Queen could be asked to veto John Bercow's attempts to water down Brexit
41 replies, posted
More than just the UK. Eg she could theoretically come to Australia, dismiss the Governor-General, sack the Prime Minister, and refuse to provide royal assent to bills passed by Australia’s parliament. Same in New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica and others.
Thats just theory. The throne would never exercise such power in the real world.
I don't understand why you even bother risking it being there.
The US elected Trump. What's to stop the UK from having a nuts monarch just be born right into that power?
I suppose it could happen, but new monarchs are groomed for the job since birth so if it becomes apparent the next-in-line isn't fit for the job, the position would simply shift to the next-next-in-line.
Hell, the Queen could roll up on Ottawa and dissolve the government and force new elections whenever she wanted.
She'd set off a non-violent revolution that would see Canada formally eject the (British) monarchy from constitutional power and fully transform Canada into an independent self-governing Republic (we're self-governing in all but pomp and ceremony, anyway), but as you said she could do it.
The second something like that happened, Australia would become a republic. Also I imagine there would be a High Court challenge, and I don’t believe it would be easy for even a hostile Crown to sack the High Court. Also the UK government would most likely not back up the Crown, so the Crown would have no means by which to enforce their action.
But as others have said, the Crown has had a strictly ceremonial role for the past 300 years or do. No one in Australia goes to bed at night and has a nightmare that her Maj will suddenly instate a totalitarian government. Australia, NZ, Canada and the UK are all nation states that are objectively better democracies (according to EIU Democracy Index) than the US, despite each having a hereditary Queen as head of state.
See Gough Whitlam in 1975 and Mackenzie King in 1926.
Obviously not exact examples to the scenarios listed, but they're good reads for anyone interested in seeing Royal prerogative come into conflict with the supremacy of Parliament.
I still find Whitlam funny. Normally when a Westminster-government can't pass supply (i.e. fund the government) a double dissolution is called, immediately causing a full election. However Whitlam thought he could be smart and asked the Governor General to only dissolve the Senate (the house he couldn't get his bill past). The GG responded by sacking Whitlam, calling a full election and putting the opposition leader in power as temporary PM until the election was over. The Temp PM bit is the problem.
Whitlam actually lost badly and the temporary opposition PM became the PM.
The monarch is not forbidden from entering Commons at all. It's entirely a traditional gesture of respect. They could any time they want, they just haven't.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.