4 ms·

Legally the UK is still ruled by the Queen. That situation would change in a heartbeat if the Queen actually tried to rule.

robhu 10y ago
In an extreme circumstance that is the role of the Monarch. In 1975 in an extreme circumstance the Governor-General (the Queen's representative in Australia) dismissed the sitting Prime Minister and appointed a new one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...
- Nursie 10y ago
  Indeed, to complete outcry, and I believe the post has been stripped of its powers since (though could be wrong). It certainly wouldn't fly 4 decades later.
  - cromulent 10y ago
    Completely different to the UK situation though - the GG was acting according to the Australian constitution. UK law is obviously different. The Australian constitution only underwent a tiny change in 1977 that doesn't change the GG's role. I think it would indeed "fly".
    - Nursie 10y ago
      Oh I meant in Australia, I don't think another GG intervention would work there, even if the law hadn't been adjusted. Not sure exactly what might happen here.
      - cromulent 10y ago
        If the situation was repeated (a PM who cannot pass supply bills and won't follow advice to dissolve), then the GG would absolutely do the same thing again. Why would they not? What has changed?
        Nursie 10y ago
        Public opinion is already outraged on that count. Australia would likely become a republic within weeks.
        cromulent 10y ago
        I guess we have different understandings of what a constitution is and how it functions.
gsnedders 10y ago
That's less clear: it depends on how she goes about it. Consider this: a) She convinces the Leader of the Commons to bring a motion to dismiss parliament (under the 2011 Fixed Term Parliaments Act this requires a 2/3rds majority). b) She convinces the members of the Privy Council to form a National Coalition, and to stand as such for election on a manifesto centred on EU membership. Alternatively, she finds someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons across party lines, and gets agreement across party lines (likely through the Privy Council) to support the appointment, and duly appoints them Prime Minister (this is roughly how Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, with no election held since 1935 and none would be held till 1945). The cross-party Government then formed can then seek a mandate to remain in the EU in a number of ways (such as then falling to an election or a second referendum). One shouldn't understate the amount of influence the Queen can have, and maintain, if she plays her cards right.

robhu 10y ago

In an extreme circumstance that is the role of the Monarch. In 1975 in an extreme circumstance the Governor-General (the Queen's representative in Australia) dismissed the sitting Prime Minister and appointed a new one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

Nursie 10y ago
Indeed, to complete outcry, and I believe the post has been stripped of its powers since (though could be wrong). It certainly wouldn't fly 4 decades later.
- cromulent 10y ago
  Completely different to the UK situation though - the GG was acting according to the Australian constitution. UK law is obviously different. The Australian constitution only underwent a tiny change in 1977 that doesn't change the GG's role. I think it would indeed "fly".
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Oh I meant in Australia, I don't think another GG intervention would work there, even if the law hadn't been adjusted. Not sure exactly what might happen here.
    - cromulent 10y ago
      If the situation was repeated (a PM who cannot pass supply bills and won't follow advice to dissolve), then the GG would absolutely do the same thing again. Why would they not? What has changed?
      - Nursie 10y ago
        Public opinion is already outraged on that count. Australia would likely become a republic within weeks.
        cromulent 10y ago
        I guess we have different understandings of what a constitution is and how it functions.

gsnedders 10y ago

That's less clear: it depends on how she goes about it. Consider this: a) She convinces the Leader of the Commons to bring a motion to dismiss parliament (under the 2011 Fixed Term Parliaments Act this requires a 2/3rds majority). b) She convinces the members of the Privy Council to form a National Coalition, and to stand as such for election on a manifesto centred on EU membership. Alternatively, she finds someone who can command the confidence of the House of Commons across party lines, and gets agreement across party lines (likely through the Privy Council) to support the appointment, and duly appoints them Prime Minister (this is roughly how Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940, with no election held since 1935 and none would be held till 1945). The cross-party Government then formed can then seek a mandate to remain in the EU in a number of ways (such as then falling to an election or a second referendum). One shouldn't understate the amount of influence the Queen can have, and maintain, if she plays her cards right.