Posted on 07/17/2013 9:20:54 AM PDT by sr4402
Link to Washington Post Article.
There goes the British Empire. The Monarchy has fallen.
Withholding of royal assent is not an automatic trigger of a new election; but in this case, this government would deserve it, I have to say.
Current practice is not precedent, neither is it law; the reserve powers are the law.
Cameron’s got many “TINO” collaborators.
And since this thread is about royal assent, which is something that only the Queen can grant and not Cameron, then the Queen can only take the blame for that.
Read your Bagehot, the Queen must act on the advice of her ministers when it comes to Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament. Her personal opinion does not count.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4351/4351-h/4351-h.htm
tl;dr. What’s the significant paragraph, and how does this apparently nullify reserve power?
And this is not such an issue to warrant it?
Calling it the end of the monarchy is more than merely melodramatic.
The last monarch to refuse assent to an act of parliament was Queen Anne in 1707.
She would rather be Queen than be right.
Well, that is what modern constitutional monarchy is about -- staying around by not exercising direct power.
A monarch who habitually refused assent to legislative acts would quickly become an ex-monarch.
Look at what happened to Queen Anne's father, uncle, and grandfather.
So you’re claiming that there’s no check on the tyranny of Parliament.
There are elections every at least once every five years.
And there are the courts.
It's a different system from ours. For one thing, there's no written constitution.
Maybe that's why we rebelled and imposed stronger safeguards and checks on government power.
Also, we make institutions like the presidency and the Senate more democratic to keep up with an age when democracy conveys legitimacy.
The British didn't take that route and let the real power of the monarch and Lords wither away.
FWIW, I should have said, 1708, rather than 1707. In any case, it was a long, long time ago.
“Calling it the end of the monarchy is more than merely melodramatic.”
You’re wrong.
The monarchy only exists because it’s apolitical. The royal family stands outside of the day-to-day of politics and represents the entire country.
If the Queen is seen as interfering in any way with the political process, she will break the compact with the nation and split it in two.
All of this is sounding like approval of gay marriage on the part of those who make such claims, I hope you realize.
A monarchy by definition cannot be apolitical—it’s the head of state. The practice of royal assent is certainly not apolitical. And no, reserve powers if used do not break the compact with the nation—passing gay marriage does, however.
The monarchy exists in the UK for one reason.....tourism.
No, no, no. My telling you that you’re wrong about the UK’s political system does not mean I’m in any way in support of this stupid bill.
The Queen’s role in government is ceremonial, not active. The royal family is only allowed to hold on to their position is because they stay out of politics. Otherwise the country would have kicked them out years ago.
There’s a reason no sovereign has withheld royal assent in three hundred years, and it’s not because they thought every bill was a great idea.
I’m sympathetic to what you’re saying, but the outrage is properly directed against the politicians - PM, ministers, MPs - who passed it. Not with the Queen obligated to rubber-stamp what they give her. Save your venom for the people who deserve it.
the Queen turned her husband into an amoeba.
You are not mistaken,
Americans are just appalingly ignorant of how every nation is governed.
I don’t know where you get your ideas from, but the monarchy was never at risk of being “kicked out” after the Restoration. Unless of course you believe all the leftist propaganda that has permeated Britain since the rise of folk like the Fabians, Liberal Party, Labour and the others like them.
Royal assent is most definitely not “staying out of politics” either way.
Who’s talking about the Reformation? The UK today is a very different entity.
The royal family’s goodwill is entirely dependent on them being seen as above (or at least outside) of politics. To withhold royal assent on any bill would cause irreparable harm to that goodwill, would empower the now-relatively-small republican movement and ultimately end the monarchy.
Again, there’s a reason no sovereign has done this in 300 years, and it’s not because they’ve thought every law was peachy-keen.
I said nothing about the Reformation; I said Restoration. There aren’t as many Oliver Cromwells lying in wait as you think. Certainly the EU wants to undermine all member state governments, but that’s another issue altogether.
Darned auto-correct. Blast.
Still, you don’t need a Cromwell to depose the monarchy. You just need enough Brits to want it, which is exactly what would happen if the Queen interfered with the political process.
Why do you suppose no sovereign has withheld assent in three hundred years? Do you think every king and queen has personally agreed with every bill passed into law?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.