Don’t start small! A 5% tax on beer is nothing. Go for broke with a single far-reaching decree!
I’m hardly conversant with British politics but at present it seems that a huge crisis looms, with Parliament paralyzed. The country is falling into a self-inflicted recession, but Labor and Tory are both more worried about their political futures than the future of the Kingdom. Many politicians and common people would be delighted, I think, if the Monarch announced she was dismissing Parliament and issuing an Order herself.
Thailand has a constitutional monarchy largely modeled after that of the U.K. I still recall the bloody crisis of May 1992 (when foreign newspapers here had front-page articles lathered in black ink in censorship). The highly respected King Bhumibol the Great — in principle as powerless as Elizabeth Windsor — appeared on every TV channel and suggested that two rival Generals, each silent and prostrate as the King spoke, work together for the country. The crisis dissipated almost immediately.
The royal prerogative to dissolve Parliament was completely abolished in 2011. Parliament is now dissolved by automatic operation of the law when certain conditions are met.
I was in Thailand for that! However, as a tourist, I didn’t have a clue as to what was going on. It was pre-Internet so we weren’t getting any news. It wasn’t u til we returned to Japan that we found out what had been happening.
I was on holiday with the future Mrs. Septimus. The TV told us an important announcement was coming from the Palace at 10 PM so we tuned in. The camera showed HM walking into a sitting room, followed by Prem (Chief Privy Councillor). I was startled to see Suchinda and Chamlong crawl in behind on all fours.
The King never raised his voice, basically saying “This isn’t working. Perhaps you should find another way.” None of the other three people in the room ever said a word.
I have wondered what would happen if Her Majesty were to summon her Prime Minister and say something along the lines of: “We are very concerned about the possible dissolution of our United Kingdom. Will you work with parliament to prevent this, or shall we appoint a Prime Minister amenable to our wishes?”
The queen meets with the prime minister every week. Whatever the queen wants to say on the subject of Brexit, she could have said during any of these meetings.
So, taking this a few steps further - what if some future monarch was a very strong personality and wanted to be involved in the political side, up to wanting to be PM? Would that be allowed? If not, how would the establishment actually prevent them from pursuing this goal? Suppose they were a Trump like figure who rallied the masses and provided electoral success to their chosen party?
Exactly the same thing that happened when William IV sacked Prime Minister Earl Grey. The outgoing PM would say “Of course, Your Majesty. Please let me know the candidate who has a majority in the Commons, because I was under the impression I do.”
And Wellington, William’s choice as successor, had to report back to William that he did not have the confidence of the Commons and could not form a government.
And William had to send for Earl Grey and appoint him Prime Minister again.
All the fantasies about the monarch personally exercising political power ignore two centuries of constitutional history and the growth of democracy in the U.K.
It’s the equivalent of saying, “Hey, let’s abolish popular elections for the President and go back to the state legislatures choosing the Electors. The states have the constitutional power to do that.”
You think that the elected politicians and the voters of Britain would be delighted if HM staged an auto-coup along the lines Napoleon III? Why on earth would politicians be delighted to lose power and the average British citizen go back to be ruled be a hereditary monarch? The Divine Right of Kings was firmly defeated in the mid-17th century, in favour of a steady march towards electoral, representative democracy. That’s like saying the US citizens would be delighted if the British came back and got rid of Donald, Nancy, and all the rest.
And in this fantasy world, what is the “Order” that HM could produce out of her purse that would magically resolve the political stalemate? Something that no-one else has thought of, but would command strong popular support?
Here’s the thing: Parliament is paralysedvbecause the country is paralyzed over Brexit. Both the major parties are split, and the Brexit vote showed a badly divided nation. Nothing seems to indicate that split in the populace has softened. If anything, the division seems to be hardening. Whatever magical “Order” HM pulls out of her purse would piss off half her subjects, probably deepening the political and constitutional crisis.
I wasn’t aware that the British system includes the spectacle of the leaders of the two major parties being required to crawl after HM as a sign of subservience.
Nor was I aware that there have been so many military coups d’état in Britain that Wikipedia has a category devoted solely to that topic, as is the case with Thailand. Six military coups in Siam / Thailand since 1933, it looks like.
Thailand may have tried to model itself after the British system, but the results are grotesquely different from the robust democracy which has developed in Britain, where the Queen reigns but does not rule.
I doubt there’s an explicit rule or law against one of the royals being an MP or even PM. So, if a party with a strong majority were to, like the Republicans in the US, be more concerned about victory than maintaining the norms of their respective institutions, and this was likely to bring victory, I suppose it is possible?
I’m pretty sure it would be considered egregious for the monarch to be actively in support of a particular party, much less a member of it, though. But honestly, I’m not sure if it would actually be a bad thing; I don’t know if there’s any genuinely negative effects that would come from it, other than bucking tradition.
Oh, look, I’m sure you’re right… I guess I was thinking that with the current situation looking like it may lead to the break up of the UK that perhaps it was edging into an area where the crown might wish to test the boundaries of royal prerogative.
(I wonder if Article 50 could be revoked under royal prerogative… it couldn’t be triggered without an Act because of the impact on rights… but revoking it wouldn’t have the same effect.)
Yes, yes, it’s all fantasy, coming from watching a slow motion train-wreck from half a world away and hoping that there might be some way out. :o
IRL, parliamentary backbenchers and their allies in the Lords have pushed through a bill in record time to enjoin the PM from going through with a no-deal Brexit.
As all bills do, this one needed the Royal Assent. The Speaker of Commons said yesterday evening that he expected it quickly–and it came 20 minutes later.
So, if the Queen’s assent is a given, yet the government opposed this bill, but the government takes it to her for assent–how did this happen? Couldn’t May have slow-rolled it? Or is QEII asserting herself by “fast-tracking” her assent?
Yes, She might have asserted herself in months prior, but given the shitshow (shiteshow?) now unfolding, I can imagine Her Majesty seizing on this opportunity to say “Yes, I’ll approve this posthaste.”
The Royal Assent is given on the advice of Ministers. May might have opposed the Bill, but she nevertheless advised the Queen to assent to it. Indeed, she accelerated the Assent so as to avoid any suspicion that she was attempting to frustrate the legislative intention of Parliament by delaying the operation of the new Act until it was too late to achieve its object.
Why does May take this compliant attitude to the legislative wishes of Parliament? Because, remember, May is only the Prime Minister, and the government is only the government, because they command the support of Parliament. If May advises the Queen to refuse assent to a Bill which has been enacted by both Houses of Parliament, she sets herself against Parliament. Since her entire claim to legitimacy depends on Parliament, that’s effectively calling in an air-strike on her own democratic legitimacy. May may be pig-headed, but she’s not that pig-headed.
The last time Ministers advised the monarch to withhold assent from a Bill was in 1708. That was in the days when much more stress was laid on Ministers being appointed because they commanded the confidence of the monarch, rather than the confidence of Parliament, although in truth both were needed for a minister to be effective. Even then, the Ministers would not have wanted to bring the monarch into confrontation with Parliament; the advice to withhold assent was given in the context of significant political developments that had occurred since the Bill was passed, which meant that the prevailing political sentiment was strongly in favour of the Bill not coming into force as law. Withholding assent was seen as a quicker way of reversing the Bill than convening Parliament to pass another Bill to repeal the first one.
Nope. Brexits may come and Brexits may go, but the Queen has a more long-term vision; she wants the monarchy to survive. And that is not made more likely by the Queen shredding constitutional convention in order to take sides in a political dispute. Royal Assent to Bills is granted on the advice of Ministers; end of.
It would be beyond egregious, it would negate the whole point of the monarchy and “Crown in Parliament” as we have it. It would be a non-starter, as was the excited talk about a “King’s Party” in 1936.
Sooner or later, such a party would find itself in opposition, and the executive and legislative powers of the “Crown in Parliament” would be submitting for formal confirmation all sorts of things the person of the monarch was publicly committed (and presumably elected from somewhere) to oppose.
It would be a nonsense. The whole concept would have to be unstitched.
Actually, Assent is mainly granted now by a Commission appointed for that purpose. Since this bill was an urgent one, I assume the Commissioners were standing by, and the Speaker knew it. If the Government tried to delay Assent to the bill, it would be heavily criticised.
