I don’t see the House of Lords being abolished, now that the vast majority of its membership are life peers who usually had either a career in politics prior to being appointed or were exemplary citizens in some way I don’t think it’s as popular a target for destruction. The 90-odd hereditary peers who retain seats and the church peers could go, though.
Is Parliament bound to repeal the law if the courts find it incompatible/illegal?
I think that’s the point – the English courts can’t find a law “illegal”.
As I understand things Parliament gave an undertaking to our Royal Family that provided they did not challenge the authority of Parliament they can keep their status as the provider of the sovereign ruler for eternity. It is treason, punishable by life imprisonment for anyone to seek to deprive the sovereign of his/her crown … even discussing the notion of replacing the sovereign with a Republican system is an offence.
What boyo said - the UK’s courts do not recognise the principle of unconstitutionality. In the UK, such a thing is inherently political, not judicial.
In reality though we have freedom of speech here and nobody is harassed for imagining or otherwise advocating a republic. If we elected a republican PM (and the Leader of the Opposition currently is republican), then the Queen would have no choice but to work with them.
I can’t blame you for being confused. I guess it depends on what you mean in #21 by the possibility of Commonwealth realms “dictating to Britain” and “such interference.” If the dictation included enactment of trade restrictions, the British might legitimately resent the interference. But that kind of interference is hard for me to imagine. And if we are just talking about speech acts, such as the prime minister of a former colony criticizing Jeremy Corbyn, and that resulted in ranting about interference in Britain’s internal affairs, that’s the kind of thing I would see as borderline neo-colonialism.
I’m generally against speculating regarding some terrible act that a person or nation hasn’t actually committed, and yet I speculated. Maybe that wasn’t one of my better posts.
Under the British system, Parliamentary supremacy is one of the basic constitutional principals. Which means that although constitutional issues are treated as particularly important and serious, the constitution itself can be changed by a simple act of Parliament (and, indeed, my understanding is that the modern constitution consists almost entirely of acts of Parliament, nearly everything having been codified in statute at some point, with the relatively few remaining “conventions” so widely and thoroughly discussed and agreed upon in the legal literature that “unwritten” in no way accurately describes them).
The only thing that a new act of Parliament (which would automatically override any previous laws) could conflict with is a treaty. But of course, treaties are voluntary, and any nation can disavow its treaties at will. They may suffer external consequences, such as trade sanctions, or even war, but nothing internal forces a nation to abide by them. A court could note the fact that a law violates an obligation to the EU agreed to by treaty, but it couldn’t force Parliament to abide by the EU rules.
So lets say Parliament passes a law that violates a treaty. What would happen if the Monarch refuses royal assent in the name of foreign relations?
For the purposes of the post you can either presume something minor that only diplomats would care about* OR something so major that QE2 is single-handedly trying to avoid a war**.
- “My word! Increasing tariffs on sterling silver forks from 3.1% to 3.15%. I never! <monocle falls>”
** A law to search all Arab-country embassies and consulates and declare as persona-non-grata anyone who looks ISISish.
She wouldn’t. She takes advice from the Prime Minister. She knows that if she refuses royal assent to a bill passed by Parliament, odds are the next bill would be the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Act.
So if Mr Trudeau said something like “That Jeremy Corbyn is a useless duffer”, and the British responded by saying “Er, that’s none of your business, sir!”, that would be neocolonialism on the part of the British?
The British military swears allegiance to the Queen not the government and they will protect the Queen. I do not think that the government would survive
The British military is highly unlikely to attempt a coup in the event that a democratically elected Parliament passes a bill to abolish the monarchy.
As an American, the idea of Congress being the sole decider of what’s legal and illegal gives me the heebie-jeebies something fierce.
Probably because 3/4 of Congress seems to be composed of screeching retards on both sides of the aisle.
I agree with you bump but I think there’s more than that.
With the castration of the House of Lords in 1911 and the handcuffing of the Monarch to rule it is clear that the Brits do not hold the idea of Checks and Balances as sacrosanct as Americans do. But I just don’t get that there is this theoretical power that apparently will destroy the Monarchy if ever used. Imagine if the President never used the veto that is within his enumerated power for fear that if he ever used it, he would be immediately impeached and convicted and tossed out of office.
If you want your monarch to be utterly powerless then why even keep the monarchy around?
Think of them as jewelry.
A properly elected government following its election pledges and abolishing the monarchy? Absolutely the military would follow. OTOH a government that has discarded its election pledges and is picking on the monarchy as its scapegoat du jour? Then the military might take a very different view.
I don’t think an absence of formal, constitutional powers makes the monarchy powerless. They still enjoy an enormous wealth of powers, of the ‘soft power’ sort - widespread public popularity, a whackingly impressive diplomatic presence, international prominence, philanthropic reputation, and the authority that comes from longevity on the throne.
That’s not to be sniffed at, but like everything else, there’s very specific, if unspecified, avenues in which this groundswell of power can be channeled, in order to enhance yet preserve our democracy.
It seems obvious to me that the house of commons has been playing a long game in order to consolidate power and working to eliminate any check on their power by any other part of government. All while pretending to follow an “unwritten” constitution. Don’t forget officially the Queen is the third house of parliament. So they’ve taken the queen’s power, and the lord’s power, they refuse to allow their laws to be reviewed by the courts. It’s the tyranny that no one expected.
What would happen if the U.S. Supreme Court declared a law invalid, not on any Constitutional or legal grounds, but “in the name of foreign relations”?