The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[Rudolph]

Prime Minister Theresa May has officially notified The Queen she will resign on 7th June.

 

[Osipi]

I'm not surprised by this at all. How many Prime Ministers has the Queen seen come and go now? I've lost count.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Royal Central has a good summary of HM's Prime Ministers:

All the Queen’s Prime Ministers – Royal Central

 

[Kronprinz]

The Queen Is the Reason Boris Johnson Would Struggle to Suspend Parliament

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-johnson-would-struggle-to-suspend-parliament

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.”

 

[Muhler]

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.

 

[Rudolph]

If she’s asked, she’ll do I.

 

[Muhler]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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 Michaëlle 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.

 

[Muhler]

It has been done before in the Commonwealth. As Rudolph may be able to confirm, Stephen Harper a few years ago asked Governor- General Michaëlle 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.

 

[Rudolph]

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

 

[Rudolph]

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

 

[Rudolph]

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.

 

[Osipi]

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.

 

[tommy100]

I think this wikipedia article is about the incident in Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–09_Canadian_parliamentary_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

 

[Muhler]

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?"

 

[Mbruno]

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/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom



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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

 

[Kronprinz]

I think this wikipedia article is about the incident in Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–09_Canadian_parliamentary_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.

 

[Stefan]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

Yes, but the EU has repeatedly said that, if new circumstances arise, for example if a second referendum or a UK general election are called, an extension will be granted.

 

[Muhler]

Thanks.

I didn't realize the British PM could call an end of a Parliamentary session.
I believe in most other countries that's the prerogative of Speaker (and/or the Presidium of the Parliament.)

But as pointed out before the dilemma still stands.
It's IMO still tantamount to a coup, if the PM calls an end of the Parliamentary session in the middle of a national crisis! Especially if the outcome of the crisis is, as a consequence of that, what he desires! I.e. a hard Brexit.
He would seriously risk ending up in the Tower for that one!

Without a crystal ball I can safely predict that the reaction in EU (and no doubt elsewhere) would be: Have they gone collectively mad?!?

Are there any precedence within the past 150 years of a British PM, calling an end to a Parliamentary session in the middle of a major crisis?
If so, what happened?
If not, would there be calls for QEII to refuse such a request?

I mean QEII is not just signing bills for fun. She is potentially the last guarantee for democracy, before things may turn really ugly! After all a number of dictators were democratically elected...

 

[Stefan]

Yes, but the EU has repeatedly said that, if new circumstances arise, for example if a second referendum or a UK general election are called, an extension will be granted.

Yes that waht was meant with the delay to 31.10. And what does the Uk do. They need 2 months time to select a new PM.

 

[VictoriaB]

Are there any precedence within the past 150 years of a British PM, calling an end to a Parliamentary session in the middle of a major crisis?
If so, what happened?
If not, would there be calls for QEII to refuse such a request?

In 1948. It seems though that it was done with agreement (except for the Lords)

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-11/proroguing-parliament-what-does-it-mean/

The second example though given in the piece above, of Charles I proroguing Parliament, had the most extreme outcome.

I don’t think the Queen would act against the advice of her Prime Minister. It sets a very dangerous precedent. She cannot involve herself in politics no matter how much she agrees or disagrees with what is proposed.

She can certainly warn her Prime Minister that it would be a dangerous thing to do and would almost certainly lead to a vote of no confidence. A vote which a Prime Minister with a razor thin majority, dependent on the votes of another party and not well liked by some in his own party, could very easily loose.

 

[gerry]

I should like to know what these conditions were.

And congratulations on your first 5.000 posts.

Muhler, former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper prorogued parliament no less than four times between 2007 and 2013. Each time he sought the approval of the governor general, who consented to the prime minister's request. The only 'conditions' were that parliament be resumed within a specified time frame. There is a precedent to the governor general's compliance; all Canadian history students know the King-Byng constitutional crisis of 1926 when then prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King asked the governor general of the time, Lord Byng of Vimy, to prorogue parliament so that elections could be called. Lord Byng refused and asked opposition leader Arthur Meighen to form a government instead. To make a long story short, eventually Meighen's government was defeated and Mackenzie King won the ensuing elections on the issue of British interference in Canadian politics!
Interestingly, there are rumours in the Canadian press that Stephen Harper is being approached to help the next British prime minister negotiate the terms of Brexit..... Very interesting times for political geeks like me

 

[Muhler]

In 1948. It seems though that it was done with agreement (except for the Lords)

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-11/proroguing-parliament-what-does-it-mean/

The second example though given in the piece above, of Charles I proroguing Parliament, had the most extreme outcome.

I don’t think the Queen would act against the advice of her Prime Minister. It sets a very dangerous precedent. She cannot involve herself in politics no matter how much she agrees or disagrees with what is proposed.

She can certainly warn her Prime Minister that it would be a dangerous thing to do and would almost certainly lead to a vote of no confidence. A vote which a Prime Minister with a razor thin majority, dependent on the votes of another party and not well liked by some in his own party, could very easily loose.

