Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 12-30-2018, 06:23 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
Broadly so, yes. It would depend on the precise issue at hand. If the Commons was acting against the wishes of the majority of the public, that would be a potential break on the Commons. But if the monarch were in trouble for breaching the many conventions surrounding the operation of the monarchy and running the reputation of the Crown and/or country through the mud, then there's little kidding which institution would win a battle of wills.
I thought that an important part of Parliamentary Supremacy was Royal Assent? Wouldn't Parliament be acting unconstitutionally if it removed the monarchy without such assent? Could the UK Courts rule the Act to be invalid as not a proper power of Parliament?

That seems to be a structural necessity much like a majority vote.
  #52  
Old 12-30-2018, 07:34 PM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 9,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
as far as changes go it only took 1000 years or so to change that a woman can be queen rather than her younger brother . The changes come at the speed of glaciers.
Compared to Japan, it’s at a breathtaking pace.
  #53  
Old 12-31-2018, 02:46 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I thought that an important part of Parliamentary Supremacy was Royal Assent? Wouldn't Parliament be acting unconstitutionally if it removed the monarchy without such assent? Could the UK Courts rule the Act to be invalid as not a proper power of Parliament?

That seems to be a structural necessity much like a majority vote.
You're absolutely correct. But such a circumstance would have put us beyond a pale the country hasn't been beyond in some centuries. If the monarch violated constitutional norms, then constitutional norms regarding parliamentary deference to the Crown may come under threat.

After all, technically Parliament violated the constitution in 1642, 1649, and 1689 when it went against the monarchy, but here we are.
  #54  
Old 12-31-2018, 02:57 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I thought that an important part of Parliamentary Supremacy was Royal Assent? Wouldn't Parliament be acting unconstitutionally if it removed the monarchy without such assent? Could the UK Courts rule the Act to be invalid as not a proper power of Parliament?

That seems to be a structural necessity much like a majority vote.
Not if Parliament decides to change the rules and the public at large shows no sign of punishing them electorally for doing so (best assessed by first having a general election and/or referendum on the issue).
  #55  
Old 12-31-2018, 03:07 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
After all, technically Parliament violated the constitution in 1642, 1649, and 1689 when it went against the monarchy, but here we are.
Parliament of the day assessed the situation as the monarch going against the constitutional norms.

In 1642, it was Charles who had sought not only to rule without Parliament, but also to arrest some of its members for their opinions, and eventually to raise an army against Parliament. In 1649, he had sought to re-launch the civil war against Parliament that he had lost. In 1688, James had fled, eventually to raise an Army with French support, but initially was deemed to have abdicated and to have been succeeded by his daughter and nephew (who just happened to be the only successful general against Louis XIV).

"Treason never prospers -
What's the reason?
If it prosper,
None dare call it treason".
  #56  
Old 12-31-2018, 03:56 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
After all, technically Parliament violated the constitution in 1642, 1649, and 1689 when it went against the monarchy, but here we are.
There's also the precedent of the regency for George III, where both houses essentially directed that the Lord Chancellor fake the king's assent.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 12-31-2018 at 03:59 AM.
  #57  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:24 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
Parliament of the day assessed the situation as the monarch going against the constitutional norms.

In 1642, it was Charles who had sought not only to rule without Parliament, but also to arrest some of its members for their opinions, and eventually to raise an army against Parliament. In 1649, he had sought to re-launch the civil war against Parliament that he had lost. In 1688, James had fled, eventually to raise an Army with French support, but initially was deemed to have abdicated and to have been succeeded by his daughter and nephew (who just happened to be the only successful general against Louis XIV).

