Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
She literally sat there and had to carry forward illegal advice from a Prime Minister. Totally ineffective in a role that could and should perform an important check and balance against an incompetent executive.
|
Illegal: forbidden by law.
Unlawful: not authorised by law.
If you’re going to play lawyers, do try to get your basic facts right. The Supreme Court ruled the advice unlawful, not illegal. There is more than a trivial difference between the two.
---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I addressed the illegal/unlawful point earlier - the fact is the Queen couldn’t seek her own legal advice or make her own judgement making her ineffective.
I don’t think the Government are blameless, indeed they deserve most of the blame for that farce.
|
It is not the Queen’s role to seek advice from any other source. Her constitutional role is to receive advice from ministers. That is what ministers are for.
You can’t judge someone ineffective for not doing something they are neither permitted nor expected to do. You might as well declare your car ineffective because it doesn’t float.