The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[Gawin]

It's worth noting, [I think] that it’s not just the PM who disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision today. So do the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord President of the Queen’s Bench Division.

Lawyers, eh? Experts?

It's definitely worth noting. The Queen couldn't have foreseen that Johnson's request would be ruled illegal considering the legal experts themselves don't agree. We deal with this all the time in the U.S., even with our written constitution.

No matter what the Queen had done - refuse or accept Johnson's request -she would be criticized. IMO she did the right thing - accept her PM's advice (as she has always done) to avoid being seen taking sides.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The BBC's view: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49811931

 

[Osipi]

This, too, isn't the Queen's first rodeo with a constitutional crisis. It may be one of the worse ones in her long reign but I don't picture her losing any sleep over it. She did what she was supposed to do and what was required of her.

It is by sheer coincidence that over the past few days I've been binge watching "The Crown" (and yes, I know its dramatized fiction for the most part) but the part that keeps coming to mind with Mr. Johnson putting HM between a rock and hard place with proroguing Parliament, I'm reminded of the scene where Elizabeth is being tutored in constitutional history by the provost of Eton, Henry Marten. I think this quote from that episode is worth a read. Regarding the two elements of the UK constitution...

"... according to Walter Bagehot: the efficient and the dignified. The efficient has the power to make and execute policy and is answerable to the electorate. The monarch, the dignified, gives significance and legitimacy to the efficient and is answerable to God."

This is how HM, The Queen sees her role as far as the government is concerned. Its something she's adhered to for 67 years on the throne. The Queen remains dignified while its yet to be determined if Parliament can be efficient.

 

[Zaira]

The BBC's view: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49811931

A good piece overall.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The BBC's view: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49811931

It's worth noting, [I think] that it’s not just the PM who disagrees with the Supreme Court's decision today. So do the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord President of the Queen’s Bench Division.

Lawyers, eh? Experts?

The Court came in maximal setting to an unanimous decision. An overview of the Lords and Ladies Justices learns they come from all four Home Nations and have dazzling juridical degrees, certainly earned their spurs. Oh yes: all of them have been appointed by Her Majesty The Queen. As the Court is almost 10 years old, all of the Lords and Ladies Justices have been nominated by a Conservative Government anyway.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-49663001

 

[Ista]

This, too, isn't the Queen's first rodeo with a constitutional crisis. It may be one of the worse ones in her long reign but I don't picture her losing any sleep over it. She did what she was supposed to do and what was required of her.

I disagree that the Queen is unlikely to be concerned by this. I suspect that with her years of experience, and the input of her advisers, she was perfectly aware that she was being put in an extremely awkward position that might indeed have implications for how she would be perceived. She did what she had to do, but I'm also sure that she (or her advisers) are watching how this all plays out. My bet is Charles is also watching, and is not missing the implications for his reign.

 

[ladongas]

As we think we know, the Queen has the right to warn. We can’t know that she didn’t warn the PM that he was playing with fire. Yet she had no way to force him to either consider or heed her warning.

 

[Osipi]

Maybe I worded it wrong stating that the Queen wouldn't lose sleep over this recent constitutional crisis. I'm sure she's keeping an eagle eye on each and every little thing that is coming to pass with these recent developments. I do, however, believe that the Queen knows she did exactly as she was supposed to do and knows she cannot be faulted for assenting to the wishes of her Prime Minister.

I'd really love to know what she *really* thinks of all this but, of course, we'll never know.

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen can either ignore the advice of her prime minister or act on the advice of her prime minister. We all know what the bigger ‘scandal’ would be.

And I have to laugh at former PM Major. He had the Queen prorogue Parliament in the early 90s to avoid a scandal he was caught up in. Now he’s mister high and mighty.

 

[wyevale]

We are now in political limbo with a govt unable to govern and a parliament that refuses to allow an election for a new one.
Time for HMQ to resolve the impasse by dissolving parliament and calling an election herself.

Which would be perfectly constitutional.

 

[Durham]

I'm not surprised that the court found that the advice given to HM to prorogue parliament was unlawful.

I am surprised (to put it mildly) that it therefore meant that the prorogation itself was void & that the court has quashed an order in council. Not quite sure where that leaves our constitution really.

I suspect that this will just divide opinion further & make feelings even more bitter. The court of course will come under intense scrutiny now, particularly how its the members are chosen. I'm sure many people (me included) didn't even know that this court had the power to do something like this.

To think that her first pm was Churchill, even if he was in his twilight.

 

[Muhler]

We are now in political limbo with a govt unable to govern and a parliament that refuses to allow an election for a new one.
Time for HMQ to resolve the impasse by dissolving parliament and calling an election herself.

Which would be perfectly constitutional.

Can she do that on her own?

IMO that would probably be the best solution. But there is no time, if a hard Brexit is to be avoided - as a majority of the Parliament seems to wish.

It seems to me that a mediator outside the Parliament is desperately needed and someone with enough weight to be heard and respected.

Can QEII call in the party-leaders together for a meeting at the palace and basically urge them to get their act together and act in the ínterests of the nation, rather that focusing on political squabbling?

Can QEII give a speech or an interview on her own accord, de facto urging the politicians to start working together, across political divides to find a solution? Or at least agree on how to proceed with a hard Brexit.
I know it's political interference, but as head of state she is IMO about the only one left to get things moving.
Politically the government is checkmate. It can't move in any direction from here.
And if the government won't resign, the opposition is checkmate - even if they can find a majority.
If there is a time for QEII to interfere in the political process it's probably now. She can then abdicate or whatever happens afterwards.

 

[Rudolph]

“NEW: Boris Johnson has rang the Queen from New York. No10 won't say whether he apologised to her: "We never discuss conversations between the Prime Minister and Her Majesty".”

Via Tom Newton Dunn Twitter

 

[Mbruno]

We are now in political limbo with a govt unable to govern and a parliament that refuses to allow an election for a new one.
Time for HMQ to resolve the impasse by dissolving parliament and calling an election herself.

Which would be perfectly constitutional.

Actually, she can't do that. After the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act came into force, the Queen lost the prerogative to dissolve Parliament and call an election on her own.


I agree with you though that the opposition is basically holding the government hostage as the government can no longer govern, but the opposition refuses to grant it an early election or vote no confidence in the government. It is very hypocritical because the opposition parties are basically delaying an election until it is most politically advantageous to them to have one, which they think would be after the Brexit deadline is extended and the government fails on its promise to take the UK out of the EU on October 31.

Can she do that on her own?

IMO that would probably be the best solution. But there is no time, if a hard Brexit is to be avoided - as a majority of the Parliament seems to wish.

It seems to me that a mediator outside the Parliament is desperately needed and someone with enough weight to be heard and respected.

Can QEII call in the party-leaders together for a meeting at the palace and basically urge them to get their act together and act in the ínterests of the nation, rather that focusing on political squabbling?

Can QEII give a speech or an interview on her own accord, de facto urging the politicians to start working together, across political divides to find a solution? Or at least agree on how to proceed with a hard Brexit.
I know it's political interference, but as head of state she is IMO about the only one left to get things moving.
Politically the government is checkmate. It can't move in any direction from here.
And if the government won't resign, the opposition is checkmate - even if they can find a majority.
If there is a time for QEII to interfere in the political process it's probably now. She can then abdicate or whatever happens afterwards.

I don't think she should do it in public, but both the Leader of the Opposition and the PM are Privy Councillors. She could summon both to a Privy Council meeting then and exercise her right to warn and advise. The orthodox view on the political neutrality of the Crown will, however, compel her to do basically nothing.

 

[Somebody]

I agree with you though that the opposition is basically holding the government hostage as the government can no longer govern, but the opposition refuses to grant it an early election or vote no confidence in the government. It is very hypocritical because the opposition parties are basically delaying an election until it is most politically advantageous to them to have one, which they think would be after the Brexit deadline is extended and the government fails on its promise to take the UK out of the EU on October 31.

Which is exactly what May (and many before her) did - calling election when they thought it most advantageous - but it didn't turned out as planned. So, yes, that hypocrisy is apparently inherently build into the system.

It must be hard for the queen to on the one hand be in the middle of all of this and on the other hand not really being able to do much about it. I guess she is used to it with only some PMs making it a lot harder on her than others.

 

[Durham]

There's no guarantee that a new election would produce a parliament any different to the one we have now.

The Queen can't realistically do anything proactive in this situation. It would just make a bad situation worse.

 

[wyevale]

Actually The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.
Whether the current circumstances satisfy either of those criteria is an open question...

 

[Muhler]

I don't think she should do it in public, but both the Leader of the Opposition and the PM are Privy Councillors. She could summon both to a Privy Council meeting then and exercise her right to warn and advise. The orthodox view on the political neutrality of the Crown will, however, compel her to do basically nothing.

It must be terrible for her to have to remain passive, while watching the politicians acting so selfishly. She has devoted her entire life to keeping Britain and the British together and now the country is more divided since - since I don't know when.
There is after all a genuine risk of Scotland breaking away in a not too distant future as well.

Hypothetically, what do you think would be the public reaction should it "be known" that QEII is most displeased with the current political situation - and the politicians - and that she sincerely hope they will work together to face whatever outcome this will lead to?
Would brexiteers as well as remainers (with both sides I imagine sharing her frustration) support her "unofficial call for political unity" and rally behind her against the politicians?
Would the politicians react constructively to such an unprecedented "knock on the head" from QEII you think?

In a situation where there is not even a hint of a statesman anywhere near the Parliament, who will the people rally around if not QEII?

 

[Durham]

Actually The monarch remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, but in practice would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question.
Whether the current circumstances satisfy either of those criteria is an open question...

Well if she did intervene it would have far reaching implications for the institution of the monarchy. Who knows where that would take us. Best not to I think.

It must be terrible for her to have to remain passive, while watching the politicians acting so selfishly. She has devoted her entire life to keeping Britain and the British together and now the country is more divided since - since I don't know when.
There is after all a genuine risk of Scotland breaking away in a not too distant future as well.

Hypothetically, what do you think would be the public reaction should it "be known" that QEII is most displeased with the current political situation - and the politicians - and that she sincerely hope they will work together to face whatever outcome this will lead to?
Would brexiteers as well as remainers (with both sides I imagine sharing her frustration) support her "unofficial call for political unity" and rally behind her against the politicians?
Would the politicians react constructively to such an unprecedented "knock on the head" from QEII you think?

In a situation where there is not even a hint of a statesman anywhere near the Parliament, who will the people rally around if not QEII?

I can understand why this could appear as an attractive idea but I think there's a substantial number of people in Britain who would most definitely not welcome an intervention by this or any other monarch.

 

[wyevale]

support her "unofficial call for political unity" and rally behind her against the politicians?
Would the politicians react constructively to such an unprecedented "knock on the head" from QEII you think?

Personally I think many of her ordinary subjects would, but [as for the politicians] I think its unlikely - they are too set on the furtherance of their own agenda/career to care a fig for such a plea - just look at their behaviour over the last three years..

 

[Durham]

Personally I think many of her ordinary subjects would, but [as for the politicians] I think its unlikely - they are too set on the furtherance of their own agenda/career to care a fig for such a plea - just look at their behaviour over the last three years..

Well I'd have to respectfully disagree with you on that. I think a lot would not & probably some would be downright hostile.

Queen waving & riding in carriages is one thing. That's what most people think when they do even think about her. Unelected head of state intervening brazenly in politics is quite another.

 

[wyevale]

^ I'd suggest that 5 years ago that view might have been widespread, but now.. such is the contempt for politicians [of all 'colours'], who have manifestly failed to honour the promises on which they were elected things - have changed..
Being elected lacks the cachet it once had, since such duplicity has been revealed there is NO trust left.
That isn't the case for HMQ..who has 'played it by the book', and broken no promises, never lied or done down her country, nor put the institution she represents in jeopardy.
She IS trusted, as no-one else..

 

[Durham]

It must be terrible for her to have to remain passive, while watching the politicians acting so selfishly. She has devoted her entire life to keeping Britain and the British together and now the country is more divided since - since I don't know when.
There is after all a genuine risk of Scotland breaking away in a not too distant future as well.

I think the last time the country was this divided would be during the Suez crises or over the Munich agreement of 1938.

^ I'd suggest that 5 years ago that view might have been widespread, but now.. such is the contempt for politicians [of all 'colours'], who have manifestly failed to honour the promises on which they were elected things - have changed..
Being elected lacks the cachet it once had, since such duplicity has been revealed there is NO trust left.
That isn't the case for HMQ..who has 'played it by the book', and broken no promises, never lied or done down her country, nor put the institution she represents in jeopardy.
She IS trusted, as no-one else..

I do get all that. I understand your point of view. The thing is neither of us know for sure how people would react. I do think there is a lot of "soft" support for the monarchy which would quickly disappear in these sorts of scenarios.

The Queen is respected, adored by many, but this is not universal. The drama of 1997 & criticism of the Queen quickly blew over but a political intervention would have long term consequences & open up a pandoras box.

 

[Jacknch]

In regard to the Queen intervening in this current situation, I don't think she should at the moment. In fact it would it would require a government in total control of parliament proposing to do something utterly catastrophic to the well being of the people - and even then it would require the population en-mass to call upon the Queen intervention.

