The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[Duc_et_Pair]

Unbelievable. Imagine the German Bundespräsident interrupting the workings of the Bundestag while Frau Merkel and the ministers continue? Imagine President Trump interrupting the workings of the House of Representatives or the Senate?

Mr Boris Johnson, the campaigner: "It is our Sovereign and duly democratically elected Parliament -and not Brussels- which should be in charge in the United Kingdom!"

PM Johnson: "Stop that Parliament interfering with the Government's business!"

It is very, very grave and only possible by lack of a written Constitution, making any twist, interpretation, sideway or nosedive possible. Beyond belief. My mouth litterally felt open. The Queen could not refuse by simply pointing to an oath to defend the Constitution, like in other European monarchies: there is no such a Constitution...

 

[wyevale]

^ It's almost as if a government of Brexiteers, elected on a platform of implementing Brexit, is trying to deliver Brexit.

Shock horror.

 

[Mbruno]

The reality is the Queen has very little power, we are in a constitutional crisis now, but would have also been if the Queen had turned down the request from the PM.

The reality is, the only way we can get out of this now is for Parliament to take control. They could (and bear in mind the Speaker is on side as such) have a vote of no confidence, assuming Johnson lost that would leave 14 days to find a new government or the country face an election. As one constitutional expert said, the higher power in the land is really parliament, if given a choice of do what parliament vote for or what the PM asks her the Queen will do what parliament votes.

Yes, but it is up to Parliament to express its will to the Queen and not for the Queen to make political judgments on her own. The Queen acted perfectly within the framework of the constitution in this case.

If there is a vote of no confidence that succeeds , but Parliament cannot vote confidence in another government, there will be an election as that is the law of the land . In the latter case, the law also says it is the PM’s prerogative to recommend the election date to the Queen and nothing prevents Boris from picking November 1 for example or any date after October 31.

I don’t see any constitutional crisis really .

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Yes, but it is up to Parliament to express its will to the Queen and not for the Queen to make political judgments on her own. The Queen acted perfectly within the framework of the constitution in this case.

If there is a vote of no confidence that succeeds , but Parliament cannot vote confidence in another government, there will be an election as that is the law of the land . In the latter case, the law also says it is the PM’s prerogative to recommend the election date to the Queen and nothing prevents Boris from picking November 1 for example or any date after October 31.

I don’t see any constitutional crisis really .

By my understanding the Fixed Term Parliament Act also provides for the alternative of another Government being formed. As Mr Corbyn is disputing the Prime Minister potentially trying to delay an election beyond a no deal Brexit, to avoid this he might to install a temporary Government, of which a majority of the House is allowed to do under the Fied Term Parliament Act (to avoid that unwanted situation arising).

 

[wyevale]

^ Those wishing to install a 'temporary Govt' are scrapping 'like ferrets in a sack' as to who might lead it, and command the necessary majority in the House..

All the PM needs to do [if he loses any vote of no confidence], is sit tight, neither resign, nor recommend another named politician to HMQ, then after the 14 days call an election [the date of which is his decision] for after the 31st of October, when Brexit will be a 'fait accompli'...

Job done...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

^ Those wishing to install a 'temporary Govt' are scrapping 'like ferrets in a sack' as to who might lead it, and command the necessary majority in the House..

All the PM needs to do [if he loses any vote of no confidence], is sit tight, refuse to resign, or recommend another named politician to HMQ, then after the 14 days call an election for after the 31st of October, when Brexit will be a 'fait accompli'...

Job done...

I am afraid I will never understand the eccentricities of British politics. Three consecutive hefty (and even historical) defeats on a core element of Government's policy did not make the Prime Minister considering to offer her mission to the head of state.


Not these three hefty defeats on the most core business of a Government (to deliver Brexit with a deal) did oust Theresa May, but just an internal party procedure removed Mrs May, to see the the gentleman representing Uxbridge & South Ruislip becoming Prime Minister. The very same gentleman who was Foreign Secretary in the very same Government which suffered these hefty defeats.

 

[Rudolph]

Here it is

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDD-AsjW4AEBlwW.jpg

 

[tommy100]

Yes, but it is up to Parliament to express its will to the Queen and not for the Queen to make political judgments on her own. The Queen acted perfectly within the framework of the constitution in this case.

