BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 11:24 PM

Songwronger -

A nasty little swine, that's who. What possible satisfaction do you get from being so disrespectfully vulgar & obscene in matters that are none of your petty business, you pathetically unpleasant little troublemaker?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Songwronger
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 10:00 PM

Understood. As long as you people are happy with the queen's ass-scent, who am I to question?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:28 PM

""With a veto, the royals could just shoot down any legislation that happens to come onto their radar; with an assent needed, that means they review every piece of legislation. Right? How can they give an assent if there's no review?""

Don't be such a complete prat SW. She doesn't review every new act that is passed. It takes over 600 people a very full working week just to consider, draft and vote on all the legislation that takes place.

When bills become Acts (in other words LAW), she is handed a manuscript for assent and she signs off on it.

The UK is not like the USA. Mostly we trust our legislature, while feeling free to mistrust individual politicians, or parties, but knowing that with the system we have, the majority of laws have been fairly well debated before a vote.

Our system doesn't really allow one party to solidly block everything the other tries to do, so things do get done.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Charmion
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:25 PM

Are you American, SW?

If so, don't worry your pretty little head about HM the Queen; she's ours, and we're keeping her. The Westminster system of Parliaments, which
Canada shares with the U.K., is not perfect -- nothing is in this vale of tears -- but it works quite nicely.

If it were broken, we would fix it. It's not, so we don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 07:14 PM

""Any else know how to spell "Constitutional MONARCHY"?""

I'll assume that you meant Anybody else Rap, before pointing out that in my post of 05:58 AM yesterday, the following appeared:

""the time when England became a constitutional monarchy.""

Which seems to be an exact duplicate of your own, so the answer to your question is obviously "Yes thank you, I do!"

And it doesn't need either capitalisation or all caps, when referred to in passing.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Songwronger
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 06:58 PM

Having to get a royal assent seems even more suspect than having a royal veto.

With a veto, the royals could just shoot down any legislation that happens to come onto their radar; with an assent needed, that means they review every piece of legislation. Right? How can they give an assent if there's no review?

I just don't understand why one family is allowed to have so much power.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: gnu
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:14 PM

It has everything to do with the topic of the thread. It explains why HRM is consulted and it explains why she DOES have the power of veto if she truly wants to exercise it. But, ya gotta read between the lines. And, some lines, ya just gotta read.

Been thru this debate before. No need for me to repeat it. If she wants to veto, she will. But, she won't because she doesn't have to. She simply has to tell her minions what is to be done and it gets done. Read a newspaper. Read between the lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Newport Boy
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 03:56 PM

All that may be true, gnu (I don't agree, but that's me) but it all has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: GUEST,999
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 03:56 PM

Anyone who likes law or sausage should not watch either being made.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: gnu
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 02:05 PM

26 years as a princess, 60 years as a queen. She's got connections through family and friends, she's travelled a fair bit, she's had personal audiences and relationships with a few dignitaries, PMs, presidents, she wields the sword (don't point out to me she doesn't on accounta that is crap)... Now, if *I* was PM, I would wanna seek her advice. And the PM does... always has, always will... and the PM is the better for such consult.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Jim McLean
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 01:55 PM

A republic is the answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Newport Boy
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 01:26 PM

Just to inject a bit of commonsense into this, There is a problem.

First, let's dispose of the initial question (what happened?). That's easy - the Minister overuled the judges. So much for an independent judicial system.

Second, this has absolutely nothing to do with the royal assent. The problem arises from a convention that allows the monarch to request changes to draft legislation at an early stage, usually before it is published for general consultation, if such legislation may have an adverse effect on his/her private interests (my italics). This convention has been extended to the heir, apparently on the basis that it's part of preparation for the monarch's role.

I find either of these steps difficult to justify. Why should any citizen be allowed preferential access to Ministers in the drafting of legislation? Applying the convention to the heir, whose private income comes largely from the Duchy of Cornwall (a major estate affected by many changes to legislation) is asking for trouble. We now have it, because the current heir has strong, and very odd, opinions on many matters (architecture, medicine, etc) and Minsters appear to have taken these odd opinions seriously in drafting legislation.

