Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed

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...

This post sums it all up in one.

Try to dismiss abuse of power for personal gain as ceremonial.

There is no contradiction to be had, and a lot of 'well what do you expect?'..... after decades of 'just a figurehead'...

It's not right, frankly. It is news however.
 
The government consult the monarch on proposed legislation - wasn't this in yes prime minister in the 80's?

Anyone who didn't expect there to be rules and procedures governing how this is done is frankly not living in the real world - we're the worlds oldest parliamentary democracy not some jumped up banana republic.

Sir Humphrey would be spinning in his grave.
 
Biohazard said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's political rather than anything else, as in people do not want to annoy the Royals, so they ask for their opinion. Read the relevant part again:

Earlier in August Kirkhope forced the government to release edited emails showing how the Ministry of Justice consulted Buckingham Palace in 2008 and 2009 over the detail of the apprenticeships bill and how it would affect the Queen "in her personal capacity". As an employer of 1,200 staff the royal household stood to be affected, along with thousands of other employers. The civil servants wanted to know "Her Majesty's intentions in relation to the bill" before its second reading in the House of Commons.
Click to expand...

Interfere is not the correct word.
 
Nitefly said:
It's political rather than anything else, as in people do not want to annoy the Royals, so they ask for their opinion. Read the relevant part again:



Interfere is not the correct word.
Click to expand...

There have been suggestions in the past about the Prince of Wales, without a smoking gun interfere is perhaps unfounded yet policy shouldn't be personally vetted against a single family either.
 
Kermit said:
As far as I'm concerned the veto is there just in case its needed to prevent the passing of a law along the lines of giving the PM (or someone else) absolute power.

In otherwords, while in theory the Queen can use the veto at any time, its really there for the most part to protect our democracy should the need ever
Click to expand...

What absolute power, like our monarchy? ;)
 
Biohazard said:
There have been suggestions in the past about the Prince of Wales, without a smoking gun interfere is perhaps unfounded yet policy shouldn't be personally vetted against a single family either.
Click to expand...

Given that that family is the royal family and we live in a country where we are governed by royal assent, I think that laws being approved by that single family is pretty much a given.

Prince Charles I think has perhaps exercised his opinion about certain things more than my personal liking in the past, but he has every right to do so. What I'd prefer to see is much greater transparency about what is challenged and where. People may disagree about whether the monarchy is a good idea or not, but we can all surely get behind transparency in our law-making?

Biohazard said:
What absolute power, like our monarchy? ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly. We live in a country where one individual has absolute power. I'm quite comfortable with that.
 
growse said:
Given that that family is the royal family and we live in a country where we are governed by royal assent, I think that laws being approved by that single family is pretty much a given.
Click to expand...

It just makes me want a republic all the more frankly. I prefer the concept of meritocracy and democracy than birthright.

Far too archaic.

growse said:
Prince Charles I think has perhaps exercised his opinion about certain things more than my personal liking in the past, but he has every right to do so. What I'd prefer to see is much greater transparency about what is challenged and where. People may disagree about whether the monarchy is a good idea or not, but we can all surely get behind transparency in our law-making?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say no to that, I wouldn't hold my breathe for it to happen either.

Not when the habit is to stick things in the vault for 50-100 years, our descendants will find out a lot more about Government in our timeframe than we probably ever will.
 
Hang on - I've think I've come up with a solution...
If you don't like the Queen... go away, the majority in this country is content, and isn't that democracy?
 
I can't begin to tell you how much contempt I have for the mindset almost everyone seems to have in here.

Our unelected royal family are interfering in the business of our elected government (not just the Queen, her eldest son, as well... Something you seem to be ignoring), and rather than saying whether or not it's good or desirable, you're simply saying that it is.

The poverty of conservatism defined. Sooo depressing.
 
Biohazard said:
People do not say yes or no, or choose something, by protesting. It tends to be a vote.
Click to expand...

But the general consensus of the general consensus (If that makes sense) is that people are content. Shall we vote on whether to keep or abolish the police force, NHS, armed forces and schools as well? Oh, and lets have a referendum on whether to ban the internet as well whilst we're at it.
 
Last edited:
Kermit said:
I know a ;) when I see one but will still say its more akin to the monarch having the last word on any law should it ever be required rather than the monarch's word being the law ;)
Click to expand...

Even then, it's just not a reality. The monarch can veto laws, but doesn't and never will. It's just a mythical scenario.

It's like alleging I can jump off a bridge. I mean, I could, and you might be grateful, but I'm just not going to :p

Or more accurately, it's like an unelected party suddenly declaring they are in power and state to make laws. Why not? Legally there is no reason why they can't.
 
wkingsnorth said:
But the general consensus of the general consensus (If that makes sense) is that people are content. Shall we vote on whether to keep or abolish the police force, NHS, armed forces and schools as well?
Click to expand...

Opinion polls are not consent. It is an imperfect science for a start.

We vote on many of those things at General Elections; the Monarchy has no grace of election.

Just birth.
 
Biohazard said:
Opinion polls are not consent. It is an imperfect science for a start.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you can have an opinion poll (As you call a referendum), you can protest, or you can have a revolution.
Protesting is really the best way to do it, as the government isn't going to change anything with the royals if neither they or anyone else wants it to change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom