The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
There is no royal veto in Denmark.

If a bill is passed in the Parliament it becomes a law. It needs the signature of the Monarch to become valid. - And that's where a "royal veto" can come in. But it would be a personal veto.
And now we have a major constitutional crisis on our hands! Even if the government backs the Monarch's refusal to sign.
The Monarch would basically commit high treason. - But that's for another tread.

Thanks for your correction, Mr Muhler. Your point about a "veto" being equal in this case to not signing a bill is actually true also in other kingdoms, but it is slightly different from what happens in the UK.
__________________

  #182  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:50 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
OK. So here is the situation. The PM meets with the Queen and advises the Queen that she wishes HM to veto the legislation passed by the majority of the Parliament. HM sits back and tells the PM what she thinks and warns and advises the PM of what repercussions may be and the after effects of such an action should she honor the PM's request and veto the legislation.

The Queen, then, is doing exactly as her role requires her to do. The blame cannot be put on the Queen for the veto but actually, I would see it all falling on the PM's head like a ton of bricks as it was the PM that *requested* the Queen's veto and by law, kind of forced her hand to sign it.

I seriously think it would mean political suicide for the Queen's government of the day under PM May.

Hope this makes sense.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #183  
Old 05-24-2019, 03:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Prime Minister Theresa May has officially notified The Queen she will resign on 7th June.
  #184  
Old 05-24-2019, 03:37 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
I'm not surprised by this at all. How many Prime Ministers has the Queen seen come and go now? I've lost count.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #185  
Old 05-24-2019, 04:00 PM
HereditaryPrincess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13,873
Royal Central has a good summary of HM's Prime Ministers:

All the Queen’s Prime Ministers – Royal Central
__________________
"For beautiful eyes, look for the good in others; for beautiful lips, speak only words of kindness; and for poise, walk with the knowledge that you are never alone". Audrey Hepburn

*
"Think of all the beauty still left around you and be happy". Anne Frank
  #186  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:35 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 210
The Queen Is the Reason Boris Johnson Would Struggle to Suspend Parliament

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...end-parliament

Quote:
Boris Johnson is threatening to suspend Britain’s Parliament to force through a no-deal Brexit if he becomes prime minister -- and some politicians are planning to fight him in court. But he would face a bigger problem: Queen Elizabeth II could stop him first.

The power to prorogue -- as it is formally called -- lies not with the prime minister but with the monarch.

“The question constitutional experts are all debating is whether the Palace could say ‘No,’” said Catherine Haddon of the Institute for Government. “It’s all something of a gray area in our system.”
  #187  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:39 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,585
I should certainly hope so!

Regardless of whatever view you may have on Brexit, suspending the Parliament, in order to bring about a desired political solution, especially on such a critical issue, is in my opinion tantamount to a coup d'etat.
It's a dangerous precedence if that was to happen.
  #188  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:41 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
If she’s asked, she’ll do I.
  #189  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:58 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,585


Would she? It has been seen before that monarchs have refused to sign a bill or have gone against the will of the government.

What if she is urged by the opposition to veto?
By the press?
The public opinion expressing concern?
By her political advisors?

What Boris Johnson is basically saying is: It's my way, or I suspend the Parliament - and get my way anyway.

That's hardly democratic!
And the outcome of Brexit is of crucial importance to Britain.
  #190  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
I should certainly hope so!

Regardless of whatever view you may have on Brexit, suspending the Parliament, in order to bring about a desired political solution, especially on such a critical issue, is in my opinion tantamount to a coup d'etat.
It's a dangerous precedence if that was to happen.
It has been done before in the Commonwealth. As Rudolph may be able to confirm, Stephen Harper a few years ago asked Governor- General Michalle Jean to prorogue the Canadian parliament to avoid a vote of no confidence in his government. The GG complied with the request under certain conditions.

As I said, Rudolph or Countessmeout may fill in the details.
  #191  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:06 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It has been done before in the Commonwealth. As Rudolph may be able to confirm, Stephen Harper a few years ago asked Governor- General Michalle Jean to prorogue the Canadian parliament to avoid a vote of no confidence in his government. The GG complied with the request under certain conditions.

As I said, Rudolph or Countessmeout may fill in the details.
I should like to know what these conditions were.

