3 ms·

In theory the Queen has the right to tell her advisors to bugger off, but in practice she hasn't done so in a long time, and I think it's widely believed that i

by Gaelan 7y ago

In theory the Queen has the right to tell her advisors to bugger off, but in practice she hasn't done so in a long time, and I think it's widely believed that if she tried to exercise any power the monarchy would be abolished very shortly.

magduf 7y ago
With the way things have gone lately in the UK, it seems like they'd be a lot better off if she stepped up and took over for a while. She sure seems a lot more intelligent and sensible than the current PM and other figures in power.
- sbmassey 7y ago
  Imagine the chaos if she did take over and made a decision on Brexit one way or the other, though. Better to let the politicians take the heat.
- anoncake 7y ago
  In the short term, maybe. In the long term, the monarchs lost their power for a reason.
twic 7y ago
I'm not sure that in theory she does. The law has this idea of "the Crown", which is a sort of mechanical legal function, which happens to be exercised by Queen Elizabeth II at the moment, but which is tied up in a lot of law governing what it does in various situations. Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void. This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered. So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory. If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
- matthewheath 7y ago
  It's one of her reserve powers and exercise of her powers is non-judiciable (cannot be reviewed by a court); only the advice given to her can. If she so wished, given she is the font of all law in the country, she could close down Parliament and sack her advisors - there is no legal mechanism to stop her, except the practical consequences of doing so.
  - underwater 7y ago
    You could argue that there is a difference between practical and theoretical power, but all laws are imaginary and exist only in our minds.

by Gaelan 7y ago

magduf 7y ago

With the way things have gone lately in the UK, it seems like they'd be a lot better off if she stepped up and took over for a while. She sure seems a lot more intelligent and sensible than the current PM and other figures in power.

sbmassey 7y ago
Imagine the chaos if she did take over and made a decision on Brexit one way or the other, though. Better to let the politicians take the heat.
anoncake 7y ago
In the short term, maybe. In the long term, the monarchs lost their power for a reason.

twic 7y ago

I'm not sure that in theory she does. The law has this idea of "the Crown", which is a sort of mechanical legal function, which happens to be exercised by Queen Elizabeth II at the moment, but which is tied up in a lot of law governing what it does in various situations. Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void. This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered. So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory. If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

matthewheath 7y ago
It's one of her reserve powers and exercise of her powers is non-judiciable (cannot be reviewed by a court); only the advice given to her can. If she so wished, given she is the font of all law in the country, she could close down Parliament and sack her advisors - there is no legal mechanism to stop her, except the practical consequences of doing so.
- underwater 7y ago
  You could argue that there is a difference between practical and theoretical power, but all laws are imaginary and exist only in our minds.