"Treason never prospers -
What's the reason?
If it prosper,
None dare call it treason".
Again, this just demonstrates my point. If the Crown undermines constitutional norms, then it risks Parliament doing it too.
  #58  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:26 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
There's also the precedent of the regency for George III, where both houses essentially directed that the Lord Chancellor fake the king's assent.
Excellent point.
  #59  
Old 12-31-2018, 12:11 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
And as an example, they recently amended the succession to make male and female heirs equal....
For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succes...Crown_Act_2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
...Didn't Belgium's king refuse to sign an abortion law sometime in the Nineties, and Parliament declared him incapacitated until the law was passed anyway?....
Something like that: https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/w...s-day-off.html
  #60  
Old 12-31-2018, 10:29 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,961
So here's my question:
Suppose the House of Commons passes a bill to give 4.2 Billion pounds to Ms Polly's Home for Precocious Pussies ran by (coincidentally) the PMs sister. Assuming the monarch refuses Royal Assent and the public does not support such a disbursement. The PM tries to remove the Monarch - are we sure Parliament would win such a battle?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #61  
Old 01-01-2019, 02:44 AM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
Holy fuck, can you just listen to those who know the facts rather than this incessant beating the drum of your own royalist ego? Now you are just thread shitting.

1. The House of Lords may not pass the Bill
2. If the Lords did pass the Bill the Queen would sign the Bill.
3. The Opposition and the Press have a hot button issue to campaign on.
4. There might be the odd call for judicial review into alleged corrupt practices.
5. The public then metes out it's judgement at the next election.
  #62  
Old 01-01-2019, 03:32 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
And all that is also to assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (who might very well be a potential successor/rival in the leadership stakes) has agreed, and has overrruled objections from the Treasury civil servants, that the rest of the Cabinet (also stuffed with potential rivals/successors to the PM) has agreed, or at least acquiesced, that enough members of the PM's party will turn out to vote for the proposition, and that there has been no reaction in the media and the general public.

Budgets aren't made that way in the UK.
  #63  
Old 01-01-2019, 04:46 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Yeah, budgets are made in a completely different way from the US. For one, there's a Commons Standing Order that prevents any part of a Bill or amendment that will place a financial burden on the Exchequer from being laid until the Bill or amendment has received a mark of approval from the Crown. In essence, only expenditure that the Government approves of can be passed.

Therefore, the question of withholding Assent would not arise - the Queen would have approved or rejected the additional burden on the Exchequer long before the Bill became an Act.
  #64  
Old 01-01-2019, 04:54 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Ah, here we go:

Quote:
48.—
This House will receive no petition for any sum relating to public service or proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown, unless recommended from the Crown.

50.-
(1)A bill (other than a bill which is required to be brought in upon a ways and means resolution) the main object of which is the creation of a public charge may either be presented, or brought in upon an order of the House, by a Minister of the Crown, and, in the case of a bill so presented or brought in, the creation of the charge shall not require to be authorised by a resolution of the House until the bill has been read a second time, and after the charge has been so authorised the bill shall be proceeded with in the same manner as a bill which involves a charge that is subsidiary to its main purpose.
  #65  
Old 01-01-2019, 08:51 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 22,889
Moderator Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Holy fuck, can you just listen to those who know the facts rather than this incessant beating the drum of your own royalist ego? Now you are just thread shitting.
Attack the post, not the poster.

No warning issued, but leave out the color commentary and stick to the facts while in GQ.
  #66  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:40 AM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,961
So leave out the fact that t is a money bill. The question may may have been answered through technicalities but the question at its heart still stands.
House of Commons passes a really bad bill. I mean REALLY BAD. Maybe its corruption or maybe just "Every horse should be beaten to death."
The public hates the bill. I mean REALLY HATES the bill. Not quite rioting in the streets, but it is very clear that the public would prefer it not to be a law.
The Monarch decides not to give Royal Assent to the bill.
Because of not giving RA, the PM tries to get Parliament to remove the Monarch.
Now with all that, who would win that battle? Parliament or the Monarch.
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #67  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:49 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hari Seldon View Post
I don't know how true this is, but I read once that the constitution specifies male primogeniture, while Britain now specifies simple primogeniture. Thus it could happen sometime in the future that a queen regnant could be the head of state of Britain while her younger brother be the formal head of state of Canada.
No, that's not the case. The Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the country is to be "under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland". After the Perth Agreement and the British Succession to the Crown Act, 2013, the Parliament of Canada passed the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, giving Canada's consent to the alteration in the line of succession, as required by the Statute of Westminster for it to be effective in Canada.
  #68  
Old 01-01-2019, 10:58 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
That Act was about the legal consequences of the Instrument of Abdication Edward VIII had already signed (having, perhaps, been slightly surprised to find his bluff called - the possibility of abdication was his idea in the first place) ; his successor was already in place.
The Instrument of Abdication was simply a formal statement by Edward that he wished to abdicate. However, it could not change the line of succession, because that was set by the Act of Settlement. After Edward signed the Instrument on December 10, Parliament on December 11 passed His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, which was the legal change to the line of succession. Edward gave Royal Assent to the act, at which point there was a "demise of the Crown" and he ceased to be king. George became king immediately upon royal assent being given on December 11.
  #69  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:04 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
isn't there talk some want Charles to not be king and go right to William? I assume Charles is not in favor of that plan.
I'm torn between not wanting such a "prat" and "twit" (as many Brits apparently view him) as head Royal, and enjoying the spectacle of him making an ass of himself on a larger stage. The prospect of some form of impeachment by Parliament would be even juicier.

Alas, I don't get a vote on the matter.
  #70  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:38 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
I'm torn between not wanting such a "prat" and "twit" (as many Brits apparently view him) as head Royal,
Wow. Reading that first piece - the one from The New Yorker - it becomes clear that a great deal of Charles' issues come from a severely poisonous upbringing. The fault appears to be in the people around him who have one view - only one - of what he was to grow up to be and no flexibility at all. They both pushed him away from his interests and coddled him into being something he couldn't become. If his parents think less of him that's their fault and not his. He is what they made him.
  #71  
Old 01-01-2019, 11:59 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So leave out the fact that t is a money bill. The question may may have been answered through technicalities but the question at its heart still stands.
House of Commons passes a really bad bill. I mean REALLY BAD. Maybe its corruption or maybe just "Every horse should be beaten to death."
The public hates the bill. I mean REALLY HATES the bill. Not quite rioting in the streets, but it is very clear that the public would prefer it not to be a law.
The Monarch decides not to give Royal Assent to the bill.
Because of not giving RA, the PM tries to get Parliament to remove the Monarch.
Now with all that, who would win that battle? Parliament or the Monarch.


Unless the monarch were acting to block a Bill that would destroy British democracy, I'd say Parliament would win, as it's not for the monarch to decide what is a bad law, but the electorate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #72  
Old 01-02-2019, 07:12 AM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
Same question, same answer.

Listen to the Monarch's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament in 2017, 2016 or any previous occasion for that matter. It's written by the PMs Office, read deadpan by rote and is littered with the phrases "My Government" and "My Ministers".

This Bill being as egregious as it is, (or if almost as egregious or if a bit egregious or if somewhat egregious or if merely ticks the Monarch off) will receive the Royal Assent. The political consequences rest entirely with the government.

This Bill being as egregious as envisaged, the populace will howl in rage. The Press/Media will cry havoc. The Opposition will be energised. Question Time will be high political theatre. The government starts to lose by-elections and it's majority. Polls collapse. Parliamentary committees launch investigations. Back benchers in marginal seats begin to agitate for reform. The government digs in, goes to an election, campaigns for the Egregious Bill and loses.

In the Queens Speech at the State Opening of the next Parliament the Monarch will read a speech written by the PMs Office, read deadpan by rote including the statement "My Government's first order of business will be the repeal of the Egregious Bill".

Who wins? The Parliament and the Monarchy and verily, the populace at large.
  #73  
Old 01-02-2019, 07:52 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,428
Huzzah for constitutional monarchy!
  #74  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:38 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
At some point in the run-up to the Egregious Bill landing on HM's desk, there will have been some discreet conversations between the Queen's Private Secretary and the PM's PS along the lines of "Is the PM quite sure s/he has sufficient public backing for the Bill? HM has been receiving a large number of concerned/angry letters from members of the public, and would be concerned if the debate became too acrimonious. We're about to refer N000 such letters to No. 10 for reply and advice to HM"
  #75  
Old 01-02-2019, 09:55 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
It is more accurate to say that QEII is the Australian Commonwealth's Monarch whose single role is to appoint the Head of State, being the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
  #76  
Old 01-02-2019, 10:46 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Same question, same answer.

Listen to the Monarch's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament in 2017, 2016 or any previous occasion for that matter. It's written by the PMs Office, read deadpan by rote and is littered with the phrases "My Government" and "My Ministers".

This Bill being as egregious as it is, (or if almost as egregious or if a bit egregious or if somewhat egregious or if merely ticks the Monarch off) will receive the Royal Assent. The political consequences rest entirely with the government.

This Bill being as egregious as envisaged, the populace will howl in rage. The Press/Media will cry havoc. The Opposition will be energised. Question Time will be high political theatre. The government starts to lose by-elections and it's majority. Polls collapse. Parliamentary committees launch investigations. Back benchers in marginal seats begin to agitate for reform. The government digs in, goes to an election, campaigns for the Egregious Bill and loses.

In the Queens Speech at the State Opening of the next Parliament the Monarch will read a speech written by the PMs Office, read deadpan by rote including the statement "My Government's first order of business will be the repeal of the Egregious Bill".

Who wins? The Parliament and the Monarchy and verily, the populace at large.
I don't follow this. Why would the public "howl in rage" when the MPs that they elected pass a bill presumably based upon their campaign promises?

We only consider this hypothetical bill "egregious" from a detached and objective viewpoint. We know from history that fleeting (and sadly sometimes entrenched) majorities can advocate for a whole lot of stuff that after the judgment of history comes in or after a few years of reflection show that the bill was egregious.

The UK system does not seem to have a check valve against that sort of thing.
  #77  
Old 01-02-2019, 11:37 AM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't follow this. Why would the public "howl in rage" when the MPs that they elected pass a bill presumably based upon their campaign promises?
In the normal operation of things, there's a General Election every five years. There's a Queen's Speech every year though, as the Government reconsiders and prioritises - so that's where the potential for the the Kill All Puppies (Especially Springer Spaniels and Golden Retrievers: Their Eyes Are Too Cute To Live) Act comes in.

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 01-02-2019 at 11:38 AM.
  #78  
Old 01-02-2019, 11:46 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I don't follow this. Why would the public "howl in rage" when the MPs that they elected pass a bill presumably based upon their campaign promises?



We only consider this hypothetical bill "egregious" from a detached and objective viewpoint. We know from history that fleeting (and sadly sometimes entrenched) majorities can advocate for a whole lot of stuff that after the judgment of history comes in or after a few years of reflection show that the bill was egregious.



The UK system does not seem to have a check valve against that sort of thing.

Like Brexit. It's such an egregiously bad idea Parliament never backed it, so it's advocates had to bounce the country into it via a referendum...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #79  
Old 01-02-2019, 04:05 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
If the Australian Prime Minister wishes to speak to the Australian Head of State their secretaries make an appointment and the PM is driven the 3.6km from Parliament House to Yarralumla.

The PM speaks to their Monarch on State occasions and likely few else. Ma'am isn't seen out socially around Canberra that often.
  #80  
Old 01-02-2019, 04:11 PM
Mk VII Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,836
The Governor-General exercises the functions of His Majesty The King In Right Of Canada (or Australia) but apart from being formally appointed or tendering their resignation they don't usually have much other contact with the Monarch.
At present there is something of an legal effort going on in Australia to unseal papers touching on how much input, or little, the Queen had in the G-G, Sir John Kerr,'s dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975.
  #81  
Old 01-02-2019, 08:07 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,995
Can a King/Queen be removed by the government?

