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.
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.
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.
Ah, here we go:
Moderator Note
Attack the post, not the poster.
No warning issued, but leave out the color commentary and stick to the facts while in GQ.
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.
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.
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.
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. :(
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.
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
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.
Huzzah for constitutional monarchy!
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”
Forgive the digression, but I have always wondered if the PM flies to England or calls her on the phone.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.