Queen could be asked to veto John Bercow's attempts to water down Brexit
41 replies, posted
The Queen could be asked not to veto law backbench legislation which will bind ministers’ hands in the Brexit talks. A senior Government minister confirmed that one option was for the Queen to be asked not to give royal assent to any backbench legislation drawn up by Tory MPs Dominic Grieve or Nick Boles which is given debating time.
Any veto would be the first time a Monarch has blocked Parliamentary legislation since Queen Anne vetoed the Scottish Militia Act in 1707 and would set the Queen against John Bercow, the Speaker, who has enabled Mr Grieve's attempts to seize control of the Brexit process to go ahead.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/21/queen-could-asked-veto-john-bercows-attempts-water-brexit-government/
The only thing I can say to that is just, what?!
I'll take constitutional crisis for $200, Alex
You're fucking joking.
If the queen gets involved making any sort of Veto, then the tories can absolutely shut up about the democratic will of the people. Using the monarchy in this day in age is nothing short of desperation and will cause absolute hell.
That's a great idea, while she's at it she should also try to cover some of Britain's expenses by taking the colonies.
it's funny how the crown should have no say in politics when it's against stuff they want but as soon as they feel threatened they've got buckingham palace on fucking speed-dial lmao
This government really will try everything except good-faith negotiation, it seems.
Won't happen (though I'm not Toxxing that). The Queen was educated on the importance of her complete non-intervention in politics and the role of the monarchy in the 40s and 50s and has never before made a political decision. She's not about to crush the legacy she often hurt those closest to her for, in her late years.
Not to mention that the act of even asking the Queen to allow the Cabinet to dictate to the other arms of Government in a modern Parliament would be taking Brexit down the darkest, most dangerous path for the future. If the Prime Minister or senior ministers have seriously considered this we are already quietly in an unprecedented crisis.
What the fuck?! Country torn apart for the sake of the Conservative Party. Whichever way you voted I hope people start to realise that.
can't have a constitutional crisis if you don't have a constitution.
Bloody hell the "God save the Queen up Brexit" Types heads will explode if the Queen does anything that could impact their Brexit.
Just imagine
"It's a dreary stormy day in London, so basically any other day, and Parliament is in session. All the members are debating Brexit again when suddenly there is a flash of lighting and the boom of thunder! The doors to the parliamentary chamber burst open. It's the Queen! She walks down the isle in silence flanked by her Corgis. She approaches the ceremonial mace and slowly picks it up with a grim expression on her face. The Queen walks over to the Prime Minister and whispers "No" before bringing down the mace on her head."
All her corgis have passed away
Then they will rise from the grave to serve their Queen.
Off with her head
Wait... every time I've ever brought up the ridiculousness of the royal family's existence, I've always been told they have no power anyway, it's just for show and tourism... so... she does have some sort of power still?
Imagine thinking that the Queen would break a precedent of over 300 years just to save your government's sorry hides of a mess of your own creation.
The monarch (or whoever is their designated representative in other countries) has to give it the final approval via royal assent. In theory, the monarch/representative can decide not to do it. In the UK, the current law does not state that it is not allowed so in theory, it can happen.
her corgis are all dead just like the empire and the monarchy. I'm pretty sure the monarch is explicitly forbidden from entering the house of commons to boot.
Canada still operates under Royal Assent as well, and Australia too if I recall.
Anything but a denial would shake the commonwealth to its core. There would inevitably be loyalist and anti-monarchist factions and the whole thing would be a complete mess.
Canada does operate on royal assent but it's nearly symbolic. The Governor-General is a rubber stamp on legislation. If the GG (in the Queen's stead) were to refuse to sign legislation, it would trigger a constitutional crisis and would likely result in at least a strong push to abolish the monarchy and reform the country's foundation of authority. The exception would be, I guess, if Parliament passed a tyrannical law, but at that point relying on the Governor-General to be a backstop to the collapse into authorarian tyranny is a Hail Mary (a Hail Liz?) last resort.
Royal assent is more or less a ceremonial patting of a fire alarm nobody will ever pull until the house is already half burnt down.
It's also how the Parliament should be treating Her Madge and the fact that a Tory even suggested the Queen should step in to prevent the government from interfering with itself should be grounds for censure but we don't live in a sane world anymore.
It's almost as if my post wasn't serious.
I really don’t think a veto would happen, but I also don’t think it would be as big of a constitutional crisis as it is made out to be, if royal assent were not provided. The key difference in this case compared to others is that it is a private bill from the backbench, as opposed to a government bill. So it’s not like her Maj would be vetoing her government.
But yes, I believe what will happen is the queen will not veto it. Not sure how similar it is in the UK, but in Australia we have our Parliament codified in our constitution, whereas the office of Prime Minister is not even mentioned once; the office was established via convention. So in Australia, Parliament has higher legal authority than the Prime Minister. The UK must be very similar and I believe the queen would side with parliament over her Prime Minister.
The Queen actually has political power in the UK? I thought she functioned like the royal family we have here in Sweden, a figurehead with no actual power.
I'm actually amazed that May's government has gone so far with this. Even setting aside the fact they're actually desperate enough to want to risk a constitutional crisis, The politically intelligent move would have been to make a big show of trying to push Brexit, shrugging when it failed, and calling a second referendum. There is no universe in which Brexit actually benefits England, and it's also really, really bad for business, since Conservatives serve no higher calling than money. Why are they so desperate to go through with it?
As far as I recall, the Queen is pretty steadfastly pro-Brexit, so watching this genuinely unfold would be remarkable lol
It doesn't matter if the Queen was running down the street naked with a blue passport tattooed on her back, she'd never be stupid enough to actually use the ceremonial powers the Monarchy retains.
I would say there is a 99% chance she will not veto, but then again 99% chances have gone wrong before....
I mean I'd normally totally agree with you, but the world is absolutely loony right now so anything is possible
the queen's government is pro brexit, for her to be publically against brexit would make it harder for May
From what I remember reading a while back(one such article), behind closed doors she herself is totally all for Brexit, not just in solidarity for her government. I mean, she's never publicly said it, so it could all be hearsay but I wouldn't put it past her seeing as she, herself, is probably the strongest symbol of British Nationalism, being the literal Queen of the UK and all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.