As recounted by Elendil's Heir, SDSAB, the Queen doesn't find it unusual to get a phone call from her Canadian Prime Minister, although the phone security of her palace minions leaves a bit to be desired: "How Does the Queen Answer The Phone?"

https://www.straightdope.com/columns...wer-the-phone/

Last edited by Northern Piper; 01-02-2019 at 08:07 PM.
  #82  
Old 01-03-2019, 12:37 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
When it comes to nominating a GG, I"d imagine there's a fairly formal document that gets sent for signature, after a bit of behind the scenes forewarning between officials. No need for either party physically to travel.
  #83  
Old 01-03-2019, 01:16 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
Neither. Since the GG is appointed for a fixed term, vacancies and the need to fill them are generally foreseeable. Correspondence on the subject is by letter, between the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Canberra and the Private Secretary to the Sovereign in London, with the letters being routed through the Australian High Commission in London.

If the need for urgent contact arises it's by phone or any other convenient technology, but it's still mainly between officials, not between the principals.

Only when the whole thing is settled does the PM formally advise the Queen to appoint so-and-so as Governor-General. This would normally be by letter from the PM to the Private Secretary, but in a case of urgency it could be phone or e-mail or whatever.
  #84  
Old 01-03-2019, 09:05 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
If the Australian Prime Minister wishes to speak to the Australian Head of State their secretaries make an appointment and the PM is driven the 3.6km from Parliament House to Yarralumla....
The GG is not the Australian Head of State; that is the Queen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govern...ive_government
  #85  
Old 01-03-2019, 09:09 AM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 57,807
Thanks, Patrick and UDS.
  #86  
Old 01-03-2019, 04:34 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
The GG is not the Australian Head of State; that is the Queen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govern...ive_government
Yes, that's what one Wiki entry says. There are others which recognise the situation is fluid and the evolving weight of opinion is only going one way.

The Australian Constitution (unlike other Commonwealth notables like say NZ) is explicit that the GG alone exercises the Reserve Powers, is head of the armed forces etc. I wouldn't get too concerned, after all even the Poms missed the consequences of the subtle if not devious drafting change over a century ago.

You can go right to the heart of the primary vested interests. 1999 on the British monarchy website was amended from claiming Elizabeth II as head of state of Australia to be it's sovereign. In 2010, the "head of state" epaulet was restored but was changed again in 2014 and currently Elizabeth II is again described as sovereign.

QEII is ambiguous as to the status of her own claims, so it's no biggie.
  #87  
Old 01-03-2019, 06:44 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,995
Interesting. Can you point us to the provisions of the Australian Constitution that deal with the Crown and GovGen? I'd like to compare them to the Canadian ones.
  #88  
Old 01-04-2019, 04:19 AM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
The best outline and context of the argument for the GG to be HoS in the case of Australia is this article by David Smith who was Official Secretary to five Governors-General from 1973 to 1990.
Most famously he read the GG's proclamation dissolving parliament in Nov 1975 with Gough standing beside him.

The Australian Constitution does not contain the words "Head of State", nor "Prime Minister" for that matter and so it is as much evolving convention rather than codified provisions which define the governance of Australia. True, the recognition of these provisions has slowly unfurled. Certainly Queen Victoria thought the Australian GG was there principally to ensure Britain's interests were maintained in the Colony; British Prime Ministers communicated instructions directly to the Australian GG until 1926. Until 1930 the appointment of the Australian GG by the Monarch was on advise of the British PM. Yes, incremental progress but without any retarding and it has saved any unpleasantness in achieving independence via a revolution.

In 1900, when the Empire was at/near the peak of it's power.
Had the Australian Founding Fathers cocked a snoot at the Monarch and claimed full independence there might have seen another instance of British gunboat diplomacy for redrafting of the agreement and the Poms would have billed us for the reprinting costs.

The relevant sections of the Australian Constitution are #2 and #61.

Chapter 1 – The Parliament – Sections 1-60
Section 2 – Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

Chapter 2 – The Executive Government – Sections 61-70
61. Executive power
The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

Other sections of Chapter 2 - The Executive Government which specify the functions exercised by the Governor General include:

Section 68. Command of naval and military forces
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.

