5 ms·

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), o

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

etrevino 6y ago
In my opinion? She would have consented to the final form of Brexit and the IMB.[1] I can't say about the process of proroguing Parliament, but I don't think she has the power to interfere in the running of Parliament. If she gave consent it was to the bill mandating Parliaments last no more than five years (which was a terrible plan) back when the Lib Dems and Tories allied. Personally, I think that the best way to characterize the Queen is that she was liberal for the 1950s, but as times have changed and as she's changed she's become more conservative. [1] EDIT: Because at the minimum they can be interpreted as affecting her finances.
closeparen 6y ago
The Queen’s job is to be above the fray of any particular moment’s politics and politicians. She represents the abstract institution of state, regardless of who is calling the shots today. In the same way that Americans can be loyal to America even if they hate the President... the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  > the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty In particular so do the British Armed Forces, who swear allegiance to the Crown [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_organisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_o...
  - dtparr 6y ago
    I thought the Navy didn't. I recall something about how they weren't eligible for certain ceremonial roles that the army and RAF were due to never having sworn an oath to the crown.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      > The Royal Navy is the oldest of the three services, and it was established by the sovereign's prerogative. For that reason, recruits have never been required to swear allegiance, but they do sign an attestation or engagement form on entry. The same applies to the Royal Marines. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7289504.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7289504.stm
    - Ichthypresbyter 6y ago
      I think they changed that recently- the first Navy veteran to be a Yeoman Warder ("Beefeater") at the Tower of London got the post in 2011, after the rules were changed to allow it.
gruffalowboy 6y ago
It's called 'Royal Assent'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent Certain bills (e.g. financial) are by convention not blocked by the Lords and so once these final bill has been approved it is sent to the queen for her signature to put it in law. The last time the Monarch refused to pass a law approved by Parliament was 1704 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561...
- jesboat 6y ago
  The article is describing a different process than Royal assent
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Royal Consent is a murkier and more dangerous concept than Royal Assent. The day the queen refuses to assent to a bill against the will of parliament is the day the monarchy ends.
detaro 6y ago
In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.
- jbay808 6y ago
  As an example of an exceptional circumstance, in a Canada a few years back there was a minority government. The opposition parties banded together and formed a coalition with a plan to take over as a majority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... The Prime minister moved to keep power by requesting the Governor General (Queen's representative) prorogue parliament. In this circumstance, the Governor General accepted the Prime Minister's request, which ended up rescuing the Conservative minority government. But I think most people agree that if she had decided otherwise, and allowed the majority coalition to take over, that would also have been an acceptable result. So this was, indirectly, the Queen making a ruling on a power struggle between a minority government and a majority opposition.
  - flukus 6y ago
    The Queen/GG were probably taking into account a very similar situation in Australia known as "The Dismissal" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... Considering how controversial this is 50 years later I'd say they did a good job in Canada to be as apolitical as possible, because sacking a sitting Prime Minister is definitely picking a side.
  - Kranar 6y ago
    The Governor General did what the Prime Minister asked her to do, which is what they always do. The GG does not act on the advice of parliament but rather on the advice of the Prime Minister. If you presented an example where the Prime Minister told the Governor General to do one thing, and she did another, then I'd agree that counts as the Queen/GG exercising power.
Someone 6y ago
Probably. The same applies to other monarchies. King Baudouin of the Belgians famously asked parliament to declare him unable to govern for a day so that he didn’t have to sign a pro-abortion law (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable-to-sign-abortion-law-takes-day-off.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudouin_of_Belgium#Religious_influences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudouin_of_Belgium#Religious_...)
leighfuu 6y ago
David Allen Green (as usual) has a decent take on UK constitutional matters. As for the Queen being a small c conservative, absolutely. British monarchy in this century is a badly run crime syndicate. https://davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-strange-and-obscure-feature-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-kingdom-and-why-it-should-be-abolished/ https://davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-str...
handelaar 6y ago
You may have missed this but at one point Johnson was actively touting the notion of proroguing parliament indefinitely so that it could not meet and reject a plan to Brexit without any trade deal in place. And then 48 hours later, as if by magic, that plan (which would have required the Queen to publicly assent to an overtly-political variation of current norms) suddenly vanished without trace or comment.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  Unfortunately this kind of proroguing has precedent in the Commonwealth since Stephen Harper (likely a friend of Boris) prorogued our (at the time minority gov't) parliament in 2008 to avoid an election that would have put a Liberal/NDP coalition in power. Our governor general (and hence the monarchy) rubber stamped it then. I've never forgiven the institution.
PeterisP 6y ago
The process discussed in the article (the Queen's consent, as opposed to the similarly named royal assent) applies only to legislation affecting "the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, and personal or property interests of the crown" - arguably Internal Market Bill and Brexit would be out of this scope.
- zepto 6y ago
  The Duchy of Cornwall produces all kinds of goods which are exported to Europe. Brexit will definitely affect it.
etrevino 6y ago
So, I have a new link! And yes, she has agreed to a lot of controversial legislation, including Brexit! This article has the thousand-plus laws she's been consulted on: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...

etrevino 6y ago

In my opinion? She would have consented to the final form of Brexit and the IMB.[1] I can't say about the process of proroguing Parliament, but I don't think she has the power to interfere in the running of Parliament. If she gave consent it was to the bill mandating Parliaments last no more than five years (which was a terrible plan) back when the Lib Dems and Tories allied. Personally, I think that the best way to characterize the Queen is that she was liberal for the 1950s, but as times have changed and as she's changed she's become more conservative. [1] EDIT: Because at the minimum they can be interpreted as affecting her finances.

closeparen 6y ago

The Queen’s job is to be above the fray of any particular moment’s politics and politicians. She represents the abstract institution of state, regardless of who is calling the shots today. In the same way that Americans can be loyal to America even if they hate the President... the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty.

