crab time

  • effervescent [they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    She technically rubber stamps most of the stuff parliament does and could therefore veto it. But she never does because it would be a sign that the monarchy is taking back democratic power

          • effervescent [they/them]
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            See I’m American so our money face people only have control over our governance in spirit

        • knifestealingcrow [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Yeah when we legalized weed there was like a week where the law passed but it was still illegal bc we were waiting for "Royal Assent"

      • ProfessorAdonisCnut [he/him]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Every commonwealth country, but it's her Governors General that actually do the signing (Royal Assent) on her behalf. Local govt chooses who she will appoint though, and the GGs are (more than HM even) usually just a ceremonial thing and have never actually mattered much except for one time in the 70s when the GG just straight up removed Australia's Prime Minister (for the CIA, allegedly).

        She also chooses some of the senior leadership of the Church of England because she's the head of that too, but really that's also a UK PM choice, but really since 2007 the church just chooses it.

    • bigboopballs [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      what would she even veto? it's not like there's even socdems in power or anything, lol

    • SoyViking [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Didn't she secretly tell the government to change some proposed tax code that would have inconvenienced her financially?

      • riley
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator