carve-outs exempting the Queen as a private employer from having to observe various workers’ rights, health and safety, or pensions laws. She is fully or partly exempt from at least four different laws on workers’ pensions, and is not required to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974."

Yep, that’s called sovereign immunity. Can’t take the monarch to court, for anything. Most republic’s governments also have sovereign immunity- although it’s also called “governmental immunity” these days. Some republics, like Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Italy, India, Iceland even the President and other government officials have sovereign immunity during their terms of office (and some government officials are career civil servants so their term in office is indefinite). One republic, China, even has sovereign immunity for state-owned corporations.

Its interesting how no matter what government system is put in place, there seems to always be an elect few that are literally kept or made to be above the law.

The law does not apply to the Royal Family. They can do whatever they want.

Assigning a name to it, it doesn't justify it.
We know what it's called.

The UK is also not Sri Lanka, Nigeria, China, though.
It's completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse anything either.

It's the logical fallacy of "it's not as bad as [insert name of a worse "person/place/thing"]. Again.
For some reason, it seems to be used a lot in defence of the monarchy.

It would be so much better if people defending the monarchy were to come up with actual sensible arguments instead.

@VivX I also see republicans putting forward really petty arguments like the pen video. You're not winning any royalist over with that, it hurts your argument to even mention it.

It's like saying Hitler was bad because he committed genocide, invaded other countries, oh and his mum was fat.

Actually I agree with that. I mean, the pen videos make him look like a bit of a dick but they're peripheral to the main point which is, if we do get a complete tosser / child rapist / Nazi / whatever next in line, there's sweet FA we can do about it. And no-one should be able to carve out handy legal exemptions for themselves without scrutiny.

“Assigning a name to it”? Really that’s what you got from my post. Of course knowing what it is doesn’t justify it, but it explains what it is. It’s not a case of Queen Elizabeth having “carved out exemptions for herself” at all.

Sovereign immunity is as old as the hills. It is millennium older than the monarchy itself and is world wide, present in just about every nation in one form or another. Even in your precious “republics” it persists- so the sensible argument there and I will spell it out for you, that even if the monarchy is abolished, that will not eliminate sovereign immunity from our country.

There is no logical fallacy in what I wrote and it wasn’t to justify sovereign immunity, but it is completely relevant to understand why the monarch has sovereign immunity, where it came from, and how else it appears around the globe under other forms of government and in other cultures. It’s a universal, ancient form of inequality and as such not something you should be blaming anyone in the royal family for existing.

But there s a huge difference in granting temporary immunity to someone deemed worthy of it in a public plebiscite and lifelong immunity by dint of being born in a given family. Sarkozy had immunity while President but has been convicted in court gor crimes relating to his election since.

Yes, there are major & minor differences, but the common thread is that someone, and often many someones in republics will have sovereign immunity no matter what type of government, culture or nation you are looking at all through history.

Its interesting how no matter what government system is put in place, there seems to always be an elect few that are literally kept or made to be above the law

Better write a decent Constitution then.

All people are equal before the law.

@absolutelyanythingwilldo
Personally, I think his behaviour in both videos was appallingly crass, especially considering he was at a formal occasion that directly pertains to the job he is there to do (and for which, royalists are keen to point out, he's received 73 years of preparation for). So unsurprisingly, he was roundly ridiculed for it.

However, I do agree that it is petty in itself.

With that said, if the monarchy is ever debated formally, say in Parliament (leaving aside for the moment, that that isn't allowed), presumably nobody will be using it as an actual reason to remove him.

@Discovereads This literally proves my point about the lack of logical argument.

There are 160 laws that the monarch has exemption or partial exemption from.

I'm arguing against this situation... (to be fair, that wasn't explicitly stated - I kind of assumed that it was obvious that I am against this but perhaps I should have spelled it out.)

But, yes if someone's point is (paraphrasing), sovereign immunity is bad... the counter-argument is to give a justification of it.

All you've done is describe it (and previously, you gave it a name). That's not a reason for it, though.
The actual counter-argument would be an explanation of why you think sovereign immunity is a good idea. Or what its purpose is and why should we retain it. (Not: because it's always been like that and other countries have it too)

Simply regurgitating what it is or where it came from, doesn't actually add any reasoning at all. It's almost like the forum equivalent of filibustering.

Similarly, it's an illogical assumption that it is a given that sovereign immunity would remain, even if it exists in some form in other countries without a monarch.
This is because there's no requirement obligation for the UK to copy another country.

It might be likely or unlikely that it persists, but it's not a definite, so you can't rely on it.

Also, as an aside, since you said: "It’s not a case of Queen Elizabeth having “carved out exemptions for herself” at all."

Yes, it is entirely just exemptions for her that were agreed for her and benefit her as part of the queen's consent.

For example, in the Pensions Schemes Act 2015, the legislation literally states: "Nothing in the relevant provisions applies to Her Majesty in Her private capacity."
That's a specific exception given to the queen relating to her as a private individual.

The Guardian article that I previously linked to, further upthread, was reviewed by Thomas Adams, who is an associate professor of law specialising in constitutional law at Oxford University.
He said, of the exemptions, "There is a clear pattern, and they relate largely to the economic interests of the monarch,”

In whose interests are the exemptions for, if not the queen (at the time)? And who else would have negotiated them, if not the queen or someone acting for or advising her?

@VivX
Im not arguing for sovereign immunity. Never was.
I agree with you that it is bad. But you were unaware it is a universal bad, and guess what a “decent Constitution” isn’t going to get rid of it because it’s too attractive for any State to assume for itself no matter what type of government is put in place.

You seemed unaware sovereign immunity even existed and that it is the reason why the monarch had these 160 legal exemptions- they all derive from sovereign immunity- and are exemptions the monarch has always had for thousands of years.

You are trying to say that Queen Elizabeth had been secretly influencing each law to get special unprecedented exemptions when that’s clearly not the case. Every new law, abides by the convention of sovereign immunity as it is being drafted.

I don’t disagree with Prof Thomas Adams, the immunity from being sued in court as a private individual is always of economic benefit. That’s not the motivation though, sovereign immunity came about because of the ancient idea that there is no authority higher than the sovereign, so no judge in any court can sit in judgement of the sovereign.

The U.K. government has the same view of itself by the way, it’s why the Tory Government are pulling out from the European Court of Justice, because having to follow their verdicts violates our sovereign immunity as a nation. Similarly the Russians have voted to depart from the European Court of Human Rights to preserve their sovereign immunity.

I agree with you that it is bad. But you were unaware it is a universal bad, and guess what a “decent Constitution” isn’t going to get rid of it because it’s too attractive for any State to assume for itself no matter what type of government is put in place

You don't think it's possible to write something so that everyone is answerable to the law?

Channel 4 news tonight - went to Jamaica and broadcast view of Jamaicans who want to leave the commonwealth. I know it’s not the UK but I was cheered to hear another view. One lady said something like ‘that child grown up now and needs to leave’ - or words to that effect 😆

It’s entirely possible to write something where it says everyone (including institutions like the State) are answerable to the law. After all humans can imagine anything and then write it down. But is it actually going to happen and be enforced? Not bloody likely. No nation has ever given up its sovereign immunity. Not even the Pope has, and he’s supposed to be all holy and moral and humble servant of God and all that.

There was zero reason to tell them jobs at risk on Monday, could have waited until after the funeral.
A simple "No decision will be made until next week, until then, BAU" common enough in business.

Charles and or his staff didn't do this, shows what they are and what they think of their employees.

The fact the Sovereign has immunity etc, doesn't mean they have to take it, i would hope the 'Royals will abide by UK employment law ands not try and circumvent it.

It’s entirely possible to write something where it says everyone (including institutions like the State) are answerable to the law,No nation has ever given up its sovereign immunity.

You seem to be talking about the State. This is about individuals. Even Heads of State.

I don't know why this keeps being trotted out. The US president is akin to the prime minister in other countries. I thought this eas common knowledge, but I guess you think Trump was elected King?

We had the queen for decades and by luck the country seemed happy but if we got someone like Trump (or Andrew} what then? - at least the Americans were able to get rid!

Yes I am talking about the State because sovereign immunity doesn’t just apply to the Head of State, but usually to the State itself, and in many cases government officials of the State and in the case of China, State owned companies too. There are various types and degrees of sovereign immunity. So, no it’s not just about individuals.

I agree. Although Charles III has said all along he would pare down the monarchy as he think it costs too much. Still he should have waited and even though he is immune from any court action against him for not following U.K. employment laws, I agree he (and his officials) should be complying with it to the best of their ability and have a mediation process whereby they can compensate victims when mistakes are made (no employer is perfect).