The Queen and Her Prime Ministers

[Lilyflo]

There are some claims that the Defence Secretary's admission as to the real reasons for proroguing parliament mean that the Queen has been misled.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1167066029106876416

 

[wyevale]

A relevant article from the House of Commons Library itself.

https://t.co/4jBOnSBRCZ?amp=1

 

[Rudolph]

It’s not up to the Queen to decide whether a reason to prorogue Parliament is ‘legitimate’. That’s for her ministers to decide. HM’s role is to follow the advice of her PM.

 

[Lilyflo]

The Member of Parliament for Edinburgh SW has referred the matter to a legal team.

I’ve drawn this admission to the attention of our legal team. Defence Secretary backs up what we contend - that #prorogation of Parliament is for an improper purpose & therefore unlawful

https://twitter.com/x/status/1167069450232881152

 

[Gawin]

I think people use social media to vent. So it's to be expected many of the comments are negative. But I'm surprised and troubled that so many people misunderstand the Queen's role and blame her in addition to the PM. Having entangled her in this controversy it would nice if Johnson would publicly clarify the Queen was only performing her constitutional duty when she assented to his request.

 

[Lilyflo]

I think people use social media to vent. So it's to be expected many of the comments are negative. But I'm surprised and troubled that so many people misunderstand the Queen's role and blame her in addition to the PM. Having entangled her in this controversy it would nice if Johnson would publicly clarify the Queen was only performing her constitutional duty when she assented to his request.

It suits Johnson better if people believe the Queen agrees with his actions.

 

[Mbruno]

It’s not up to the Queen to decide whether a reason to prorogue Parliament is ‘legitimate’. That’s for her ministers to decide. HM’s role is to follow the advice of her PM.

Exactly ! It looks like many commentators here, especially from continental Europe, don't fully understand the Westminster system, especially prorogation, which is a normal procedure in several Commonwealth jurisdictions.



Besides, nothing prevents the House of Commons from passing a motion of no confidence in the government next week, or the Commons and Lords from passing legislation before Parliament is prorogued requiring that the PM seek an extension of the October 31 deadline if no deal is reached until then. So, there is no "fascist coup" or "Reichstag fire" as mentioned here.


Personally I am glad Elizabeth II is still the British monarch in a moment like that. If Charles were king, I am afraid he would be tempted to play an activist role and act in a partisan way, which would then put the monarchy at risk.

 

[Rudolph]

The Member of Parliament for Edinburgh SW has referred the matter to a legal team.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1167069450232881152

I’m not a lawyer but the royal prerogative doesn’t have caveats as to what’s ‘improper’ or ‘proper’.

There’s no doubt the prerogative exists. Parliament has been prorogued countless times. I don’t think the courts even have standing. But that’s my non expert opinion.

 

[wyevale]

^ I'm no Lawyer either, but that's my understanding, also..

 

[Lilyflo]

A summary of today's proceedings before Lord Doherty in ?????? ? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????, prepared by a Session Cases reporter, can now be downloaded here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1167153465963028480

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.

 

[Hallo girl]

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

 

[wyevale]

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..

 

[tommy100]

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

 

[Lilyflo]

A summary of today's proceedings before Lord Doherty in ?????? ? ???????? ??????? ??? ????????, prepared by a Session Cases reporter, can now be downloaded here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1167153465963028480

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.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

[/FONT]

 

[wyevale]

My prediction: application dismissed.

There's no law regulating the factors the PM must consider before seeking prorogation. Ergo, nothing to judicially review.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

 

[Rudolph]

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/x/status/1166732257752756224

 

[Mbruno]

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 .

 

[Durham]

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.

 

[Durham]

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.

 

[tommy100]

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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.

 

[Lilyflo]

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

 

[victor1319]

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...

 

[Lilyflo]

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.

 

[victor1319]

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!