Jump to content
270soft Forum

A British Constitutional Question


Recommended Posts

This question is addressed to any posters who know more about British Constitutional Law than I (there used to be a lot of British posters, and even a few Irish ones who knew a lot about it's system, though @wolves is from the UK, at least, I believe). The question, since Parliament in the UK (unlike the Canadian or Australian Parliaments or American Congress) has been stated as having "power omnipotent" in legislation, but the Monarch has a theoretical veto on all acts Parliament, but one that hasn't been used since 1708, could the Monarch veto an act of Parliament or dissolve Parliament against the Prime Minister's advice if they felt and urgent "moral reason," - like a draconian, unwarranted police state set of acts were passed, or all religious practice was abolished, or war was arbitrarily and bizarrely declared on France, or a Communist or Fascist party had been elected to have a confidence (a V for Vendetta scenario, if you will)? I know under most circumstances, a Monarchial veto today would likely trigger a huge scandal that could destroy the Monarchy, but how could that theoretically play out in an extreme situation such as the above examples?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the Queen can prorogue or dismiss parliaments, it wouldn't matter since 2011. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011

In terms of providing Royal Assent to a piece of legislation, you have to remember that the House of Lords isn't subject to a populist movement like the House of Commons, and it's unlikely they would allow a piece of legislation such as that to reach the Queen in the first place. But I certainly don't imagine it would be monarchy destroying if the Queen exercised her right to stop Royal Assent of an extremely controversial bill or decision (such as declaring war on France).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/02/2017 at 2:45 AM, Patine said:

could the Monarch veto an act of Parliament or dissolve Parliament against the Prime Minister's advice if they felt and urgent "moral reason,"

Yes, the queen has royal prerogative but they won't because it completely delegitimizes them according to the Bill of Rights iirc. The parliament exists to give royal prerogative to the Prime Minister.

Imagine it as in the way a Governor General can literally kick a Prime Minister out in Canada but wont because it'll basically destroy them. Theotically, what you're saying, can happen, but won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolves said:

Yes, the queen has royal prerogative but they won't because it completely delegitimizes them according to the Bill of Rights iirc. The parliament exists to give royal prerogative to the Prime Minister.

Imagine it as in the way a Governor General can literally kick a Prime Minister out in Canada but wont because it'll basically destroy them. Theotically, what you're saying, can happen, but won't.

But I believe I've heard about a Governor General doing such in Australia in the 70's. I take it that didn't go so well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir John Kerr dismissed Prime Minister Whitlam. No it didn't go over well, but it was a totally reasonable action. It essentially stopped a government shutdown. If you want to read more about a good starting point is Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

"Well may we save God Save the Queen, because nothing will save the Governor-General." 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But back to the original topic, there is certainly circumstances in my mind where a Governor-General or the Queen could refuse royal assent or dismiss a Prime Minister and it would not destroy the credibility of the Crown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/02/2017 at 6:52 PM, Patine said:

But I believe I've heard about a Governor General doing such in Australia in the 70's. I take it that didn't go so well?

The governor general in Australia did that because Australia had begin to ignore him and the crown completely so he basically kicked him from the role. That governor general was eventually fired but he was given the go-ahead by the crown to do such a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/02/2017 at 9:40 PM, VanMav said:

What, wolves? That's not at all what happened. 

I was just generalizing it, I know there was a lot with the MI6 and more elections

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...