EU Vote

[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

[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

[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/

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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 Jeff

I think giving her India was the clincher.

[Svensson]

The Tory leadership race has been reduced to two (Theresa May, Andrea Leadsom) and the 150,000 Conservative Party members will now select a new Prime Minister.

The other 63.85 million citizens of this country will not have a say in this. The absence of democracy in this process immediately after Brexit is of course highly ironic. Will be interesting to see how the "unelected Bureaucrats" in Brussels will treat the unelected PM from the UK come September.

[Robert]

But Svensson, we've had this situation before - Harold Wilson handed over to Callaghan without an election, Major took over from Thatcher without an election, and Gordon Brown took over from Blair without an election. I don't recall the unelected bureaucrats treating Callaghan, Major or Brown with any democratic disdain. Perhaps the bureaucrats' standards aren't as high as you hoped?

[Svensson]

I know we had this many times before but the situation is now very spicy. The UK has just complained about the EU being unelected, Simon Hilton has called the EU a "stinking cesspit" of such and such and Johnson has compared the EU to Hitler. This is now the same UK who will be off to Brussels and expect favours. The negotiation position is off to a bad start IMO. Then again, races have been won from the back of the grid. Just not many.

[Robert]

Svensson, systems of power don't do favours - they do deals.

[Svensson]

... that are good for themselves.