The Queen and her difficult position.

[HappydaysArehere]

The Queen has been the ear of numerous prime ministers for her entire reign. In this respect she probably has more wisdom and knowledge of the political scene than anyone in this country. Of course she is above politics and now she might well be presented with a real predicament. It must be heart breaking for her to contemplate the possible outcome. No matter what you think of the Monarchy the one thing I am sure of is that she really cares for this country and the Commonwealth. She must feel like a mother with a load of squabbling kids hell bent on messing everything up.

Carol-

The only checks that Parliament needs on its power are democratically-elected checks.

Most modern democracies have a system of checks and balances in place which don't involve undemocratic remnants from a feudal past.

Furthermore, you didn't actually read the post.

Firstly, the government can use 'The Crown' to abuse its power and override the will of Parliament. For example, the government may use (and was very close to using, in the case of Tony Blair) the 'Royal Prerogative' to bring the country to war.

Secondly, the Royal Family does indeed regularly directly interfere with our democracy by influencing policy decisions.

Please read the FAQ:

republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster

---

I would replace it with a democratically head of state. Or, barring that, a 'Royal figurehead' (like Japan) who only performs a ceremonial role, and has absolutely no powers whatsoever.

Black

Had a look - apparantly she has power but does what she is told, so has no power - find something with internal consistency.

Any country can be taken over by a dictator, whether it has a consitution or not, whether it has checks and balances or not, so that is a fallacious (sp?) argument.

An elected head would want some power they could actually exercise - the US presidental system was designed to have a powerless 'head of state', but that didn't work out as expected.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it springs to mind.

Carol-

You're not actually paying attention to what you read. The Monarchy does have power, and regularly exercise that power, through influencing policy decisions. They also have the power to veto laws which affect them.

Secondly, as I pointed out, whichever government is in power can exercise arbitrary abuse of power through the powers of the Monarchy. So the Monarchy, in effect, allows the government to override the will of Parliament.

Thirdly, it doesn't matter what any head of state 'would want'. That's not what democracy is about. We are perfectly capable of electing a ceremonial head of state. Such a head would have no democratic legitimacy to exercise power, so what they want is no more relevant than an X-Factor star.

Finally, it is broke (and outdated), and hence needs fixing.

Plus an important check and balance could be found in a proper second chamber - not this bunch of celebs, political donors, bishops, retired top civil servants and ex MPs aka the House of Lords. Another example of where an elected head of state works is Ireland - Mary Robinson comes immediately to mind and it works in Germany

And when Mary Robinson was president I don't recall the Irish people paying for a huge gaggle of completely idle and useless relatives - she was outstanding and made it on merit through a democratic process - what's not to like?

The Irish president is not just a ceremonial head of state.
Again, the second house in the UK has limited power and is a revising chamber and a good check and balance.
Apart from the historical nature of the monarchy, what have they done that you disagree with and could not have happened with an elected head - ditto the house of lords.

Carol-

The Japanese head of state (Emperor) has no powers whatsoever:

"The Emperor is not even the nominal Chief Executive unlike most other constitutional monarchies and he possesses only certain important ceremonial powers. The Constitution states that the Emperor "shall perform only such acts in matters of state as are provided for in the Constitution and he shall not have powers related to government" (article 4). It also stipulates that "the advice and approval of the Cabinet shall be required for all acts of the Emperor in matters of state" (article 3). Article 4 also states that these duties can be delegated by the Emperor as provided for by law. Article 65 explicitly vests executive power in the Cabinet, of which the Prime Minister is the leader. The Emperor is also not the (ceremonial) commander-in-chief of the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The Japan Self-Defense Forces Act of 1954 also explicitly vests this role with the Prime Minister."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_of_Japan#Modern_role

Carol-

I've already listed the reasons why I oppose the Monarchy, apart from it being anachronistic. Either you believe in democracy or you don't. Either you believe inheriting the right to power and influence is right in the 21st Century or you don't.

If you don't accept that overriding the rule of our elected representatives with those appointed by a feudal system is wrong, whilst a system of checks of balances in place by elected representatives (such as a US senate or elected House of Lords could) is right, and that the two are in no way comparable, then I don't think this argument can proceed any further.

This isn't a personal issue about 'the Queen'. It doesn't matter who 'the Queen' is, or who the 'Royal Family' is. The arguments don't change.

Under the Japanese system, you still have an inherited head of state, so just take away the powers and give them to the prime minister. Therefore no check or balance.

What?!

The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad. It's true that most of these "royal prerogative powers" are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don't need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions. That is fundamentally anti-democratic – and it can only happen because we have a monarchy.

It isn't a problem at all.

