Who has more control over their respective governments, Koch Brothers or Queen of England?

[immoderate]

--imm

[Mika]

1. No bill can become law w/o the monarch signing it.

Technically, Elizabeth Windsor has been "dictator" longer than Fidel Castro.

[stevenleser]

2. You are referring to "Royal Assent" whose refusal has not been exercised since 1707

Folks here are saying that FISA courts refusing less than 1/10th of one percent of requests for warrants is a rubber stamp. I think you would have to say this qualifies even more so.

[Recursion]

3. The Queen retains the power to deny a government's formation

Though exercising that would almost certainly end the monarchy.

[stevenleser]

4. I think the response to your question is, the Koch brothers almost certainly

Supposed powers like "Royal Assent" and refusal to allow the organization of a particular ruling coalition in Parliament are simply non-options for the British Monarchy. The very next day, Britain would become a Republic.

The Kochs are able to armtwist and influence politics behind the scenes in a way that the Royal family dares not do and probably has no interest in doing.

[immoderate]

5. Interesting.

The reason I posted this is I became fascinated by the notion of American "royalty."

--imm

[siligut]

6. Yes, acting behind the scenes has its benefits

They can just manipulate our codependent Congress with impunity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. But they actually give her the chance to veto bills before it gets that far

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

So it's not a simple "yes, the Koch brothers have more control" answer.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Did the Koch Brothers want the top rate of tax on interest income to go up by 8.4%?

Did they want the top rate of tax on capital gains to increase by 8.8%?

Because both of these took effect this year.

[immoderate]

9. I would say no, and no...

And I wouldn't presume that decides the issue. I didn't mean to imply that anybody's power is absolute.

--imm