Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed

[Biohazard]

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

Sorry, I thought the discussion was leaning more towards Royal Prerogative as opposed to the relationship between the elected and non-elected chamber..

 

[Nitefly]

Sorry, I thought the discussion was leaning more towards Royal Prerogative as opposed to the relationship between the elected and non-elected chamber..

In that regard, it's such an overwhelming non-issue there has never been any want or meriting need to challenge it, as far as I'm aware and in relation to recent times.

 

[Biohazard]

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.

Problem being no political party is going to be a vehicle to provide that situation.

 

[Biohazard]

In that regard, it's such an overwhelming non-issue there has never been any want or meriting need to challenge it, as far as I'm aware and in relation to recent times.

I'd say it's more because it's the status quo, but we could certainly have a good dusting out of the British constitutional cupboard I think we would suprise ourself of quite how much antiquified hangovers we could get rid of..

 

[jakspyder]

I personally like the fact that there is someone, who has reigned for 60+ years and seen parties come and go is there to protect us. While she doesn't exercise her powers. She is there as a safety net, and offers impartial advice (as she isnt party bound) to the current PM.

She is the last line of defence if a government decided to go all crazy on us.

 

[Werewolf]

I personally like the fact that there is someone, who has reigned for 60+ years and seen parties come and go is there to protect us. While she doesn't exercise her powers. She is there as a safety net, and offers impartial advice (as she isnt party bound) to the current PM.

She is the last line of defence if a government decided to go all crazy on us.

That is largely how I see it.

Having someone who is not elected, doesn't have to worry about looking good for the next election, and is largely above party politics (or at least never speaks out about it, unlike many of the politicians who would prostitute themselves to get a sound bite on TV*), is quite a good anchor/stabilising influence on the elected politicians.

I doubt the Queen would ever use her veto unless there was no other choice, and if she didn't something seriously bad would happen, however I suspect that at times she's able to say to a politician "is that really a good idea, or are you just being a blithering idiot after a few votes", and suggest they rethink an idea).

Having a democracy without an unlected head of state is all well and good, but it leads to situations like in the US where basically no one can get into office, and stay in office whilst making decisions that aren't popular, but may be needed for the good of the country.
It's one of the reasons I'm marginally more in favour of the House of Lords as it is now, than as another elected house - you just have to look at the States to see how badly that can go wrong, and how it can paralyse the governments ability to pass legislation.


*Seriously, given how some of the politicians who are meant to be qualified lawyers are willing to spout rubbish that even I as someone with no legal training knows not to be the case (IE when they talk about changing the law to allow for you to defend yourself in your home, or when they try to score points because someone from another party quotes what is legally correct but unpopular), when it will make them look good, does not show them in a good light imo,

 

[Energize]

Jesus, that is terrible reporting.

Royalty have always had this power and haven't veto'ed anything since... pfft, 300 years isn't it?

Yeah, treacherous really when you consider some of the legislation the previous government passed. The Queen totally failed her people.

 

[the_candyman]

/sigh
Wiki just got me again. I have just spent the past 3 hours sucked into reading about rules about the royals, rules and everything else. Just finished up on embalming Joseph Stalin...
Thanks OCUK
I always thought the Royalty had the power to take control if they so wish, but choose not too. The same as the land thing?
I remember reading once that the queen owns the land but rents it to the government which gives her a yearly salary because taxing people is a pain to do yourself...? So many hidden rules that revolve around the government and royalty.

 

[godinman]

Tbh, I'd trust the Queen more than those ****ing ******** in government.

 

[BobbyBBB]

Tbh, I'd trust the Queen more than those ****ing ******** in government.

this lol.

 

[MrMoonX]

This is why the monarchy has no place in a modern democracy, this just basically highlights that our whole system is wrong. We the people should have power through the ballot box not some birthright rich person

 

[MrMoonX]

I personally like the fact that there is someone, who has reigned for 60+ years and seen parties come and go is there to protect us. While she doesn't exercise her powers. She is there as a safety net, and offers impartial advice (as she isnt party bound) to the current PM.

She is the last line of defence if a government decided to go all crazy on us.

lol wot

you think the queen is impartial, surely the meddling by prince charles in law making to protect his business interests is reason enough not to trust the filthy rich royals living off our hard earned money. if/when he becomes king he will make sure his right wing interests are kept safe, just as the queen does.

 

[malfunkshun]

Prince Charles can protect his interests as much as he likes imo. He gets about £17m a year out of the Duchy of Cornwall estates, pays normal income tax on that and of what is left a lot is spent on charity and public works.

 

[MrMoonX]

Prince Charles can protect his interests as much as he likes imo. He gets about £17m a year out of the Duchy of Cornwall estates, pays normal income tax on that and of what is left a lot is spent on charity and public works.

you reckon he pays normal income tax, if so youre deluded! he also gets millions of your hard earned like the rest of them

 

[covenantuk]

Back on topic. Seriously this is a non-story. Ever since the civil war we have lived in a constitutional monarchy. The Guardian is sensationalising something anyone with an interest in UK history would know.

The monarch "can" veto any law and dissolve Parliament on a whim. Would they? Most likely not unless advised by the government as if the monarch defied parliament this would result in what's known as "Constitutional Crisis".

The likely outcome is that Parliament would vote to remove the monarch from the process completely - in today's day and age the monarch doesn't have his/her own army and it would be powerless to stop this from happening (yes I know the armed forces swear allegiance, but they take their orders ultimately from the government)

 

[Richie]

Prince Charles can protect his interests as much as he likes imo. He gets about £17m a year out of the Duchy of Cornwall estates, pays normal income tax on that and of what is left a lot is spent on charity and public works.

So anyone with enough money should be able to influence government and policy? Does this not seem along the same line as the "cash for questions" scandal many years ago?

 

[King Damager]

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?

This and this basically covers everything that needs to be said.

kd

 

[Xordium]

We the people should have power through the ballot box not some birthright rich person

Oh right best leave it all in the hands of the MPs then. Voted for by a minority to force the wishes of the powerful and rich onto the majority.

 

[jakspyder]

Oh right best leave it all in the hands of the MPs then. Voted for by a minority to force the wishes of the powerful and rich onto the majority.

The way I see it is, the guys we are voting for are sweet talking you to win their election.

The queen, is the queen regardless of what you want. And she is not trying to win you over for an election. Her advice and decisions are purely for the country. Again, if she uses these powers they would be removed. And by not using them.. she is saving them for when its truly needed.

 

[malfunkshun]

So anyone with enough money should be able to influence government and policy? Does this not seem along the same line as the "cash for questions" scandal many years ago?

Anyone with enough money, as a bit of a generalisation, does influence government and policy, the difference is that they are called lobbyist and not prince.
Also, to those that say we give the Royal Family enough money, we made £240m from the Crown Estate last year.....show me where we gave them that much back.