The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #341  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:13 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,128
The action of closing the session of parliament and arranging a new session in itself is a regular occurrence , the Queen would follow the same procedure. Normally they are just along the Mall, but they needed to go to Balmoral to see her. A new session opens with the state opening , it also allows new legislation The problem here is the timing, so close to brexit, also the length of the closure, It is preventing debate or at least reducing the amount if time available for debate. That is the issue up for debate not the suspension of parliament as such.
__________________

  #342  
Old 08-29-2019, 06:23 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
The action of closing the session of parliament and arranging a new session in itself is a regular occurrence , the Queen would follow the same procedure. Normally they are just along the Mall, but they needed to go to Balmoral to see her. A new session opens with the state opening , it also allows new legislation The problem here is the timing, so close to brexit, also the length of the closure, It is preventing debate or at least reducing the amount if time available for debate. That is the issue up for debate not the suspension of parliament as such.
Exactly. That is the essence indeed. Tonight on Newsnight there was talk of a coordinated cross-party action to have the House of Commons assembled in an emergency debate and then having a rule cemented that the UK can only leave the European Union with a deal.

This is unprecedented but as Newsnight put it: the fact that the UK has no written Conatitution does not only allow the Government to be "creative". It works the other way too, as the opposing MP's have excellent academic experts as well to find their way. As the Governent has no majority in both Houses on this particular issue, it remains a gamble by Cummings and Johnson which can eventually lead to unforeseen outcomes.
__________________

  #343  
Old 08-29-2019, 06:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
having a rule cemented that the UK can only leave the European Union with a deal.
This is [likely] 'hors sujet', as it is inevitably political.. but just what kind of 'deal' is likely to be offered if the other party is compelled to accept it ?

I'll say no more..
  #344  
Old 08-29-2019, 07:10 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
The BBC reported the legal argument is technically at the validity of the advice given by the Privy Council / PM to the Queen.

As the power and decision to prorogue Parliament is entirely in the Queen's gift it is not challenging that she did wrong but that she prorogued parliament on inaccurate or deceitful advice.
  #345  
Old 08-30-2019, 04:41 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
The BBC reported the legal argument is technically at the validity of the advice given by the Privy Council / PM to the Queen.

As the power and decision to prorogue Parliament is entirely in the Queen's gift it is not challenging that she did wrong but that she prorogued parliament on inaccurate or deceitful advice.

On itself the Queen did no wrong but it is feed for thought that she accepted a possible inaccurate or deceitful advice. This can be read as: the royal prerogative is up for grabs. The Queen has allowed it to be misused.
  #346  
Old 08-30-2019, 05:50 AM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
A summary of today's proceedings before Lord Doherty in 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘷 𝘈𝘥𝘷𝘰𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘚𝘤𝘰𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥, prepared by a Session Cases reporter, can now be downloaded here:

https://twitter.com/SessionCases/sta...53465963028480

An extract:
A motion for interim orders was heard by Lord Doherty, a judge of the Court of Session, in Edinburgh in the petition brought by Joanna Cherry QC MP and others for judicial review of the UK Ministers' advice to HM Queen to prorogue the UK Parliament. (...)

The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the court, and argued that the advice given was unlawful, and that it was the court's duty to provide an effective remedy in order to ensure that the rule of law was maintained.
Update from BBC Scotland Political Correspondent:
Lord Doherty has rejected a request for a temporary halt to the suspension of Parliament. Lord Doherty says the substantive hearing planned for Friday should be moved to Tuesday or Wednesday. Lord Doherty says he wants to hear fuller argument next week.

(Joanna Cherry QC MP) sees it as a victory that Judge wants to hear full arguments next week. Says she wants an affidavit from Boris Johnson on his reasons for prorogation and calls for the PM to make himself available for cross-examination in Court.
  #347  
Old 08-30-2019, 07:43 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
On itself the Queen did no wrong but it is feed for thought that she accepted a possible inaccurate or deceitful advice. This can be read as: the royal prerogative is up for grabs. The Queen has allowed it to be misused.
As the Queen does not have the power to refuse, the misuse and responsibility of possible inaccurate and/or deceitful advice falls on Boris Johnson.
  #348  
Old 08-30-2019, 08:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
On itself the Queen did no wrong but it is feed for thought that she accepted a possible inaccurate or deceitful advice. This can be read as: the royal prerogative is up for grabs. The Queen has allowed it to be misused.



The point is that legal responsibility for an order in council does not fall on the Queen, but on the ministers who advise her.


As Tommy explained, what is being discussed in the courts is not whether the Queen acted wrongly as the Queen can do no wrong when using a royal prerogative (which is not subject to judicial review). What is being discussed instead is whether the PM acted unlawfully by advising the Queen to prorogue Parliament under the current circumstances. If the courts accept that thesis, the immediate result would not be a revocation of the prorogation order, but rather a legal obligation on the PM to advise the Queen to reverse the prorogation (which she can also do).



Another important point is that, although the courts have no jurisdiction over royal prerogatives, Parliament, as the sovereign power in the UK, can limit or even take away royal prerogatives. It suffices to pass primary legislation to that end (recently, for example, the Queen was stripped of her prerogative to dissolve Parliament by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011). In Australia or Canada, taking away royal prerogatives is far more complicated because, in many cases, it would require a constitutional amendment. For example, Section 5 of the Constitution of Australia:


Quote:

Section 5 [Convening Parliament]

(1) The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.



  #349  
Old 08-30-2019, 09:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
My prediction: application dismissed.

There's no law regulating the factors the PM must consider before seeking prorogation. Ergo, nothing to judicially review.
  #350  
Old 08-30-2019, 10:43 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
As the Queen does not have the power to refuse, the misuse and responsibility of possible inaccurate and/or deceitful advice falls on Boris Johnson.

I think that is a bit too quick. A majority in both Houses of the Sovereign Parliament has voiced opposition to the Government's attempt to silence Parliament for five weeks in such most decisive and profound circumstances.

It is not only Her Majesty's Government. It is also Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. She could have requested: "Opposition must be heard". I feel the Queen was just stuck in her standard mode:
nod - agreed
nod - agreed
nod - agreed

But these are excetional times. The Queen could have felt in her bones: "Hey wait a minute, I am asked to agree with a halt to all parliamentary proceedings in this most hectic political and social situation ever in My long Reign?" Now it very much looks as just the occasional burp after lunch at Balmoral:
nod - agreed.


  #351  
Old 08-30-2019, 11:48 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
A lot of people are talking about Parliament today.

Confused by what prorogation means or what’s happening?

Let us help with this thread

Why are people talking about prorogation?

The Queen has approved the Prime Minister’s request to suspend (prorogue) Parliament from the 10th September, days after MPs return from the summer recess.

Is it unusual to prorogue Parliament?

No - Parliament is prorogued at the end of each session, which is usually about a year. However, the current session has lasted over two years. This is the longest for over 350 years.


Via U.K. Parliament Twitter

https://twitter.com/ukparliament/sta...752756224?s=21
  #352  
Old 08-30-2019, 11:58 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I think that is a bit too quick. A majority in both Houses of the Sovereign Parliament has voiced opposition to the Government's attempt to silence Parliament for five weeks in such most decisive and profound circumstances.

It is not only Her Majesty's Government. It is also Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. She could have requested: "Opposition must be heard". I feel the Queen was just stuck in her standard mode:
nod - agreed
nod - agreed
nod - agreed

But these are excetional times. The Queen could have felt in her bones: "Hey wait a minute, I am asked to agree with a halt to all parliamentary proceedings in this most hectic political and social situation ever in My long Reign?" Now it very much looks as just the occasional burp after lunch at Balmoral:
nod - agreed.


It is not true that a majority in the House has voiced opposition to the prorogation as no vote on the matter has been taken in the House yet.

Again, as long as the House doesn’t declare that it has lost confidence in the government and has confidence in someone else, to be the PM, there is no reason for the Queen not to follow her PM’s advice. It is not up to the Queen to guess what the majority of the House thinks based on what a few outspoken MPs say on the BBC, nor is it up to the Queen to make political calls on her own.

Again , thank God that Elizabeth II and not Charles is the monarch at this particular moment .
  #353  
Old 08-30-2019, 12:15 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
I think that is a bit too quick. A majority in both Houses of the Sovereign Parliament has voiced opposition to the Government's attempt to silence Parliament for five weeks in such most decisive and profound circumstances.

It is not only Her Majesty's Government. It is also Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition. She could have requested: "Opposition must be heard". I feel the Queen was just stuck in her standard mode:
nod - agreed
nod - agreed
nod - agreed

But these are excetional times. The Queen could have felt in her bones: "Hey wait a minute, I am asked to agree with a halt to all parliamentary proceedings in this most hectic political and social situation ever in My long Reign?" Now it very much looks as just the occasional burp after lunch at Balmoral:
nod - agreed.


If the Queen had refused it would have caused a serious constitutional crisis. I think I'm right in saying that the last monarch who did something like that was Queen Anne over three hundred year ago.

Britain is a "crowned republic" as are the other commonwealth realms. The Westminster system allows the monarch to be consulted, to encourage & to warn (The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot).

Whether the monarch should have been placed in this position is the real question here. I'm sure there must be a lot of unease at the palace over this.
  #354  
Old 08-30-2019, 12:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,636
Again , thank God that Elizabeth II and not Charles is the monarch at this particular moment .[/QUOTE]

The play King Charles III by Mike Bartlett is an interesting take on a hypothetical relationship between king & PM & a constitutional crises.