If there is a vote of no confidence that succeeds , but Parliament cannot vote confidence in another government, there will be an election as that is the law of the land . In the latter case, the law also says it is the PM’s prerogative to recommend the election date to the Queen and nothing prevents Boris from picking November 1 for example or any date after October 31.

I don’t see any constitutional crisis really .

that was what i thought i said in my post, the Queen acts on the advise of Ministers. The only thing that can supersede that is Parliament voting through legislation.

The Fixed Term Parliament Act means that after a vote of no confidence there is 14 days for Parliament to come up with an alternative government, if no one can command a majority within that time then there is an automatic general election. I believe part of the thinking behind those stipulations were to avoid the Queen having to decide who she felt could command a majority to call them to form a government.

Whilst wyevale's politics are becoming clear let's stick to the law. If the current PM loses a vote of no confidence and somebody else can command a majority in the house then Johnson will be out.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is really almost surreal that in a modern West-European country the legislative body is suspended by the executive body, with the latter just continuing to govern and making the most far-reaching basal choices without Parliament having a say.

Note that usually - on the Continent- when a Parliament is out, the Government is only caretaking and refrains from setting out new policies. Here the most core new politics for the future of the UK will be decided and Parliament is interrupted to have any influence.

I still can not believe that this happens in the so-called Mother of All Parliaments. Good heavens.

 

[victor1319]

Hmm, I have difficulties in recognizing the role of the Queen here: Has she picked a side and gave the Brexiteers a chance?

I think that would be a good choice for the House of Windsor to pick the side of the majority of the voters...

 

[Muhler]

It is indeed most unusual to watch from this side of the North Sea.
Such a "government time-out" so to speak is virtually impossible on the Continent.
Even the absence of a national coalition, in what is undeniably a national crisis, is virtually unheard of on the Continent.

It is an extremely bold move! Because it will be Boris Johnson, who will have to shoulder entire burden, if there is no satisfactory outcome of Brexit. (And there won't be such! No matter what.)
It is also Boris Johnson alone who will have to shoulder the blame if Brexit ends up having worse consequences than expected.

I imagine he will prevent the Parliament from forcing the government to postpone Brexit (I.e. de facto suspend Brexit) and concentrate on attempting to stare down EU in the hope (and I must emphasize that is a hope) that EU will put forward a compromise in the last minute.
But with a suspended Parliament the EU will be most hesitant in doing that, even if they were inclined to put forward such a compromise.

No matter what Boris Johnson will now officially be loathed by those who are against Brexit and those who are in favor of Brexit but opposed to a hard Brexit. Only the hardcore Brexiteers will support him.
As such his Conservative hinterland are horrified too. They know that if this does not end well, the Conservatives may most likely be massacred at the next general election.

ADDED:

I understand that Boris Johnson can actually ignore a vote of no confidence. Especially if there is no government alternative. He can simply refuse to resign as a functioning government until, if a new government has a majority. - And in the meantime the clock is ticking towards a hard Brexit...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The "use" of The Queen is a Coup, disguised as constitutional normality. All this from the Prime Minister of a minority party who, even with the support of the ultra-conservative Northern-Irish DUP, only has a working majority of a single vote...

First Trump and Greenland. And now Johnson as The Queen's puppet master. Pffff. The world is becoming more and more a nasty populist place.

 

[Osipi]

Hmm, I have difficulties in recognizing the role of the Queen here: Has she picked a side and gave the Brexiteers a chance?

I think that would be a good choice for the House of Windsor to pick the side of the majority of the voters...

Its my understanding that the Queen's personal "pick" doesn't come into this at all. She does what the government of the day requests that she do. As Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister of Parliament, the Queen was required to do as he asked.

This way the Queen remains apolitical in matters of the government but with this recent development, it does look like she was put between a rock and a hard place. There's no telling what she would have decided to do if she was to make the decision on her own about all this.

I hope I got this right.

 

[Muhler]

Its my understanding that the Queen's personal "pick" doesn't come into this at all. She does what the government of the day requests that she do. As Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister of Parliament, the Queen was required to do as he asked.

This way the Queen remains apolitical in matters of the government but with this recent development, it does look like she was put between a rock and a hard place. There's no telling what she would have decided to do if she was to make the decision on her own about all this.

I hope I got this right.