And congratulations on your first 5.000 posts.
  #192  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:11 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
It would be unthinkable for The Queen to deny the express will of the First Lord of the Treasury

It’s above my pay grade but it happened in Canada just a few years ago
  #193  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:32 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
I know there was almost third word war because he was doing it to save his government. He would’ve lost a vote of confidence, so in that case I suppose there is precedent
  #194  
Old 07-12-2019, 10:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
The Queen is above government and opposition but she’s not above telling them a good long tea is in order in a quiet room and ‘gently’ saying for them to get get on with it.

HM’s opinion carries a lot of weight going back to the days of Churchill. She would never interfere but her words carry great meaning and all politicians know this.
  #195  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:04 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,757
Exactly. The Queen's place is to "warn and advise" the Prime Minister and the government. I would hope that any minister or governmental figure would be smart enough to know that this woman that has met and warned and advised so many Prime Ministers before them over 67 years would know her stuff and listen to her with both ears wide open and heed her words.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #196  
Old 07-13-2019, 05:19 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
I think this wikipedia article is about the incident in Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E...entary_dispute

The two conditions seemed to be:
-parliament would reconvene soon
-when it did it would present a budget a vote on which is automatically a confidence vote
  #197  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:11 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 14,585
Thanks.

I wonder how many - bad ideas - that has quietly ended over the years, when QEII informed the PMs that XX perhaps wasn't such a great idea.

However, it only takes one PM to ignore such an "advise" then what?

Will it be "leaked" that QEII is against - ahem, I mean, has advised against such a move?
Can QEII send "messages" down the government ranks, basically let it be known: That Her majesty think this is a seriously bad idea!
After all a PM can hardly act without support from the government, as we have seen demonstrated so clearly in the last few months.
How about the Speaker of the House? Can the Speaker intervene?
The House of Lords?

What options are there to stop a rogue PM (and government party) from doing something that is democratically questionable?

Having said that, I wonder if a hypothetical Boris Johnson, can find enough support within his party to actually dismiss the Parliament and thereby forcing a hard Brexit?
Wouldn't he de facto by governing by decree? And is QEII obliged to sign a decree?
Doesn't decisions made during such an interim period needs to ratified by a convened Parliament?
(Not to mention that the whole EU apparatus will be standing with their jaws dangling between their knees, then shouting: What on Earth are you doing?!?)

Forgive my many questions. I find this deeply fascinating, because the British system works in ways that can be very different from the Continental systems.
To explain my thinking, I should perhaps explain how it works in DK (and I dare say most of all other Continental countries.)
The PM cannot dismiss the Parliament. Period! Only the Monarch can do that, and she would refuse such a request from the PM.
The PM can however call general election at any time, dismissing the Parliament. And the government will continue as a business ministry. The Monarch will not refuse such a request. (That would be unthinkable.)
But that means no bills can be passed, no laws can be signed by the Monarch and there can be no hypothetical Dexit. That would be put on hold. Unless EU agreed and voted on kicking DK out. (A most unlikely contingency!)
In emergencies the Parliament can reconvene and pass a bill, making it a law to be signed by the Monarch, making it valid.
So the DK PM cannot govern by decree or force through a major decision like a Dexit without a functioning Parliament. That would be against the Constitution.
QMII has signed a pledge to obey the Constitution and would flatly refuse to sign anything that has not been okayed in the Parliament.
- That's why I have problems getting my head around QEII just saying: "Dismissing the Parliament? Just like that? Right before Brexit? Sure, Mr. Johnson. Now where is my pen?"
  #198  
Old 07-13-2019, 07:09 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muhler View Post
Thanks.

I wonder how many - bad ideas - that has quietly ended over the years, when QEII informed the PMs that XX perhaps wasn't such a great idea.

However, it only takes one PM to ignore such an "advise" then what?

Will it be "leaked" that QEII is against - ahem, I mean, has advised against such a move?
Can QEII send "messages" down the government ranks, basically let it be known: That Her majesty think this is a seriously bad idea!
After all a PM can hardly act without support from the government, as we have seen demonstrated so clearly in the last few months.
How about the Speaker of the House? Can the Speaker intervene?
The House of Lords?

What options are there to stop a rogue PM (and government party) from doing something that is democratically questionable?

Having said that, I wonder if a hypothetical Boris Johnson, can find enough support within his party to actually dismiss the Parliament and thereby forcing a hard Brexit?
Wouldn't he de facto by governing by decree? And is QEII obliged to sign a decree?
Doesn't decisions made during such an interim period needs to ratified by a convened Parliament?
(Not to mention that the whole EU apparatus will be standing with their jaws dangling between their knees, then shouting: What on Earth are you doing?!?)