KineticLensman 6y ago
> the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty In particular so do the British Armed Forces, who swear allegiance to the Crown [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_organisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Armed_Forces#Command_o...
- dtparr 6y ago
  I thought the Navy didn't. I recall something about how they weren't eligible for certain ceremonial roles that the army and RAF were due to never having sworn an oath to the crown.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    > The Royal Navy is the oldest of the three services, and it was established by the sovereign's prerogative. For that reason, recruits have never been required to swear allegiance, but they do sign an attestation or engagement form on entry. The same applies to the Royal Marines. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7289504.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7289504.stm
  - Ichthypresbyter 6y ago
    I think they changed that recently- the first Navy veteran to be a Yeoman Warder ("Beefeater") at the Tower of London got the post in 2011, after the rules were changed to allow it.

gruffalowboy 6y ago

It's called 'Royal Assent'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent Certain bills (e.g. financial) are by convention not blocked by the Lords and so once these final bill has been approved it is sent to the queen for her signature to put it in law. The last time the Monarch refused to pass a law approved by Parliament was 1704 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561...

jesboat 6y ago
The article is describing a different process than Royal assent
mhh__ 6y ago
Royal Consent is a murkier and more dangerous concept than Royal Assent. The day the queen refuses to assent to a bill against the will of parliament is the day the monarchy ends.

detaro 6y ago

In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.

jbay808 6y ago
As an example of an exceptional circumstance, in a Canada a few years back there was a minority government. The opposition parties banded together and formed a coalition with a plan to take over as a majority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Canadian_p... The Prime minister moved to keep power by requesting the Governor General (Queen's representative) prorogue parliament. In this circumstance, the Governor General accepted the Prime Minister's request, which ended up rescuing the Conservative minority government. But I think most people agree that if she had decided otherwise, and allowed the majority coalition to take over, that would also have been an acceptable result. So this was, indirectly, the Queen making a ruling on a power struggle between a minority government and a majority opposition.
- flukus 6y ago
  The Queen/GG were probably taking into account a very similar situation in Australia known as "The Dismissal" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional... Considering how controversial this is 50 years later I'd say they did a good job in Canada to be as apolitical as possible, because sacking a sitting Prime Minister is definitely picking a side.
- Kranar 6y ago
  The Governor General did what the Prime Minister asked her to do, which is what they always do. The GG does not act on the advice of parliament but rather on the advice of the Prime Minister. If you presented an example where the Prime Minister told the Governor General to do one thing, and she did another, then I'd agree that counts as the Queen/GG exercising power.

Someone 6y ago

Probably. The same applies to other monarchies. King Baudouin of the Belgians famously asked parliament to declare him unable to govern for a day so that he didn’t have to sign a pro-abortion law (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable-to-sign-abortion-law-takes-day-off.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudouin_of_Belgium#Religious_influences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudouin_of_Belgium#Religious_...)

leighfuu 6y ago

David Allen Green (as usual) has a decent take on UK constitutional matters. As for the Queen being a small c conservative, absolutely. British monarchy in this century is a badly run crime syndicate. https://davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-strange-and-obscure-feature-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-kingdom-and-why-it-should-be-abolished/ https://davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-str...

handelaar 6y ago

You may have missed this but at one point Johnson was actively touting the notion of proroguing parliament indefinitely so that it could not meet and reject a plan to Brexit without any trade deal in place. And then 48 hours later, as if by magic, that plan (which would have required the Queen to publicly assent to an overtly-political variation of current norms) suddenly vanished without trace or comment.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago
Unfortunately this kind of proroguing has precedent in the Commonwealth since Stephen Harper (likely a friend of Boris) prorogued our (at the time minority gov't) parliament in 2008 to avoid an election that would have put a Liberal/NDP coalition in power. Our governor general (and hence the monarchy) rubber stamped it then. I've never forgiven the institution.

PeterisP 6y ago

The process discussed in the article (the Queen's consent, as opposed to the similarly named royal assent) applies only to legislation affecting "the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall, and personal or property interests of the crown" - arguably Internal Market Bill and Brexit would be out of this scope.

zepto 6y ago
The Duchy of Cornwall produces all kinds of goods which are exported to Europe. Brexit will definitely affect it.

etrevino 6y ago

So, I have a new link! And yes, she has agreed to a lot of controversial legislation, including Brexit! This article has the thousand-plus laws she's been consulted on: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...