Unfortunately that may not be how some people see things in their anger.
QEII may very well be seen as part of the "establishment" who ignored the concerns of the people and went ahead with an unpopular hard Brexit.

 

[wyevale]

In NO way has HMQ 'taken sides', she has merely taken the advice of her Prime Minister, just as she is constitutionally bound to do.

Had Ms Swinson [Liberal-democrat, and remainer] been PM, the Queen would have been equally bound to 'act on her advice' and would undoubtedly have done so.

 

[tommy100]

The Queen did not really constitutionally have a choice, she did what was asked of her by the Prime Minister, as she always does (or certainly when she is asked publicly to do something official)

The problem that I'm sure her aides fear is that she will be seen by some (no matter how small that group of people may be) as having chosen to do this. Add this to the reports she saw no reason we shouldn't leave the EU (way back in 2016), the fact the leader of the Labour Party is very left wing and has expressed republican views in the past and present and you get to a point where you can see that it wouldn't be hard given the high levels of public feeling for some of that anger to be misdirected to the Queen, especially by people who assume the Queen really had a choice here.

That is one of the reasons I am, personally, quite interested to see what happens with these requests from opposition politicians to meet the Queen. If they are refused it adds fuel to the image of the Queen helping the 'establishment' however if she accepts a meeting what purpose does it serve as she can not change her mind as this wasn't her decision anyway.

I have no doubt that the Palace will be "disappointed" (i.e. raging) that the Government has chosen this way ahead, knowing it would involve the Queen and appear to involve her in politics. As the BBC's Nick Whitchell pointed out - every other government in the Queen's 60+ year reign has recognised her desire to stay out of politics and helped her to do so, this one has emphatically not.

 

[wyevale]

The use of the word 'Establishment' here, by various different people is troublesome -

Do they consider the word to mean 'the current Govt' ? And/or the Civil service, the BBC, the 'intelligent' press, the Haute Bourgeoisie and Academe ?

The reality is that Brexit is [largely] opposed by most of those demographics - only the new PM, and his cabinet being in favour of it - At least 50% of the PM's own party would 'remain' if they could, as would 90% of the House of Lords -'Establishment' if EVER there was such a thing..

In my opinion, every part of what I consider the 'establishment' in my country is anti-brexit' and it has strained every sinew to prevent its dominance from being undermined by those it considers 'beneath it'..

My point is that 'catch all category' terms such as 'Establishment' certainly cannot be used to mean 'pro brexit' !

 

[Muhler]

The "establishment" here being the official representatives of those who do not share your opinion. Whatever that opinion may be.

ADDED: Your opinion, here meant in general terms.

(You English speakers really need more words for you. )

 

[ladongas]

Good luck to all citizens of the UK who will likely suffer for some time in the event of a hard Brexit. The farmers, the truck drivers, the patients of the NHS... Neither Boris Johnson, nor his cabinet, nor HM will miss a tasty meal, or a dose of medicine, or an efficient trip across the Channel.

 

[ACO]

The Queen really didn't have much of a choice not that many care. A lot of negativity is being aimed in the way of the monarchy right now. I am seeing protest and people being interviewed in the streets. Not a lot of kinds words.

I think the fact the royals will be coming off break is a welcomed thing right about now.

 

[ladongas]

I understand that HM had no choice in this. But millions of others will likely suffer.

 

[wyevale]

For those struggling with the British Political system today, this graphic may be of help, especially for those with an understanding of Christianity :

 

[Mbruno]

Hmm, I have difficulties in recognizing the role of the Queen here: Has she picked a side and gave the Brexiteers a chance?

I think that would be a good choice for the House of Windsor to pick the side of the majority of the voters....

No, the Queen didn't pick sides, nor should she. The Queen must always stay neutral.


As long as Boris Johnson is PM, the Queen will follow his advice when issuing orders in council under the royal prerogative. The political and legal responsibility for those acts falls on the ministers who advise the Queen, not on her.



The Queen won't fire the PM at her own discretion either. If the House of Commons passes a motion of no confidence in the government and indicates, by another vote, that it has confidence in someone else to lead the government, the PM will resign and, before resigning, will advise the Queen to appoint that other person as the next PM. Otherwise, if after passing a motion of no confidence, MPs cannot agree on a new PM, the law says there must be a general election and it is up to the sitting PM, in that case still Boris Johnson, to recommend an election date to the Queen, which she will accept of course. Parliament is then automatically dissolved 25 working days before the set date, stopping all parliamentary business.