Forgive my many questions. I find this deeply fascinating, because the British system works in ways that can be very different from the Continental systems.
To explain my thinking, I should perhaps explain how it works in DK (and I dare say most of all other Continental countries.)
The PM cannot dismiss the Parliament. Period! Only the Monarch can do that, and she would refuse such a request from the PM.
The PM can however call general election at any time, dismissing the Parliament. And the government will continue as a business ministry. The Monarch will not refuse such a request. (That would be unthinkable.)
But that means no bills can be passed, no laws can be signed by the Monarch and there can be no hypothetical Dexit. That would be put on hold. Unless EU agreed and voted on kicking DK out. (A most unlikely contingency!)
In emergencies the Parliament can reconvene and pass a bill, making it a law to be signed by the Monarch, making it valid.
So the DK PM cannot govern by decree or force through a major decision like a Dexit without a functioning Parliament. That would be against the Constitution.
QMII has signed a pledge to obey the Constitution and would flatly refuse to sign anything that has not been okayed in the Parliament.
- That's why I have problems getting my head around QEII just saying: "Dismissing the Parliament? Just like that? Right before Brexit? Sure, Mr. Johnson. Now where is my pen?"

The scenario you describe is also true in the UK. In fact, it has been true in the UK since 1689 at least, i.e. only Parliament can pass laws or appropriate money from the Treasury. The Queen or the British government are not allowed to rule by decree.

The point is, however, that Mr Johnson is not talking about shutting down Parliament permanently, but rather about prorogation, which is actually a normal procedure that is routinely performed by the Queen between two consecutive sessions of Parliament. The effect of prorogation is to end a parliamentary session (therefore killing all pending bills that have not been passed yet) until Parliament reconvenes for another session (the beginning of which is marked by the Queen's speech). Parliament cannot be suspended indefinitely, I think, because it is still a legal requirement in the UK that Parliaments should meet every year.

In the specific case of Brexit, the legal default in both UK law and EU law is now that the UK will leave the European Union on October 31, 2019. The idea in this case, if I understand it correctly, would be to prorogue Parliament before that date to prevent MPs from passing legislation changing the default date and recall Parliament only after October 31, when the UK would be effectively already out of the EU.


It is a rather risky and controversial move, but I don't think it will get to that point. In my opinion, either Parliament will effectively block a no-deal Brexit or call a second referendum by legislation before October 31, or, more likely, Tory rebels will join the opposition to pass a motion of no confidence in the Johnson government triggering a general election. What would happen after the election is anybody's guess though.


Here are the links to some Wikipedia articles about prorogation in the UK and other Commonwealth realms as a reference:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorog...United_Kingdom



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prorogation_in_Canada


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...n_of_Australia
  #199  
Old 07-13-2019, 08:03 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 210
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
I think this wikipedia article is about the incident in Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E...entary_dispute

The two conditions seemed to be:
-parliament would reconvene soon
-when it did it would present a budget a vote on which is automatically a confidence vote
I believe in Commonwealth monarchies the use of powers by the GG is even more complex.

Regardless of the interpretations of 'reserve powers', in Britain the Queen is the Queen and the PM is the PM and that's it.

In the Commonwealth, the GG can dismiss the prime minister but then it's the prime minister who advises the Queen on who to appint as GG. During their term, the prime minister can also suggest a replacement to the Queen at any time if he/she doesn't like the GG.

So they can essentially dismiss each other even though the GG is hierarchically supeior.
  #200  
Old 07-13-2019, 08:41 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,453
Actually for another delay of Brexit it needs the Ok of all tghe other EU Heads of goverment. If only one of them doen not agree that wil be it. So if the don't agree for it the UK will leave with a hard Brexit on 31.10 and the british Parliament can do nothjing against ot.
__________________

__________________
Stefan



Closed Thread

Tags
british commonwealth, british government, elizabeth ii, margaret thatcher, prime ministers, queen elizabeth ii, tony blair, winston churchill


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Queen Elisabeth Of The Belgians (1876-1965) Julia Belgian Royal History 91 06-03-2021 10:54 AM
The Snow Princess: Queen Astrid Of Belgium, Part 1 Julia Belgian Royal History 198 12-12-2006 09:15 AM
Pavlos And Marie Chantal: Current Events December 2002 - October 2003 Julia Crown Prince Pavlos, Marie Chantal and Family 76 10-14-2003 08:40 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones genetics gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! henry viii history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:02 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×