Brexit

Originally Posted by Damien

Bringing the Queen into it would be a disaster and a huge mistake for the Monarchy and given how the Queen has handled her role I suspect she knows that and will stay well clear.

This has a good explanation of why it’s unlikely to happen.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...mpression=true

All of this might appear to suggest that Laws is right: that the Queen’s legal power to give — or withhold — royal assent to Bills approved by Parliament ought to be exercised in line with Ministerial advice. On this view, if Ministers were to advise the Queen not to grant royal assent to a given Bill, the Queen ought to withhold such assent, even though, by definition, the Bill had commanded the support of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons and (unless the Parliament Acts 1911–49 were in play) a majority of peers in the House of Lords. Yet a moment’s reflection reveals just how deeply problematic this would be. It would mean, in effect, that the Government had an unqualified veto over legislation: that whenever the Government disagreed with legislation approved by both Houses, it could thwart its enactment by advising — and thus, by operation of the Ministerial advice convention, requiring — the Queen to withhold royal assent.

Now, it must be acknowledged that the likelihood of such circumstances arising is very small indeed. After all, Governments only govern if they are capable of commanding the confidence of the House of Commons, and, as recent events have served to underscore, Governments enjoy a very high degree of control over parliamentary business. As a result, there is very little chance indeed of a Bill succeeding in making its way through the two Houses unless the Government is willing to support it. It follows that the effective veto power that Laws appears to ascribe to the Government would very rarely, if ever, need to be pressed into service.

But these observations founded in the reality of day-to-day politics should not be allowed to blind us to the underlying issues of constitutional principle, the relevant principle here being that of parliamentary sovereignty. According to that principle, Parliament — not the Government, but Parliament — has the right to make or unmake any law. Of course, Parliament can only make law if royal assent is conferred upon the Bills it enacts. But constitutional convention provides that such assent will be given.

The upshot, then, is clear. The Queen has a constitutional (albeit not a legal) duty to grant royal assent to Bills. That duty is enshrined in the royal assent convention and arises independently of and without reference to another of the Queen’s constitutional (albeit not legal) duties, viz. to make relevant decisions and exercise relevant legal powers in line with Ministerial advice. To presume that the Queen constitutionally could or should withhold royal assent merely because the Government advises her to do so is thus to conflate the Ministerial advice and royal assent conventions. Both conventions reflect democratic principle, in that they cabin the powers of an unelected monarch by reference to (on the one hand) the advice of (indirectly) elected Ministers and (on the other hand) the legislative will of a (directly) elected Parliament. But the two conventions operate in different domains, and the Ministerial advice convention certainly cannot legitimately be invoked so as to undercut the royal assent convention. The latter is a cornerstone of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which itself is an axiomatic feature the UK constitution. It follows that any Government that advised the Queen not to grant royal assent to a duly enacted Bill would not only be playing with political fire — it would be subverting fundamental constitutional principle. As such, if any Government were ever foolish enough to furnish the Queen with such advice, she would be constitutionally entitled — and required — to disregard it.

---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes, but then Mr Speaker prevented the government holding Meaningful Vote 3 on the basis of a precedent set in 1604. What’s sauce for the goose and all that...

Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920, so whilst it was set in 1604 (as were a lot of Parliament’s rules), it’s been used since then.

Absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention but to general compliance with it.

Originally Posted by Damien

Bringing the Queen into it would be a disaster and a huge mistake for the Monarchy and given how the Queen has handled her role I suspect she knows that and will stay well clear.

I like how you talk of disasters and yet thinking that ignoring a Democratic decision, undertaken in a Legitimate Democratic process, one of the largest ever in the UK, would not be a disaster ???

So you think it's perfectly reasonable for Parliament to steal powers of the Executive, setting it's own business motions of the day in Parliament, something only the Government of the day should only be able to do.

It would not be a mistake at all. It is her right to refuse Assent to any Bill on the advice of her Ministers. She has the power of a veto. Royal Assent any "Rogue" Bill, it is the last "Nuclear" option the Government of the day has.

[jfman]

I think that as with March 29th being on the statute book you are clutching at straws if you think we are going down that road. This is all becoming really predictable. The timing of vote leave ending their appeal over illegal activities only gives more impetus to our Remain Parliament and the People’s Vote campaign.

Originally Posted by jfman

I think that as with March 29th being on the statute book you are clutching at straws if you think we are going down that road. This is all becoming really predictable. The timing of vote leave ending their appeal over illegal activities only gives more impetus to our Remain Parliament and the People’s Vote campaign.

It does no such thing.

And if you bother to look - I said at the time, unless the Executive puts legislation forward, the date of leaving won't change - the government did, in the form of an SI, so you are wrong, as usual.