Last edited by penultima thule; 01-04-2019 at 04:21 AM.
  #89  
Old 01-04-2019, 08:10 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,995
Thanks!
  #90  
Old 01-04-2019, 02:46 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,428
The repeated use of the word "representative" shows that the GG is not head of state, but rather a stand-in for the monarch who, especially when present in Australia, is clearly treated as head of state, with due deference shown by the GG and all other public officials. The GG is appointed by the monarch, on advice of the PM, showing that the monarch is superior in rank to the GG. Legislative bills receive the Royal Assent, not the GG's assent: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...F0000%22;rec=0. And the monarch, when available, herself signs legislation into law; the GG does not: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...a_Act_1986.jpg
  #91  
Old 01-04-2019, 04:56 PM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Legislative bills receive the Royal Assent, not the GG's assent: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...F0000%22;rec=0.
That's a UK law, relating to Australia. It's not an Australian law.

Edit: oops, I meant the other link.

Last edited by Malden Capell; 01-04-2019 at 04:58 PM.
  #92  
Old 01-04-2019, 10:30 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Legislative bills receive the Royal Assent, not the GG's assent:
Which is a consequence of Australia being a constitutional monarchy, not a republic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
And the monarch, when available, herself signs legislation into law; the GG does not:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
That's a UK law, relating to Australia. It's not an Australian law.
Thank you, much obliged.

Since 1953 it has been the legal position here that the Governor-General exercised constitutional powers in their own right, not as a representative of the Sovereign and that the Governor-General's powers could not be exercised by the Sovereign, even when the Monarch was in Australia.

If assent to legislation or other HoS functions are required when the monarch is present in Australia the Governor General performs them without reference to the Monarch.

Accordingly QEII has never performed any duties of Australia's Head of State; but has performed many times the constitutional duties of Sovereign and Queen of Australia.

You can contrast the Australian situation with New Zealand’s where in their Constitution Act 1986 clause #1 unambigously states:
Head of State (1) The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.

Until around 1990 the NZ GG and Queen were not seen in public together. The GG would ‘disappear to the South Island’ during royal visits and any HoS function was performed by the Monarch. I don't know whether that vice regal convention continues.

Last edited by penultima thule; 01-04-2019 at 10:33 PM.
  #93  
Old 01-04-2019, 10:33 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,995
Different from Canada then. George VI and Elizabeth II have both granted Royal Assent personally to federal bills.
  #94  
Old 01-04-2019, 10:41 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,995
Plus, there's the power to appoint extra Senators, which only HM can do. The GovGen doesn't have that power.
  #95  
Old 01-04-2019, 10:45 PM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
As much a consequence of distance and circumstance.
Elizabeth II is the only reigning monarch of Australia to have set foot on Australian soil.

George V, Edward VIII and George VI toured here before their succession.
Had they been Monarch at the time I think conventions then would have seen them function as HoS.
  #96  
Old 01-06-2019, 02:28 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
That's a UK law, relating to Australia. It's not an Australian law....
Sorry. Some other examples of the Queen personally granting assent to Australian laws:

http://australianpolitics.com/1986/0...-into-law.html
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-99.html
https://www.anfa-national.org.au/his...-royal-assent/

The GG's assents to legislation are in the Queen's name, and not based on his or her own inherent powers as a supposed Australian head of state:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...8&fullscreen=1

And see:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ures/aso/so004

Last edited by Elendil's Heir; 01-06-2019 at 02:31 PM.
  #97  
Old 01-07-2019, 07:23 AM
penultima thule penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,743
Nice pics.

It's a question of hats and QEII wears several at any state occasion.

So in the the instances cited:1973 with a bill that confers her the title as Queen of Australia, 1983 the repeal of Letters Patent signed by the then Monarch Queen Victoria. The 1953 was a sop specifically drafted after the royalist Menzies, who wanted QEII to have a formal hand in egislation for electoral advantage, was given advice that Governor-General exercised constitutional powers in their own right. The argument of the Commonwealth Solicitor General, and mine, is that she was, and was limited to, formally acting as Queen of Australia.

Australia has not made any change to the constitutional section on executive powers since Federation. What has changed are the evolving conventions they support. e.g. that the GG is replaced by the Monarch on the advice of the PM which would not seem possible by a plain text reading.

Last edited by penultima thule; 01-07-2019 at 07:23 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017