Constitutionally speaking, the Queen is the government. However, the powers conferred on the Crown are 99.9% derived from Parliamentary legislation. The remainder are exercised by the Queen on the advice of her ministers. Pretty much the only exception is when the monarch has to decide who to appoint PM.

If the Queen decided to ignore ministerial advice, it would be no problem sidelining her. This has pretty much been the case since 1688.

The Queen and Prince Charles also have the power to veto bills that affect their private interests.

No.

The Queen has the power to veto bills, but that power has not been exercised in the UK for centuries.

Prince Charles has no such power at all. The power to veto only vests in the monarch.

Official legal advice makes clear that Queen's and Prince's Consent (as the "royal veto" is officially known) is not a mere formality. The process by which consent is obtained provides a clear opportunity for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to influence the shape and content of a bill before it reaches Parliament.

This is all crap.

If a government decides to give Charley Boy a quick squizz at a bill before it is introduced to Parliament, that's purely their decision. There is no legal obligation to do so. They can show it to anyone they like.

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy.

I'm afraid this is so wrong that I hardly know where to begin. The supreme law making power in the UK is Parliament. The parliamentary chamber with all the power is the Commons, which is democratically elected.

The last time that any monarch in England had autocratic power was probably the thirteenth century, although perhaps rather later in Scotland.

Yes it is true that Parliament can choose to change any law it likes. That's a good thing. The alternative is having laws that the democratically-elected supreme law-making body can't change. A simple example of this is the right to bear arms in the US, or to put it another way, enslavement to the ideas of dead white men.

Spring - he was offered a veto, not entitled to it. Same as with negotiating any new legislation with the stakeholders likelyto be affected by it.

My fingers are crossed hopefully that Charles will succeed the throne, then he will be exposed as the utter dimwit that he is.
Elizabeth only changed the name to Windsor after WW2 to dissaccosiate themselves from the Nazis to whom they were/are closely affiliated.
They are over privileged moronic philastines with nothing but an anachronistic association to modern Britain.

Elizabeth is clever because publicly she keeps her mouth shut.
Charles is not so clever.
These letters he has been writing to influence the prime minister(s) should hopefully be made public soon.

This thread is really enlightening.

Thank you, all!

I agree that the Queen has been astute in keeping her mouth shut re politics. Charles doesn't seem to understand that he cant have privilege and public political opinions.

I'd like William to succeed, in an ornamental capacity only.

How does it compare to, say, Denmark, does anyone know?

HMQ probably gave up that sort of thing years ago. "Position?" indeed. How dare you?

Spring

As NotCitrus states, Charles was offered a veto. However, he did not have the right to insist on one.

Furthermore, if I remember correctly, he was offered the chance to veto legislation before it was even introduced to Parliament by the Government. No one has the right to prevent bills being introduced to Parliament, not even the Queen. The most she can do is refuse the royal assent by which bills pass into law (I described this as a "veto" power above).

To be honest, if a bill is going to affect the interests of particular stakeholders (be they businesses, charities, schools or whatever) it makes good sense for the government to consult on the technical or policy aspects of the bill before a draft is introduced to Parliament. Given that the content of all bills is publically debated anyway, there's probably no big deal most of the time. I suspect Prince Charles's "veto" was actually an understanding between him and the government that some agreement would be reached on certain aspects of the 12 bills he was consulted on.

*Linguini

Elizabeth only changed the name to Windsor after WW2 to dissaccosiate themselves from the Nazis to whom they were/are closely affiliated.

Wrong.

The king and queen also remained in London during the blitz.

They are over privileged moronic philastines with nothing but an anachronistic association to modern Britain.

I hope your desire for equality doesn't make you equally this rude about everyone.

The name was changed in 1917, not at all linked to ww2. The current royal family were not linked to the Nazi's, the Queen was only 19 at the end of ww2, and not the queen at that point.
Edward the eight was forced to abdicate partly due to nazi connections.

I am afraid, Carol, monarchy isn't really the check to power that you think. The Queen vetoed the Iraq war but it went ahead anyway. Also, there are a number of governments where dictators have replaced or worked alongside monarchies so it won't necessarily prevent an extremist government either.

Toad in the hole,

There is evidence that the queen mother actually spent most of the war at Sandringham in Norfolk and not amongst the suffering Londoners as previously thought. I believe this came out after her demise when there were a number of programmes about her, including one which described her as a "battered wife" as George VI seems to have had a temper.

jillb the only reference to the Iraq war veto is from the Guardian saying:

the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

Which is exactly the check/balance

But completely ineffectual surely?

All she vetoed was giving the power to parliament, not the war. There was a house of commons vote on the war and it was agreed to by both major parties.