Except the Constituional Monarchy we have in the UK doesn't have absolute power or the practical ability to refuse the will of Parliament. Under our system the ultimate ability to formulate and pass legislation resides with the Elected Parliament, not the Monarchy or even the House of Lords.
Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed
- Thread starter danielanthony
- Start date
Except the Constituional Monarchy we have in the UK doesn't have absolute power or the practical ability to refuse the will of Parliament. Under our system the ultimate ability to formulate and pass legislation resides with the Elected Parliament, not the Monarchy or even the House of Lords.
The Queen would be deposed if she openly exercised this power. Instead, the monarchy has to covertly subvert the democratic process. Hmmm, sounds reasonable.
No, she can't. The law is subordinate to political reality, not the other way around.
Ditto.
No kidding. 'This is the way it was back in the olden days, so it's OK' is intellectually bankrupt.
Mmmm, I'd say that is correct, but only by convention.
The reflections of Lord Berekely and quotes from the lawyers, it points towards influence to put nicely. Even if it is at worst opt outs or excemptions. I suspect there is more we have not seen, and will not see. But Charles has been of particular annoyance to some over the years.
The potential through the last remaining power of the Monarchy is evident, even if it isn't a great threat at the moment.
It's really not the same thing in my opinion. There is no need to understate or ignore the strong influence the Royal Household has over the Establishment. One phonecall from Clarence House must have a greater impact on whatever Whitehall mandarin picks it up than any amount of protesting in the streets or any other situation.. I'd guess.
Convention and precedent, not to mention limited by laws enacted by an elected Parliament.
The point being that the reality is the Monarchy has not got absolute power, and the few powers that it does have are strictly controlled and governed by legal and constitutional precedent, convention and the will of Parliament.
And I reiterate, it is all very well criticising our form of Government, but what would replace it and would it be any better than a proven system that has been the bedrock of one of the most successful, safest, fairest, liberal and tolerant Nations in the modern world.
Last edited:
And yet here we are, one of the most advanced and stable nations on the planet. The evidence would suggest that what you think makes a 'good basis for having absolute power' differs from reality
Well of course it does, because the reality doesn't follow the principles.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
When you say 'will of Parliament', I assume you say this knowing that a Parliament cannot create a new law (well, an Act of Parliament) without royal assent... it's just that what you wrote is sort of paradoxical
It's convention and precedent which are key here, which you obviously recognise.
Yes, legislation. She can't make laws or pass Acts. She can stop them. She can essentially remove authority of the Government and refuse new sittings.
The judiciary have never reviewed or openly stated anything on this aspect of the British Constitution.
However, even with the last vestige of power.... it is still Absolute in nature. Because they haven't, doesn't mean they can't.
Are we agreeing on something, legal least of which, for once?
I'm going to break open a bottle of something...
But it's just such a totally redundant point to make. You aren't wrong, but it's not legally wrong to appoint myself, right now, the prime minister of the UK. Legally speaking, there isn't no reason why I couldn't. The entire election process is based on nothing (legally speaking)!
The is enormous power in convention. Royal assent is just a formality, through and through. To say otherwise is to grossly misunderstand the relationship between convention and law. Convention can actually be stronger than law.
Are we agreeing on something, legal least of which, for once?
I'm going to break open a bottle of something...
Haha, our agreement is probably very short lived
But I will certainly drink!
Last edited:
When you say 'will of Parliament', I assume you say this knowing that a Parliament cannot create a new law (well, an Act of Parliament) without royal assent... it's just that what you wrote is sort of paradoxical
It's convention and precedent which are key here, which you obviously recognise.
An Act of Parliament doesn't necessarily require the assent of the House of Lords, and the Royal Assent can only be withheld under the strict guidance of the use of Reserve Powers. The last monarch to refuse Royal Assent was Queen Anne in 1708 and to do so today would cause a constitutional crisis and in practical terms is simply not going to happen.
I can't quite get the comparison, and I know the Office of Prime Minister evolved from nothing in statute.
Yes, it is quite obvious. I realise assent and all the other pish is a formality, I am outlining theoretical pitfalls.
One question, since we now seem to have lost each other, do you agree that the status quo in the current context has never been held to legal inspection?
I don't want to get into a long-winded debate about this, but what the law says would happen in certain circumstances and what would actually happen are two completely different things. This is accepted by all major constitutional theorists. If the Queen tried flexing her legal muscle today without the approval of the public or political classes, she'd be on the dole tomorrow.
It's held to legal inspection all the time (well, relatively). In R v Jackson, Parliamentary supremacy was held to be a common law principle and the house of lords (now the supreme court, I prefer the old name) said they reserved the power to take it all away!
How's that for legal scrutiny?
Oops got the case name wrong, but here's the terrible and probably mostly in accurate Wikipedia link:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Jackson)_v_Attorney_General
Last edited:
Yet to be*The never-fulfilled mantra of the Republican.
Like I said, the monarch is only popular because of the Queen. When she pops her clogs, and her crap son becomes King, the idea of having an unelected head of state will be far less appealing to the 21st century British electorate. Hopefully the absurdity of the whole thing will become more apparent.
And I take your points about the corruption of elected individuals, sure. However, at the end of the day, a system in which individuals get some say over who dominates them is better than a system in which they have no say.
Parliament would stop funding her, put the Crown's remaining powers on a statutory basis and stop submitting legislation for her assent. There would be no need to knock the crown off her head; ignoring her would do.