EU Vote

[Mayerling]

I should add that the advice and warning takes place in private, of course.

Poor old Gladstone had to keep catching a train to Balmoral for his chats with Victoria.

Yes, and Victoria claimed that when he talked to her he acted as though he was addressing a crowd.

His predecessor Dizzy was far more the gracious courtier, and she liked him a great deal more.

Jeff

[Robert]

Hi John

Of course, the resultant deal, whatever it turns out to be, was not part of the referendum question. But on the question itself - in or out - it really is one or the other. The 48% who lost may feel aggrieved, but that's inescapable. If we stay in, 52% will feel aggrieved.

[John G]

Hi Jeff

Yes, the monarch acts as a symbol of national unity.

We don't know, of course, what influence the Queen exerts behind the scenes, but she does have the ear of the Prime Minister and she is entitled to advise and warn him. If the monarch has been in post for a long time, such advice might turn out to be quite valuable, particularly if it concerns foreign politicians whom she may have known for decades.

John, the trouble is that you can't be half in or half out. The EU itself has made that quite clear. So you have to make a decision. To not make a decision would be to make a decision anyway - for staying in.

Hi Robert,

Yes, but the referendum question concerned whether Britain should withdraw from the EU, not what our future relationship with Europe should be. That is a matter for negotiations, i.e. the free movement of people issue, which the EU have strongly indicated would be a prerequisite for any trade agreement giving Britain free access to the European market.

[Robert]

I should add that the advice and warning takes place in private, of course.

Poor old Gladstone had to keep catching a train to Balmoral for his chats with Victoria.

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

Yes, the monarch acts as a symbol of national unity.

We don't know, of course, what influence the Queen exerts behind the scenes, but she does have the ear of the Prime Minister and she is entitled to advise and warn him. If the monarch has been in post for a long time, such advice might turn out to be quite valuable, particularly if it concerns foreign politicians whom she may have known for decades.

John, the trouble is that you can't be half in or half out. The EU itself has made that quite clear. So you have to make a decision. To not make a decision would be to make a decision anyway - for staying in.

[John G]

Of course, as regards referenda, some might highlight the issue of the "tyranny of the majority". In other words, is it right for the 52% to tyranisze over the 48%? Shouldn't the views of a substantial minority also be considered?

[John G]

Yes Robert

Apart from one occasion in Australia, has it ever happened?

I am not aware of any action in Modern times.

The only example I can think of would be a government with enormous majority, attempted to stop all future elections.
Then the Monarchy would have to step in and abolish parliament, and call a new GE, however I am far from convinced that it would happen.


Steve

Hi Steve,

I think in those circumstances the courts would step in. In fact, this brings me back my Halcyon days as a Law Undergraduate...long summer holidays, only 10 hours a week in lectures and seminars-bliss! Anyway, I digress. I remember a public law seminar where the tutor pointed out that the very concept of Parliamentary sovereignty is dependent upon the courts. In other words, Parliament can't declare itself Sovereign, as that presupposes it was sovereign in the first place. And, if the courts determine the issue of Parliamentary sovereignty, presumably they can also determine its limitations: see https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/law/resea...y-sovereignty/

[Mayerling]

I was brought up on the idea that the monarchy can, if necessary, play a vital role in safeguarding our liberties. For instance, the monarch can refuse assent to any bill cancelling elections and suchlike measures. Having seen the Queen's performance over the last few decades, I've come to the conclusion that this is BS.

As a foreign observer, I think the purpose of the British Monarchy is as a continuing symbol of historic continuity, and that's about it. Oh yes, it is good for revenues brought into the British Isles by tourism.

I thought that the last member of the Royal Family or it's appendages who had any real imput on public policy or political matters was Lord Mountbatten, during a possible coup threat against Wilson in the 1960s. Since then the only ones who has tried to make public comments at all were the late Princess Diane and the still living Prince Charles, especially his continuing comments about architectural disasters. Diane, at least, strove to deal with the problems of deactivating land minds around the globe.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

I was brought up on the idea that the monarchy can, if necessary, play a vital role in safeguarding our liberties. For instance, the monarch can refuse assent to any bill cancelling elections and suchlike measures. Having seen the Queen's performance over the last few decades, I've come to the conclusion that this is BS.

Yes Robert

Apart from one occasion in Australia, has it ever happened?

I am not aware of any action in Modern times.

The only example I can think of would be a government with enormous majority, attempted to stop all future elections.
Then the Monarchy would have to step in and abolish parliament, and call a new GE, however I am far from convinced that it would happen.


Steve

[Robert]

I was brought up on the idea that the monarchy can, if necessary, play a vital role in safeguarding our liberties. For instance, the monarch can refuse assent to any bill cancelling elections and suchlike measures. Having seen the Queen's performance over the last few decades, I've come to the conclusion that this is BS.

[John G]

John,

surely that is wrong, the king/queen cannot change the law can they?
surely in those examples parliament could propose those issues which the King /Queen would have to agree to.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, in reality the monarch today is just a figurehead. Thus, in theory the Queen could withhold the Royal Ascent from a bill passed by Parliament-and therefore retains the right of veto- but in reality that isn't going to happen. Or, if it did we'd have a serious constitutional crises!

For completeness, it is Parliament that passes legislation and the Monarch that applies the Royal Ascent, at which point the Bill becomes law i.e. an Act of Parliament, although I believe that in theory the Monarch could introduce a Bill into Parliament, which Parliament would have to accept or reject.

Also see: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-d...013-33999.html

[Elamarna]

John, Steve

Speaking personally, I have no respect for Parliament - because of the people housed within it.

The scenarios that you're suggesting could indeed take place. Parliament could decide to ignore the votes of the majority. What would happen then? I don't know - civil war maybe?

Robert

At least our views on many, not all, in the house are in broad agreement.

I doubt it would come to violence, and probably not even a general election.

It may however lead to an interesting election next time round.


Steve

[Robert]

John, Steve

Speaking personally, I have no respect for Parliament - because of the people housed within it.

The scenarios that you're suggesting could indeed take place. Parliament could decide to ignore the votes of the majority. What would happen then? I don't know - civil war maybe?

[Elamarna]

Hi Robert,

Yes, I'm sure that there would be objections. In fact, they may decide that they're not so keen on Parliamentary sovereignty after all, hence the irony! However, as Britain has Parliamentary sovereignty, not constitutional sovereignty-like America, for instance-both of the examples you cite would be lawful.

John,

surely that is wrong, the king/queen cannot change the law can they?
surely in those examples parliament could propose those issues which the King /Queen would have to agree to.


Steve

[John G]

Hi John

Well, you could also assume that patriotic Britons would have had no objection had the King in Parliament decided to hand the entire country over to the Third Reich in 1939. Or if the Queen in Parliament were to decide next week to cancel all future general elections. In both cases, you'd be wrong.

Hi Robert,

Yes, I'm sure that there would be objections. In fact, they may decide that they're not so keen on Parliamentary sovereignty after all, hence the irony! However, as Britain has Parliamentary sovereignty, not constitutional sovereignty-like America, for instance-both of the examples you cite would be lawful.