The remainers' dilemma is that they might have enough votes to pass a motion of no confidence in the current government, but they don't seem to be able to agree on an alternative government because Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, wants to lead it , and other opposition parties like the Lib Dems and the Tory remainer MPs want someone else instead like Ken Clarke to be the caretaker PM.

 

[Lilyflo]

Sky News political correspondent with a summary:
"Today the world watched as, in secret, with no warning, members of a secretive body travelled to see the Queen to suspend parliament at a time of deep political controversy, largely because it suits the government.

This was all within the rules. That’s probably worth pondering."

 

[Rudolph]

The privy council has been around for like 500 years. Anyone including reporters who maybe confused should brush up on their constitutional history.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In countries with a written Constitution, the head of state, advised by the most supreme legal counsels, can refuse because it violates the Constitution.

In the UK however, where Government and Parliament is more entangled in a complicated web of conventions and traditions, it is difficult for the Queen to have an own role above the parties because she simply has no such (there is the word) backstop by referring to article so-and-so and lemma so-and-so of the Constitution.

By coincidence Mr Johnson has proved why the EU and Ireland are so hammering on a Backstop option for the Irish border because that is the last guarantee when both sides do not come to an agreement.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The shortest-serving Prime Minister so far was George Canning who served for 119 days (April-August 1827) ,I wonder if Mr Johnson will break that record?

Would love to have been a fly on the wall at Balmoral today.

 

[Rudolph]

Alastair Bruce described the meeting on Sky news.

He said Jacob Rees-Mogg and the two other privy councillors were picked up at the airport and brought to the castle. They’re met by the Queen’s equerry and lady in waiting. The Queen is in the library waiting and when she’s ready she presses a buzzer and the politicians are brought in.

They stand before a table with a red cloth over it and a candle in the centre. The Lord President of the Council reads out the motion and The Queen nods her head and says “approved”.

That’s it. The politicians fly back to London and the Queen goes back to enjoying her holiday.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Alastair Bruce described the meeting on Sky news.

He said Jacob Rees-Mogg and the two other privy councillors were picked up at the airport and brought to the castle. They’re met by the Queen’s equerry and lady in waiting. The Queen is in the library waiting and when she’s ready she presses a buzzer and the politicians are brought in.

They stand before a table with a red cloth over it and a candle in the centre. The Lord President of the Council reads out the motion and The Queen nods her head and says “approved”.

That’s it. The politicians fly back to London and the Queen goes back to enjoying her holiday.

Beyond belief. I would have said: "My Lords, your zest for the interest of Our People is well known and appreciated . Said Motion will be taken into Our Consideration. And hereby We command you in the Lord's holy protection".

That leaves the monarch time to have ample counsel on the Motion. At least she can give the impression it was deeply reviewed and considered on all merits.

But just a buzzer, a nod, "approved" and that was it for the UK's most turbulent legislation? Good heavens. This has exposed the monarchy as completely useless. Even the label "defender of the Constitution" can not be glued on them because they just are the PM's Ape Theatre : throw a nickel, and we perform a dance for you.

 

[Mbruno]

In countries with a written Constitution, the head of state, advised by the most supreme legal counsels, can refuse because it violates the Constitution.

In the UK however, where Government and Parliament is more entangled in a complicated web of conventions and traditions, it is difficult for the Queen to have an own role above the parties because she simply has no such (there is the word) backstop by referring to article so-and-so and lemma so-and-so of the Constitution.

By coincidence Mr Johnson has proved why the EU and Ireland are so hammering on a Backstop option for the Irish border because that is the last guarantee when both sides do not come to an agreement.

Canada has a written constitution, but the Governor General who, under the written constitution has the power to prorogue Parliament, didn’t refuse to do that when asked by PM Stephen Harper.

If MPs don’t want the Queen to prorogue Parliament on the PM’s advice, all they need to do is to pass ordinary legislation stripping her of that power, as they took away for example her power to dissolve Parliament with the FTPA.


Not having a written constitution actually makes it easier rather than harder to limit the Queen’s power. In Canada , for example, to take away the GG’s powers of prorogation or dissolution, a constitutional amendment would be needed and the Legislative Assemblies of all 10 provinces would have to agree to it besides the Commons and the Senate.