Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed

danielanthony

danielanthony

danielanthony

Associate
Joined
22 Sep 2007
Posts
2,184
Location
Abingdon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

The application of the controversial veto was revealed by the Guardian last year and has been described by constitutional lawyers as "a royal nuclear deterrent". Some believe it may underpin the influence Prince Charles appears to wield in Whitehall over pet issues ranging from architecture to healthcare.

Wow, I always thought the monarchy were just pointless figureheads, I never thought that they could actually veto government policies. Further, we're not even supposed to know when these unelected individuals decide to override our elected representatives:

"The government battled to keep the manual secret, claiming publication would breach legal professional privilege, and a spokeswoman for the Cabinet Office said it was still deciding whether to challenge the ruling at the information tribunal."

It will be interesting to find out how often they have used this veto, unfortunately we wont find out how often this veto has been threatened to be used in return for changing policy.
 
The entire law process is based on the head of state signing off on anything is passed.
That is the Queen.
She can veto anything she likes, she just chooses not to.

This isn't news.
This is the entire basis for lawmaking in the UK.
 
Jesus, that is terrible reporting.

Royalty have always had this power and haven't veto'ed anything since... pfft, 300 years isn't it?
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
She can veto anything she likes, she just chooses not to.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the article shows that her and her son have stopped legislation going through, and we're not allowed to know which legislation or what changes have been made to get their consent. In the article I've linked to, there are claims that the Royal Family have changed legislation to protect their private interests, this clearly isn't well known.
 
danielanthony said:
Wrong, the article shows that her and her son have stopped legislation going through, and we're not allowed to know which legislation or what changes have been made to get their consent. In the article I've linked to, there are claims that the Royal Family have changed legislation to protect their private interests, this clearly isn't well known.
Click to expand...

No I don't think it is, don't expect much give in the conversation here though..
 
Biohazard said:
How is it not news?
Click to expand...

Because it's not new. The Queen is quite often consulted with by Parliament so she can be more influential than a lot of people may think. The letters HM that precede many of our government departments aren't just there for old times sake. Technically, Her Majesty can even trump the Prime Minister in the event of nuclear war if she sees fit.

Also, technically, she is immune from prosecution.
 
Biohazard said:
How is it not news?
Click to expand...

When you see a change of PM, whereby the incumbent has to go and ask the Queen to be relieved of their duties with the new one having to ask if he can PM (despite winning an election he still has to ask for her permission) does this not ring any bells and show you that actually the Queen still has quite a bit of power (even if it is largely ceremonial).
 
I think the queen should veto every act until the guardian is banned :p

EDIT: I've just gone and read the comment section and I'm astonished at how few people appear to know this, I've known it since I was a kid! It's like how inheritance tax was generally accepted until it gained a load of attention when a newspaper called it a 'Death Tax'
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
When you see a change of PM, whereby the incumbent has to go and ask the Queen to be relieved of their duties with the new one having to ask if he can PM (despite winning an election he still has to ask for her permission) does this not ring any bells and show you that actually the Queen still has quite a bit of power (even if it is largely ceremonial).
Click to expand...

I think you might already know this, but there is, interestingly, absolutely nothing in law that defines how a prime minister is elected or what his duties are.

Bizarre, but true. It's all convention.
 
Zbornak said:
Because it's not new. The Queen is quite often consulted with by Parliament so she can be more influential than a lot of people may think. The letters HM that precede many of our government departments aren't just there for old times sake. Technically, Her Majesty can even trump the Prime Minister in the event of nuclear war if she sees fit.

Also, technically, she is immune from prosecution.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of the of the Crown.

I ask again, perhaps a bit more refined, how is the Crown interfering with parliamentary acts apparently in their own interests as opposed to those of the State not news?

That is exactly the sort of thing the press should be out to discovery and relate, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom