BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto

Subject: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 12 - 08:16 AM

So it appears that the Monarch is not just a symbolic head of state, she wields real power in the form of a royal veto held by herself and Prince Charles. Not only that, they've been using it and the government (made of up rich establishment types, remember) have been trying to keep it from us proles.

Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed.

So much for democracy. A thousand years under the Norman Yoke and the buggers are still at it. Oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Sep 12 - 08:28 AM

Hardly secret. I remember it being covered in General Studies at school roughly 45 years ago when we were taught about the Parliamentary process. Plus, while background influences are certainly possible during the development of a bill by all sorts of interested parties, you must bear in mind that what with televised Parliament and one thing and another, the actual formal power of the Royals is at the point the bill is brought for signature, and the bill could hardly be altered or refused at tht stage without notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Stu
Date: 01 Sep 12 - 08:51 AM

Considering there is evidence that they are actively involved in making decisions to protect their own interests, I would suggest this is unacceptable.

I was never taught about this at school (but then I went to a comprehensive), and considering that the government is reluctant to publish the details of this veto, we can only suppose they think us plebs won't like to. And they'd be right, for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Sep 12 - 08:52 AM

Oh dear, another rant spoiled by exposing it to the light of truth ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 12 - 04:44 PM

Okay...let's assume that it's "!unacceptable!".

What do we do to demonstrate our unacceptance? March on Buckingham Palace carrying torches, sickles, and pitchforks? ;-)

I also remember learning about this in school a very long time ago, so it's not a secret. But I wonder how many younger people have been taught anything about it lately? The New World Order seems to be intent on educating people to know as little as possible about past history these days. They make better serfs that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Sep 12 - 09:13 PM

The Royal Assent has existed since the establishment of the Constitutional Monarchy.

It is a purely traditional formality under which the Monarch signs off on every new law enacted by Parliament.

In fact, no Monarch has ever refused assent and it is extremely unlikely that it will ever happen.

The Monarchy has no part in the construction of Parliamentary bills and does not influence the legislative process, so anybody thinking that there is something underhand about it, is demonstrating a high quality ignorance of our history and customs.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Newport Boy
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 04:32 AM

The Monarchy has no part in the construction of Parliamentary bills and does not influence the legislative process, so anybody thinking that there is something underhand about it, is demonstrating a high quality ignorance of our history and customs.

That's definitely not the case, Don. No one is concerned about the Royal Assent stage, which is a formality. If you go back to the
original Guardian article you will see that the Queen and Prince Charles are consulted in private at the drafting stage of bills which might affect their private interests. It's not known whether they have had any specific changes made, but it's clear that their views influence the drafting of bills by Ministers and civil servants.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 04:50 AM

There must be many people in positions of prominence in similar situations. Surely such people as TU leaders, industrialists, professional associations, and so on, will be informally consulted at the drafting stage regarding legislation which could affect their, or their members' or employees', interests, simply to avoid impracticalities or inimicalities. It seems good sense to anticipate and avoid legislation which could turn out counter productively or bring unforeseen consequences. Such processes are surely not the exclusive prerogative of Royalty

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 05:56 AM

And of course there is a huge gulf between being consulted and having a veto, as an awful lot of people have experienced.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 06:17 AM

Consultation on proposed government action is a well established and necessary process designed to elicit objections, which can then be examined and approved or rejected.

It includes, or is intended to include, all interested or affected parties.

If the Monarch is an interested party, what would justify excluding her from said consultation?

Inverse snobbery is not an acceptable answer to that question.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Allan Conn
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 07:22 AM

"In fact, no Monarch has ever refused assent and it is extremely unlikely that it will ever happen."

Since the formation of the UK it has only been refused once! By Queen Anne in 1708. So you are basically right in that it hasn't been refused for over 300 years. I did read once (and this is not very useful as I can't remember the details or people involved) that one King in the early 20thC threatened to withhold Royal Assent over an issue and the infuriated PM (may have been Balfour) simply said that the govt would pass a bill to strip the monarch of the power of Royal Assent so the King had to relent. Will try to find the citation.

There is an issue over the secrecy though. Since 1952 the Palace has seemingly refused to release records involving their meetings with the PM. If undue influence is being used then we should know about it - as we should with bankers, newspaper moguls etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 07:33 AM

I'm an interested party! When do I get my consultation?

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 07:56 AM

""The correspondence indicates that the effects of the bills are explained to the royal household, including the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to proposed legislation . . ."

So two unelected individuals and their minions can change legislation drawn up by a democratically elected government, to protect their own interests? And you're OK with this?


"If the Monarch is an interested party, what would justify excluding her from said consultation?"

Seriously? What excludes you and I? Do you have the power of veto? I can't even get my MP to listen to reason on planning issues in the town where I live, let alone get a gander at legislation that I have a vested interest in as a businessman in the town.


"Such processes are surely not the exclusive prerogative of Royalty"

But trade unions, industrialists and professional associations are a different matter. These represent the vested interests of many people, they (presumably) have expertise in their fields and often are working for the greater good (with the exception of industrialists) of society. The monarch and the heir to the throne have their veto because of who they are and the luck of their birth.


"If undue influence is being used then we should know about it"

Charles has already used his influence to scupper projects he doesn't like, even when they are being carried out by councils elected by the citizens. He ignores the will of the people and imposes his view simply because he's a member of the royal family. Indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: GUEST,wyrdolafr
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 09:12 AM

I'm with Sugarfoot Jack on this. This appears to be more than Royal Assent.

This reminds me of a lot of criticism of the EU and how foreign, unelected bodies have too much influence on what happens in England/Britain/UK/delete as applicable. And yet, so often, people who have a problem with the EU seem to have no qualms about substituting that for American political/economic/cultural influence: Thatcher's Atlanticism, Atlantic Bridge &c.

Some people will always be happy with unelected rulers as long as they've got the right politics/accent/university background/family name.

I used to be fairly ambivalent about the monarchy as, despite it going against my politics generally, I thought the associated tourist £s probably balanced things out in my mind. However, over the last few years, watching the economy implode, watching the wealth/opportunity divide grow even further &c., my tolerance for an exploitative moneyed elite has diminished greatly.

France's Royal Palaces &c seem to do fine for tourism 200 years after they got rid of the families living in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 10:13 AM

The Royal Assent would be a veto if it could really be used, but even then would not be secret.
It is common knowledge (isn't it?) that the pm has a weekly meeting with the monarch.
The pm is not bound by any regulation that he must tell her everything, but common courtesy applies.
The pm is not bound by any regulation to heed anything she says.

And of course, the government writes the Queen's speech for the opening of Parliament.

So no secret and no veto.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 10:35 AM

"So no secret and no veto."

Have you read the article? It states unequivocally that The Queen and Prince Charles do have a veto and legislation is changed after consultation with them. Which part of this do you not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 10:46 AM

Kirkhope said evidence he had gathered suggested the process of seeking royal consent for draft bills was not a mere formality.

So it is just suggested, and even if true is just custom and not law.
Any government who felt restricted could just ignore them.

Don't panic.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 10:50 AM

It's not a veto. It's a right to raise objections which the drafters might not have observed - a right, and an opportunity, shared, as I have said above, with many other organisations and individuals. If CS isn't one of them, and thinks she should be - tough. The fact remains that HMQ is the Queen and she isn't; And she isn't the Institute of Directors or the TUC or the Chairman of ICI or the Chief Rabbi either.

But the point is, the whole thing isn't a secret. This isn't shock-horror news to anyone, surely? Some of you are reminding me of the Irishman who suddenly turned on his Jewish friend and punched him in the nose. "Ow! What was that for?" sez Hymie. "The Jews killed Jesus," Paddy replies." "But that was more than two thousand years ago," Hymie protests. "I know," sez Paddy, "but I've only just heard about it."

And, having only just heard about it, the lefties are indulging in one of their usual self-righteous "boo·hoo·it's·all·soooh·unfair" bleats.

Well, take no notice and let them get on with it. They enjoy it, poor dears. And what harm can it do anybody?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 11:41 AM

It is hard to work out how a formal veto could apply in the legislative process - but there may be established consultative processes applied to green papers, or with intention to bring a bill to parliament - but that could only be Royals applying their influence on the commons.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if there is existing legislation still on the books with regards to crown estates, and direct effects on royalty - and therefore any legislation that conflicts with this without ammendment of prior legislation would be problematic.

But if the senior royalty do have the power to prevent a proposed bill from going before the commons - that would be more of a concern.

Also, there is a legislative timetable so there is a limit to the number of bills that can be read - just because of lack of parliamentary time.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Stu
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 12:01 PM

"And, having only just heard about it, the lefties are indulging in one of their usual self-righteous "boo·hoo·it's·all·soooh·unfair" bleats."

Oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 12:39 PM

Don, MtheM, Keith and DmG are either missing the point or wilfully ignoring it. Perhaps one of them could explain why, if there is no secret, it requires the information commissioner to force publication of the details (which are still secret now, notwithstanding DmG's belief that he was taught them at school).

Contrary to ill-informed assertions bandied around above, trade unions, industrialists and all others who are likely to be affected by legislation have no right of consultation, let alone negotiation, in the drafting of that legislation. Sure there are consultation processes before bills are presented to parliament, but interested parties can make representations only through the parliamentary process, and that process is open. Even if you object to planning consent for a neighbour's conservatory you are told your objection will be in the public domain.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 01:20 PM

OK, Peter, I'll have a go.

But to set the scene: I hold no great affection for the Royals and was one of the first 5000 signatories to the Charter 88 campaign for constituional reform and was moderately active in it. Given the choice, I'd far rather the Royals stepped further from the centre of British life, perhaps more on the Swedish model. So please don't assume what I say has anything to do with fondness for the status quo. I am also one of the fabled 'Guardian Readers' - in fact the reason I signed Charter 88 was because of it being discussed in that very periodical. As it happens I don't get enough time to read the full paper regularly these days, but I do get the Kindle edition downloaded and read daily.

There are many possible reasons why the information has to be forced from the government, but the most likely is the simplest: by instinct the government always fights against release of all insight of how it operates; it always sees any concession on such things as at risk of setting precedents. You may remember the excellent white paper on freedom of information that was produced before Jack Straw got his hands on it and reduced it to a pale shadow of what it was before. That the goverment talks to the royals regularly is not something I am in favour of, but I can hardly say it suprises me in the least. But nor does it necessarily imply they have any bower at that point, and certainly, beyond suspicions, there appears to be no evidence of it. If such evidence is forthcoming, fine, and I'll join you at the baracades, and I support the information commisioner in trying to get more details. But talk of dark scullduggery and vetos is hyperbole at this point.

I believe I was taught about it in school for the simple reason I was there at the time. If that's not enough to satisfy you, I am sorry, but it is enough for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 02:13 PM

The earlier article in the Guardian says this procedure was introduced in 2005. That would be under Labour, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 03:13 PM

one King in the early 20thC threatened to withhold Royal Assent over an issue and the infuriated PM (may have been Balfour) simply said that the govt would pass a bill to strip the monarch of the power of Royal Assent so the King had to relent. Will try to find the citation.
.,,.
But how could he? Under the law in force at the time of such a bill's passage, it would have had no effect until it had received the Royal Assent ~~~ & so ···

Errrm!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 04:09 PM

""I can't even get my MP to listen to reason on planning issues in the town where I live,""

Not surprisingly, since planning is the domain of your elected local council, not your MP.

And no council is under any obligation to comply with the MP's view, or for that matter Charles' view.

So if anything changed, it was because the majority of the council decided he had a point.

It was however, their decision.

Same with the consultation of the Monarch. No obligation to comply with her wishes.

This is just more Media muck raking.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Sep 12 - 04:18 PM

""It's not a veto. It's a right to raise objections which the drafters might not have observed - a right, and an opportunity, shared, as I have said above, with many other organisations and individuals. If CS isn't one of them, and thinks she should be - tough.""

CS, of course is one of them, at least in matters which directly affect her.

If the government proposes to build a motorway or an airport at the end of her garden, she can, and almost certainly would, be involved in the consultation.

After all, it was people just like CS (not aristocrats) who scuppered (quite rightly) the proposed airfield at Cliffe Woods.

They might well have been ignored, and so might HMQ, if the government didn't recognise that they had a point.

Was that any different than the so-called veto?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 02:11 AM

"it would have had no effect until it had received the Royal Assent"

Well I take it that the threat would be that the bill would proclaim the end to Royal Assent and declare that it was not needed for the said bill. The British Constitution is built on precedence so it would be a big precedent right enough. Should the clear will of Parliament be challenged by a monarch then there would be only one winner and I think any monarch would know that hence they never put themselves in that position. The Sovereign isn't actually 'sovereign' in the UK. It is widely accepted that Parliament is sovereign - though that idea has been challenged once in the Scottish Courts where a judge suggested that (funnily enough in a case ovr the present monarch's title) the idea of parliamentary sovereignty is an English concept which does not in Scotland automatically override the Scottish concept of sovereignty of the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 02:26 AM

'Widely accepted' by whom. Not by constitution or precedent. It would be all very well 'declaring'; but think of the constitutional implications. The Government is 'Her Majesty's Government'. She appoints it; Parliament doesn't. It is she who 'invites a Prime Minister to form a Government'. The Queen's Speech, written for her by the Civil Servants in employ of the Government, begins each section with the words "My Government will...". An Act proclaiming that it was no longer so would be chasing its own tail. It might work; but, boy, think of the constitutional situation if such a thing were tried. Judges may 'suggest' all sorts of things; but they do not make laws, simply apply them as they perceive the makers of such laws' intentions to have been.

The more you think about the effect of an Act purporting to 'declare' itself valid without due precedented process, the more the mind boggles.

~M~.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 03:45 AM

The mind does indeed boggle. It would undoubtedly trigger a constitutional crisis. The strength as well as the weakness of an unwritten constitution is that no one quite knows what the consequences would be, and both parliament and the monarchy would probably prefer not to find out. It could not be assumed that the people would necessarily support the government in a confrontation with the monarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:11 AM

'Widely accepted' by whom." It is one of the supposed main principles of the UK constitution accepted by Parliament, the monarchy and in general the Law Courts etc - though as I said this has been questioned in a Scottish Law Court.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: GUEST,Sugarfoot Jack
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:16 AM

"Not surprisingly, since planning is the domain of your elected local council, not your MP."

Obviously. However, our MP is wholeheartedly supporting a development that will turn our town into a clone town with one of the most godawful developments ever seen in a small market town. Moreover, our MP's opinion carries weight in the town and he does influence the decision-making of the council, which is ruled by a majority of the same political persuasion.

So it matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:26 AM

But that summary, Alan, rather surprisingly, makes no ref to the Royal Assent as part of the legislative process in which it claims Parliament to be sovereign. It fails to point out that, constitutionally, it can only make and unmake laws with the consent & approval of HMQ ~~ which is, as they say, where we came in...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:28 AM

Allan ~~ sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Allan Conn
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 04:30 AM

The above in regard to Parliamentary sovereignty was from the Parlaiment website here is a link to the Monarchy's website which clarifies the monarch's role

"The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn through regular audiences with her ministers.

As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament, on the advice of Government ministers. The Royal Assent (consenting to a measure becoming law) has not been refused since 1707."

So in other words she has the right to be consulted in what is going on, and to give her views, but that is all. Actual power and decision making reside with the govt of the day!

http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 05:06 AM

This is just a silly-season non-story.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 05:11 AM

So they say. But that doesn't alter my question as to what situation would arise in the event of Parliament trying to pass a bill 'declaring' the Royal Assent abolished, when that Assent would be needed for its passage. You say the monarch is 'required' to assent: 'required' by convention; not by constitutional law ~~ arguably, at least. If George V had called Baldwin's bluff, now ...?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 05:37 AM

Oh dear.

First and foremost, political advisors from the government's party also get advance consultation and I don't see the difference.

Also, we are a constitutional democracy and I find comfort in the idea of asking government to go back and think things through properly. Note the difference between stopping legislation and making it. Royaly have no right to make legislation. Opposition are called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and The House of Lords also ask government to think again. Interestingly, they sometimes back the poor downtrodden ruddy faced cheeky chappy working classes, even more so than upholding the rights of the huntin shootin fishin brigade.

So in law, the Labour Party, George Galloway and Sinn Fein if they ever bothered to turn up scrutinise law on behalf of Brenda. Brenda of course is crowned on the basis of working in our interests too.

I go through life considering myself slightly left of centre, a bit liberal etc. reading some of the diatribe in these posts lately, I reckon I would rather defend rabid right wing reactionary views.

Credibility is a fickle mistress.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 09:41 AM

Hey, MthGM, please don't make sweeping assumptions about us "lefties", okay? I am a lefty. Most certainly. Always have been. Yet I am not a bit disturbed about this formality of the Royal Assent. Nor am I consumed with anti-monarchist sentiment.

As a matter of fact, there's something I really like about Monarchs, and it is this:    they do not represent some damned political party. They therefore help to psychologically unify a nation, rather than divide it against itself. Political parties these days have become crass servants of big business and they rule by creating controversy and scurillously, endlessly attacking one another...thus ruling by "divide-and-conquer", and creating irreconcilable hostilities and divisions in a nation. And it gets worse and worse as time goes by.

I would prefer to see the complete abolition of ALL political parties, whereby the public could then elect nothing but independent candidates to parliament (from a slate of 2 or more candidates in each riding). Those candidates would not belong to any political party, and they would not draw campaign funding through any political party...rather from a public fund, equally...nor would they be constrained by any party line when it came to voting on proposed legislation in parliament. They would be beholden only to their constituents, their own conscience, and the nation...NOT to a political party power structure. There would be no party in power and no "opposition" in parliament, but simply an assembly of free and equal individuals who would propose legislation among themselves, discuss it, elect committees to work on preparing said legislation, and vote as a free assembly of individuals to pass legislation. A 2/3 majority would be required to pass legislation, not a bare majority of only 1 vote.

This would go a long way toward removing the corruption and backbiting idiocy that is presently occurring in party-based systems as we have them now.

So that's my particular hobby horse...not hating the Monarchy. I think the Monarchy is an interesting and colorful tradition, and I have no objection to it being continued.

And I'm a "lefty". ;-) Think about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 09:52 AM

I'm enjoying the Spanish sun!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 10:07 AM

LH - then you are a rational & courteous lefty, not within the ambit of my obloquy. But many are not so ~~ you will find some of the ones I mean actually named on a post I have just put in the current Thatcher thread. And, with your views as expressed above, I cannot but wonder, with respect, whether the other lefties would acknowledge or welcome you as one of their number!

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: GUEST,mayomick
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 11:59 AM

It's ridiculous to think that the Queen could refuse her consent and somehow turn herself into an absolute monarch . Any refusal of consent would be linked to the monarch's conservative alliances within the British establishment.

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis culminated in the sacking of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party by Governor-General Sir John Kerr who appointed the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker Prime Minister.

Gough Whitlam was sacked using "reserve powers" derived ultimately from the British Crown and residing in the governor-general as its official representative in Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 12:46 PM

Indeed ~~ except, perhaps, consent to a bill removing that consent? I can't imagine any politician testing that particular point. I say again, what a pity Geo V didn't call Baldwin's bluff...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 05:32 PM

M - Would the other Lefties welcome and acknowledge me as one of their number?

Some would. Some would not. There are some unreasonable people and some who are fanatics at both ends of the Left/Right political spectrum. The people I like best are the ones who can think outside the box.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Howard Jones
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 07:33 PM

If Australia had been a republic in 1975 then surely its constitution would have had to reserve similar powers to its president, in order to be able to break deadlocks in parliament. That they were exercised on behalf of the Queen (of Australia, rather than of the UK) was a political red herring.

The ceremonial and constitutional powers of the monarchy, in the British model at least, are also required under a presidency. The only issue is how the individual exercising those powers is chosen. It is by no means obvious to me that having a politician in the role is necessarily desirable - President Thatcher, anyone? Or President Blair, for that matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 11:43 PM

Chongo says that things would improve considerably if they would just appoint a Chimpanzee to decide these things. Preferably him. For about 6 figures a year... If the Queen steps down, Chongo is willing to take her place.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Sep 12 - 11:52 PM

Indeed, Howard. Moreover, many elected presidents occupy not only the 'figurehead' role analagous to that of our monarch, but actively engage in government also ~~ often an invidious division of interest. I am sure we can all think of many examples of the adverse effects of such 'wearing different hats' administrations.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Sep 12 - 12:04 AM

Excellent point, M. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Sep 12 - 02:37 AM

"as to what situation would arise in the event of Parliament trying to pass a bill 'declaring' the Royal Assent abolished"

I think the point is that it would be no great change! The Palace itself states that their role as far as that goes is purely formal and that they are 'required' to give Royal Assent. It is basically pure show which is kept up for tradition. If we went from Royal Assent being automatically given as it is now to no Royal Assent required then there would be no great change to the actual running of the country!

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Sep 12 - 02:50 AM

No, there wouldn't in practice, Allan, I agree. But never mind what 'the Palace itself states' ~~ a statement from "the Palace" has no more standing in law than a statement from you or me or my sister-in-law's hairdresser. All they are saying is, that is how Her present Majesty regards the matter. Her heirs and successors are in no way bound to agree with her or conform to such a convention. It is, of course, unlikely in the extreme that any would wish to depart from this course. But we are not discussing possibilities or probabilities here, but constitutional requirements. It seems to me that the assertion that HM is 'required' to do such-and-such is being bandied about with far too much freedom and far too little qualification.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Sep 12 - 02:54 AM

Notice, too, that the word 'required' only occurs in the passive, with no specification as to who, precisely, is doing the 'requiring'.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Howard Jones
Date: 04 Sep 12 - 03:54 AM

The British constitution is based largely on convention rather than fixed rules. The monarch must approve all Acts passed by parliament and the convention is that she will do so. It is in effect a rubber-stamp. However it is, in theory at least, open to her to refuse. Since this would precipitate a constitutional crisis with uncertain results for both the monarchy and government it is probable that she would do this only in very extreme circumstances, and for the same reason it is unlikely that parliament would put forward anything likely to provoke such a response. But it is possible.

For example, I think it is very likely that the Queen would approve, no doubt with sadness, even an Act abolishing the monarchy if that were the clearly expressed will of Parliament. However I suspect she might refuse to approve an Act which abolished Parliament and established a dictatorship.

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: Allan Conn
Date: 04 Sep 12 - 05:14 PM

"The role of the Sovereign in the enactment of legislation is today purely formal, although The Queen has the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn through regular audiences with her ministers.

As a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign is required to assent to all Bills passed by Parliament, on the advice of Government ministers."

The sentence saying that the Sovereign is required to assent directly follows on from the previous lines which state in the enactment of legislation the monarch's role is purely formal. Couldn't be clearer really. As Howard says it is a rubber stamp!

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Sep 12 - 12:47 AM

No, it couldn't be clearer in its assertion, Allan. What is in question, I say again, is the validity of it as a statement of constitutional law. It is, as you say above, merely part of a statement "from the Palace"; i.e. one drafted by some Royal functionary, relating how the situation is perceived by the present monarch and her advisors, who has no more authority to pronounce infallibly on the legal facts of the matter that anyone else.

Back to ☐1

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Tories to keep secret Royal Veto
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Sep 12 - 12:53 AM

You are, I say again, repeating yourself. We have been all over that. Look back on my queries above regarding that weasel word 'required' and its grammatical, passive, status. And reflect that the statement's validity has not been tested since 1707, Geo V having chickened out of a possible confrontation in the 1930s.