Slightly off topic here but I think Charles would follow his constitutional duties to the letter. My instinct is that he knows full well what British monarchs can & can't do. That said behind closed doors I'm sure he would not be shy in using his right to encourage & to warn.
  #355  
Old 08-30-2019, 12:52 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,533
Parliament can still in effect over-ride or make irrelevant the Queen's prorogation by voting no confidence in the PM or by passing legislation preventing a no-deal Brexit. So in many ways the Queen has done what she has always done, followed the rule of taking the route with least effect.
  #356  
Old 08-30-2019, 01:33 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
It is not true that a majority in the House has voiced opposition to the prorogation as no vote on the matter has been taken in the House yet.

Again, as long as the House doesn’t declare that it has lost confidence in the government and has confidence in someone else, to be the PM, there is no reason for the Queen not to follow her PM’s advice. It is not up to the Queen to guess what the majority of the House thinks based on what a few outspoken MPs say on the BBC, nor is it up to the Queen to make political calls on her own.

Again , thank God that Elizabeth II and not Charles is the monarch at this particular moment .
The coalition has a majority of ONE vote. All opposition parties have voiced their disapproval. Add to these the Tories who want an orderly exit. The coalition has no majority in the House of Lords. So yes. Parliament is against being sent off to the sideline.

That this is not expressed in a vote is one of the eccentricities of the British system in which a Government official (Mr Rees Mogg) owns the agenda. Meaning that the executive power hold the legislative power in reins...

In all other EU states the executive power is accountable to the legislative power but in the UK this accountability is channeled via Government. Good that Mr Bercow, the Speaker, stands up for the rights of Parliament. It must be heard. It must speak when it wishes to speak. And it must be in charge of the own agenda. That is so basal, it is jawdropping that a "Sovereign Parliament" lets itself being sidelined.

I am curious to learn what will come out of this.
  #357  
Old 08-30-2019, 01:42 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
The BBC's Royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell on the Queen's role:

"The United Kingdom has a head of state who has always followed precedent and observed the rock-solid convention that as a constitutional monarch she is bound to follow the formal advice of her prime minister.

To have rejected such advice would have taken us into even deeper constitutional waters, in which the monarch might feel emboldened to follow his or her private instincts rather than the guidance of the duly elected government.

So when the Privy Council met at Balmoral the Queen did the only thing she could do.

But I believe we can say that these events will have caused significant unease within the palace. Their absolute priority has been to keep her away from the Brexit debate.

Boris Johnson, the 14th British prime minister of her reign, has chosen to involve her in a controversial decision.

There will be concern about that, and about the wider impact of such a divisive decision on an already inflamed national dialogue."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49511731
  #358  
Old 08-30-2019, 02:07 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635
If I remember my lessons right, than this is a fall of legality vs legitimacy:

So, did the Queen follow the law, was it legal to confirm the suspending of the Parliament? Yep! (At least from what I see here in the forums.)

But was it legitimate? Perhaps... This seems to be a discussion about democracy: Who is the true sovereign - the people (the electorate) or the parliament? The people want a Brexit, perhaps even without an exit-treaty with the EU - there was already a plebiscite about this. The Parliament wants to be heard, especially the opposition. But in hindering Boris' efforts to leave the EU, the parliament might act against the assumed will of the people.

So, is Boris a good representative of the will of the people here, or must the Parliament be heard (even if this might go against a fast Brexit - the proposed will of the people)?

Interesting!

Imho this Boris dude is right... - but this is also a situation with some dangers for the democracy. The prime minister and the people against the parliament - from such constellations starts the end of a democracy...
  #359  
Old 08-30-2019, 02:22 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post

Imho this Boris dude is right... - but this is also a situation with some dangers for the democracy. The prime minister and the people against the parliament - from such constellations starts the end of a democracy...
The "people against the parliament" is the propaganda that's flooding every media outlet but it isn't a true representation of what's happening here. I can't say any more because this isn't a political thread but neither can your statement remain unchallenged because it's also highly political.
  #360  
Old 08-31-2019, 08:56 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 635



First, I meant of course the "case of legality vs legitimacy" and not "the fall".

Second: I really have been thinking my contribution to the forums was well balanced. But obviously it makes a totally different impression. Thank you for the feed back, Lilyflo!

And Third: Yeah, the Boris dude - no, I don't think he is a new Julius Ceasar or Octavian, who wants to become a Ceasar, a Kaiser, a Tzar. It is for sure more an abstract problem!
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan highgrove history hochberg hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort queen victoria royalty of taiwan st edward sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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