If his submissions were made public, we would at least know how our laws are made outside Parliament.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Musket
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 10:51 AM

It's how we operate. They are consulted. Not so much as to see if it interferes with their interest as because they sign legislation off.

Since James II and the restoration, the agreement has been that if they ever refuse, The Prime Minister (in their position as First Lord of The Treasury) would sign it into law and begin the process of declaring a new Monarch from The House of Lords, or, as might happen these days, begin the process of forming a republic.

Constitutional Monarchy is not Monarchy. it is using a tradition to good effect.

Every Prime Minister since Churchill has sat with this Queen each week for a cup of tea and a chat. She has been a constant confidant and sounding board for each and every Prime Minister since 1953. When she cannot make it, Prince Charles has been there since 1967.

Most world leaders would give a hell of a lot for what our Prime Ministers enjoy. Most leaders of The Commonwealth have less regular obviously, but similar opportunities to bounce ideas and problems to someone who has been doing the same to their predecessors.

Just think, if they appreciated decent tea in Boston, others could have enjoyed the continuity too... Instead, everybody buggers off and The White House must be a lonely place with only the cleaners having any idea of what it was like in the building a few weeks ago...

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:22 AM

Any else know how to spell "Constitutional MONARCHY"?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Mo the caller
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 09:10 AM

"This story's from about 3 months ago. So how'd it turn out? Did the royals give up their veto power? "

Now that really would be a constitutional crisis. All BILLS must obtain the ROYAL ASSENT before they become ACTS of Parliament.

And if she can assent then she must be able to veto. If not, what is she for - holding garden parties and attracting tourists?

It is part of the 'checks and balances' of our constitution.

I suppose the question arose because most people think that she would only use the veto to prevent a government becoming tyranical, and not to promote personal interest. But our unwriten constitution has evolved from a time when the monarch wasn't subject to the law, because he WAS the law. A ticklish subject, but most of us here prefer evolution to revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:58 AM

A typical piece of Songwronger trolling, which merely points up his abysmal ignorance of just about everything he comments on.

The Royal assent to bills is a hangover from the time when England became a constitutional monarchy.

Refusal of assent is a never exercised vestigial right, which English people have known about for 500 years or so. Hardly a secret then.

Consultation takes the form of talking to any interested parties (not just the Royals), and is carried out to inform Parliament of likely consequences, so that they be considered during the process.

It confers no power of veto, nor is Parliament in any way obligated to act upon it.

So, SW, crawl back in your hole and find some other trouble to stir up. I'm sure it won't take long.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Megan L
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:48 AM

Why do people start threads without checking to see if they already exist? Sugarfoot Jack started the same thread on the 1st September this year.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: GUEST,Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 05:12 AM

It's never been a secret. I was taught about it when I was doing a business course at our local Tec College back in the mid-1960s. It's a reserve power which, in practice, is never used.

Much ado about nothing, AFAIC.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 04:34 AM

As others have pointed out (and did 3 months ago), it's a CONSULTATION, not a veto. In the same way as other interested parties are consulted in respect of legislation that may affect their interests (eg news organisations regarding potential privacy legislation, or telecomms companies re potential legislation about frequency allocations, etc, etc, etc).

Blowing up a non-story into something it isn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 03:28 AM

Consultation hardly amounts to a veto.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 12:34 AM

Good question SRS.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Songwronger
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 12:34 AM

A non-issue? So it's been resolved? The royals gave up their veto power?

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 12:10 AM

Songwronger, Has anyone pointed out today that as you waste time trying to find non-issues to stir up the populace that you're full of it?

Just wondering why you bother to hang out in a place where you don't seem to like anyone or have anything worthwhile to contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Songwronger
Date: 28 Dec 12 - 12:05 AM

Surely the powers were secret. The Brits here keep saying the royals have no real power, but being able to veto legislation...that's a nice bit of muscle. Surely the Brits weren't aware of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 10:22 PM

Never was secret.

Subject: BS: Secret Royal Veto Powers
From: Songwronger
Date: 27 Dec 12 - 09:23 PM

A little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it does not harm their private interests.

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.

A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal manual. It details how the consent of "The Crown and The Duchy of Cornwall" is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do so it could face high court action.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/secret-royal-veto-powers-exposed

This story's from about 3 months ago. So how'd it turn out? Did the royals give up their veto power?