They would roll him in tar and feathers before kicking him out of the Commons, I imagine. If Boris Johnson really tried something so idiotic.

Muhler, former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper prorogued parliament no less than four times between 2007 and 2013. Each time he sought the approval of the governor general, who consented to the prime minister's request. The only 'conditions' were that parliament be resumed within a specified time frame. There is a precedent to the governor general's compliance; all Canadian history students know the King-Byng constitutional crisis of 1926 when then prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King asked the governor general of the time, Lord Byng of Vimy, to prorogue parliament so that elections could be called. Lord Byng refused and asked opposition leader Arthur Meighen to form a government instead. To make a long story short, eventually Meighen's government was defeated and Mackenzie King won the ensuing elections on the issue of British interference in Canadian politics!
Interestingly, there are rumours in the Canadian press that Stephen Harper is being approached to help the next British prime minister negotiate the terms of Brexit..... Very interesting times for political geeks like me

So that was basically a "time out" requested by Stephen Harper?
Wow, Lord Byng trying to dictate politics! I guess the "rules" weren't as set in stone as they are today.
It is of course somewhat off topic in this thread, but I'm sure the new PM, whoever it may be, could need all the help he could get!
As Stefan pointed out, they have wasted two whole months in picking a new PM!! And the clock is ticking...
A new PM will in reality have less than a month to negotiate anything with EU.

Thanks for explaining the concept of proroguing. It has been most interesting and educational for me, and I'm sure others as well.

 

[MARG]

As to those who say the Queen cannot voice her opinions on the current political situations I firmly believe she lets her thoughts be known in a clear and succinct way during her weekly meetings with the PM.

I mean the PM would be an arrogant fool if he or she thought HM was irrelevant. I mean you simply cannot ignore a resource of over six decades worth of political knowledge, diplomatic vaguarities and personal experience shared with no dog in the fight so to speak.

 

[Ista]

As to those who say the Queen cannot voice her opinions on the current political situations I firmly believe she lets her thoughts be known in a clear and succinct way during her weekly meetings with the PM.

I mean the PM would be an arrogant fool if he or she thought HM was irrelevant. I mean you simply cannot ignore a resource of over six decades worth of political knowledge, diplomatic vaguarities and personal experience shared with no dog in the fight so to speak.

Well, if anyone had the brass to do that, I would say it would be Mr. Johnson.

Just sayin'

 

[tommy100]

I imagine for most Prime Minister's the Queen simply saying in private she doesn't think its a good idea is enough. The Queen appears to have an effect on most Prime Ministers so hopefully, if he does become the next PM, Mr Johnson won't be any different.

 

[Ish]

So that was basically a "time out" requested by Stephen Harper?
Wow, Lord Byng trying to dictate politics! I guess the "rules" weren't as set in stone as they are today.
It is of course somewhat off topic in this thread, but I'm sure the new PM, whoever it may be, could need all the help he could get!
As Stefan pointed out, they have wasted two whole months in picking a new PM!! And the clock is ticking...
A new PM will in reality have less than a month to negotiate anything with EU.

Thanks for explaining the concept of proroguing. It has been most interesting and educational for me, and I'm sure others as well.

It wasn't that simple; the first time Harper had parliament prorogued it was to avoid a vote of non-confidence that was being plotted by a coalition of the other parties in parliament. The election had just happened in October with Harper's government winning a minority and by December the other parties were working together against him. The GG agreed to a prorogation under the condition that there would still be a confidence matter (the budget) once parliament resumed in January. The delay was just to give the government time to find ways to compromise with the Liberals and avoid a vote of non-confidence. The second time he had parliament prorogued it was officially just to close parliament at a time when it was usually open (through the winter) because of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.


Other prorogations that have happened - in 1873 under MacDonald and in 2002 under Chretien - were because of scandals that the PM was involved in and lead to both men resigning.


The King-Byng affair was not Byng playing politics, rather him refusing to let King do so. An election in October 1925 lead to King and his party essentially losing - they won 101 seats in parliament while the Conservatives won 116. King refused to resign as PM, despite losing his own seat, and instead convinced Byng to let him form a government with the support of a third party, the Progressives. By June King had alienated the Progressives to the point that they would no longer support them, so King asked Byng to dissolve parliament and call an election - Byng refused to do so, and instead got Meighen to form a Conservative government. At the time, however, convention dictated that MPs appointed as Cabinet Ministers would resign their seats and run for re-election - an act which would weaken Meighen's government, so instead of appointing Cabinet Ministers he appointed "acting ministers", thus avoiding any need for re-elections. King and the Liberals were able to use this to get the Progressives' support to bring down the Conservatives and force Byng to have to call an election that September (less than a year after the previous one). This time the Liberals won the most seats (although still not a majority) and were able to form a government without any quasi-coalition.