Remember that in connection with certain political issues facing the country, not only are her Government, Opposition and Parliament divided, but her entire country is divided. What intervention could Her Majesty possibly do that wouldn't cause or result in at least 50% of her people (citizens and politicians) disapproving of such intervention?

 

[Durham]

In regard to the Queen intervening in this current situation, I don't think she should at the moment. In fact it would it would require a government in total control of parliament proposing to do something utterly catastrophic to the well being of the people - and even then it would require the population en-mass to call upon the Queen intervention.

Remember that in connection with certain political issues facing the country, not only are her Government, Opposition and Parliament divided, but her entire country is divided. What intervention could Her Majesty possibly do that wouldn't cause or result in at least 50% of her people (citizens and politicians) disapproving of such intervention?

Couldn't agree more. So even if we ignored the fact that the Queen is an unelected HofS there's the blunt truth that she would probably alienate as many people as supported her in any intervention.

That's me done for the night.

Thank you for all those who posted here today. It's been really interesting.

As Scarlett said "tomorrow is another day"

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think the last time the country was this divided would be during the Suez crises or over the Munich agreement of 1938.

The Winter of Discontent, the Miners Strike, the Poll Tax and the Bedroom Tax wee quite divisive eras too.

The political system of "the winner takes it all" paired with an unbelievably partisan press does not help consensus either....

I saw the Labour Party Conference singing The Red Flag and Jerusalem. That is something you do not see anymore with West-European social democrats. So devisive in Northerners and Southerners. In Scots and English. In the many and the few. It is mind-boggling.

 

[victor1319]

I think the last time the country was this divided would be during the Suez crises or over the Munich agreement of 1938.

I see this from Germany, so, what do I know?

But it is inherent to politics, that there are cleavages: Center vs periphery, poor vs rich, city vs rural, old vs young and so on.

The point for us could be, that the court has taken a prerogative of the monarch away, the right to suspend/prorogue parliament, by declaring the decision of the Queen as void. Isn't this the real scandal: A court, not the parliament...?

And the Queen was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister! So, on her side was everything according to the rules.

And now comes the fun part: If the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, to whom do you go to appeal? Well, the EU-court - impossible for the Brexiteers... The parliament, to clarify the right of the Queen to suspend the parliament? Well, there could be a conflict of interest...

 

[Somebody]

I see this from Germany, so, what do I know?

But it is inherent to politics, that there are cleavages: Center vs periphery, poor vs rich, city vs rural, old vs young and so on.

The point for us could be, that the court has taken a prerogative of the monarch away, the right to suspend/prorogue parliament, by declaring the decision of the Queen as void. Isn't this the real scandal: A court, not the parliament...?

And the Queen was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister! So, on her side was everything according to the rules.

And now comes the fun part: If the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, to whom do you go to appeal? Well, the EU-court - impossible for the Brexiteers... The parliament, to clarify the right of the Queen to suspend the parliament? Well, there could be a conflict of interest...

As long as there is a 'reasonable justification' parliament can still be prorogued in the future. However, "The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict."; the most important one imo being "Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased." and secondly "Parliamentary Accountability" (as stated by the Supreme Court), so the Supreme Court showed today that there is a safeguard against misuse of this prerogative [But I must admit that I never understood in the first place why the executive power could effectively 'put aside' parliament for a while against the legislative body's own wishes]

 

[Iluvbertie]

I see this from Germany, so, what do I know?

But it is inherent to politics, that there are cleavages: Center vs periphery, poor vs rich, city vs rural, old vs young and so on.

The point for us could be, that the court has taken a prerogative of the monarch away, the right to suspend/prorogue parliament, by declaring the decision of the Queen as void. Isn't this the real scandal: A court, not the parliament...?

And the Queen was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister! So, on her side was everything according to the rules.

And now comes the fun part: If the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong, to whom do you go to appeal? Well, the EU-court - impossible for the Brexiteers... The parliament, to clarify the right of the Queen to suspend the parliament? Well, there could be a conflict of interest...

It used to be to the Privy Council.

 

[victor1319]

Thanks, @Somebody and Iluvbertie! So, it is complicated.

From what I did read, the discussion is more about the Supreme Court as guardian of the constitution. While others said, the Queen has not to fear legal consequences out of this affair, the very affair in which she simply followed the Prime Minister in order to suspend the Parliament, because she is above criminal and civil law.

Well, at least this...

We will see how all this unfolds!