And your prediction skills, leave a lot to be desired given parliament has rejected a Second Referendum, several times now.

[jfman]

I’m not wrong. It was always going to happen, and a much easier process than many hypothesised. Assuming politicians will do absolutely nothing isn’t really the optimal starting point for any stance.

It only has to back a second referendum once. If you read back I said it’d have to be the “last possible option”. Plenty of time yet.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not wrong. It was always going to happen, and a much easier process than many hypothesised. Assuming politicians will do absolutely nothing isn’t really the optimal starting point for any stance.

Yes you are wrong - parliament has rejected a Second Referendum several times!!!

The Parliamentary numbers are just not there!

What part of this do you not understand ?

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It only has to back a second referendum once. If you read back I said it’d have to be the “last possible option”. Plenty of time yet.

Utter rubbish - I repeat - there isn't the numbers for a Second Referendum in parliament! I know you want one, but want, does not get. You lost the vote in 2016, we should honour the first referendum and leave the EU.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not wrong. It was always going to happen, and a much easier process than many hypothesised. Assuming politicians will do absolutely nothing isn’t really the optimal starting point for any stance.

It only has to back a second referendum once. If you read back I said it’d have to be the “last possible option”. Plenty of time yet.

Yes, it certainly seems to be one of the more popular options that Parliament is voting on. If we rule out an election then the choices narrow. I'm still inclined to think it won't happen.

[jfman]

What you mean to say is the numbers aren’t there now. Which I one hundred per cent accept.

However it’s the next extension that will facilitate the time for enough to change their minds. It’ll be interesting to see what Parliament comes up with tomorrow. Hopefully nothing, it all plays into the line they will spin about it being a last resort.

[Sephiroth]

There is a high chance that the Frogs will veto an extension beyond 22-May because otherwise eyes will be on the UK EU elections rather than elsewhere.

They dread infection.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

Bringing the Queen into it would be a disaster and a huge mistake for the Monarchy and given how the Queen has handled her role I suspect she knows that and will stay well clear.

So what is the point of Royal Assent being required, if not to block a backdoor overthrowing of a democratic vote?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what is the point of Royal Assent being required, if not to block a backdoor overthrowing of a democratic vote?

There’s no point, it’s entirely procedural and would spark further constitutional crisis. VoNC plus new Government gets Parliament past this anyway, so it’d be extremely pointless.

I’m on holiday in the northeast, on the road into Newcastle upon Tyne someone has sprayed “Traitor May” and “Vote Stolen” on a couple of road signs. I guess there’s a few disgruntled Brexiteers around here.

---------- Post added at 21:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

This has a good explanation of why it’s unlikely to happen.

https://publiclawforeveryone.com/201...mpression=true





---------- Post added at 17:01 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Erskine May makes reference to no fewer than 12 such rulings up to the year 1920, so whilst it was set in 1604 (as were a lot of Parliament’s rules), it’s been used since then.

Absence of Speaker intervention since 1920 is attributable not to the discontinuation of the convention but to general compliance with it.

I’m being ever so slightly tongue in cheek.

As Her Maj always follows convention, were the government be minded to try to get her to withhold assent, they would do so by asking the Palace, “if the Prime Minister were to request this, what would Her Majesty be minded to do?” - to which the answer would be, “Her Majesty would be minded to tell you where to get off,” and the result would be that no such request was made and neither the convention of parliament’s right to make law nor the convention of Minsterial advice would be broken.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what is the point of Royal Assent being required, if not to block a backdoor overthrowing of a democratic vote?

as well as the ultimate irony of an unelected individual being active in the decisions regarding a national referendum ...

[nomadking]

I've always thought that the Royal Assent was meant to be a final safeguard. IE That no component was complete control.

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what is the point of Royal Assent being required, if not to block a backdoor overthrowing of a democratic vote?

I am not actually entirely sure why it still exists but the practice is now that it's automatic. I assume it exists because the Crown is still part of Parliament, along with the Lords, and so it's consent is also required at the final stage and it's also from where Parliament draws it's sovereignty since we are still technically a Constitutional monarchy. It's likely something to do with that. A quick Google explains what it is but not why....

Someone else probably knows the proper legal and historical reasons as to why the process is still there. However considering it's been there for centuries I don't think it was to block a democratic vote. Parliament is the expression of the will of the people in this country. The concept of there being a requirement for the Monarchy to block the will of Parliament in the name of the people is alien to what Parliament is there for, at least in theory.

Not to mention there is all sorts of weirdness here and our system is not used too. The idea of Parliament passing laws without the support of the Government is clearly unusual. You would assume the Government would fall before that could be possible after all. The Government is meant to have the support of Parliament, the Queen is meant to take advice from Ministers because of that support. We effectively have a Zombie government at the moment.