Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 599 posts

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#31

Post by dragonwriter »

meepmorp wrote: post #28
dhosek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? Apparently what is widely assumed to be a pro forma aspect of the legislative process has, in fact, been used to make substantive changes to legislature before it's even presented to parliament and this is done in a manner outside of public view.

Royal powers went away in 1689. The Queen's role here is entirely pro forma, and she cannot alter legislation. The fact that governments have sought her approval on matters, despite not being required to do so, isn't remotely surprising. And if you didn't care about the state providing a privileged life for the royals before, why would you care now? The fact is, not enough people care enough to make it a political pr…

> Royal powers went away in 1689.

More to the point, virtually all royal powers can, by tradition which is as strong as fundamental law, if not as clear on how you might amend it, be used only on the advice of (which in practice means at the direction of) of various bodies of Government, mostly the Cabinet wearing different hats.

The Crown just provides a bit of formal distance from the acts for the actual actors (but, being as it's been true for so long, that probably doesn't mean much in terms of practical accountability.)

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#32

Post by laurencerowe »

t-writescode wrote: post #3

Isn't Britain a Constitutional *Monarchy*? Did they forget that? There's still the House of Lords and the House of Commons for a reason. The monarchy and the landowners are still a thing and are still a ruling class.

The House of Lords has included many political appointees since 'Life Peers' were created in 1958. Hereditary peers were mostly removed from the House of Lords in 1999, though a small rump of 92 remained as a motivation to decide for the long term whether it should be appointed or elected.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#33

Post by etrevino »

twoslide wrote: post #24
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

In my opinion? She would have consented to the final form of Brexit and the IMB.[1] I can't say about the process of proroguing Parliament, but I don't think she has the power to interfere in the running of Parliament. If she gave consent it was to the bill mandating Parliaments last no more than five years (which was a terrible plan) back when the Lib Dems and Tories allied.

Personally, I think that the best way to characterize the Queen is that she was liberal for the 1950s, but as times have changed and as she's changed she's become more conservative.

[1] EDIT: Because at the minimum they can be interpreted as affecting her finances.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#34

Post by closeparen »

twoslide wrote: post #24
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

The Queen’s job is to be above the fray of any particular moment’s politics and politicians. She represents the abstract institution of state, regardless of who is calling the shots today. In the same way that Americans can be loyal to America even if they hate the President... the British people have a specific human being to which they can feel the same loyalty.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#35

Post by retrac »

Silhouette wrote: post #22
meepmorp wrote: post #5

Parliament is sovereign. Consequently, the Queen has exactly as much power as Parliment allows. Sure, the Queen could decide to exercise her power outside of the constrained ways she currently does, but the very likely effect of that is a vote to strip her of her power.

Parliament is sovereign. This is always a fun start to any argument about the constitution of the UK. The thing is, you're building on a foundation that could potentially be challenged. As we discovered during the Brexit debates, people are happy to use words like "parliamentary sovereignty" when it suits their purposes, yet clearly many of them have never actually read Dicey , much less understood its entire argumen…

For what it's worth, Canada somehow managed the trick. That is to say, through an act of the British Parliament, the Canadian legislature became a sovereign legislature, bound by a written constitution.

Basically, the UK Parliament passed a law delegating all of its powers to the Canadian legislature and declared it would never debate or pass a law again on the Canada question. Nothing actually stops them from doing so. But after 150 years of holding to this convention, it may as well be written in stone.

One can imagine the UK Parliament delegating its powers to successor entities and then essentially abolishing itself to a purely ceremonial function. Give it some time, and everyone gets used to it and that's the new system. Just ramp up devolution, basically.

For what it's worth, Parliamentary sovereignty is also an idea in the Canadian constitutional system, where it's taken to mean that the legislatures have absolute authority within their areas of jurisdiction, and that collectively the legislatures also have the authority to rewrite the constitution.

(As an aside, "What would happen if the British Parliament did repeal the British North America Act 1867 or Canada Act 1982?" is a rather fun hypothetical from the Canadian side.)

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#36

Post by gruffalowboy »

etrevino wrote: post #20
retrac wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is very true. The Crown plays a useful and vital role in the Westminster system. (I'm in Canada.) It can't just be tossed without something to replace it. But I'm not sure the monarchy offers anything not provided by a nonpartisan and mostly ceremonial presidency, similar to Ireland or Germany.

You're 100% right. The UK would be served just as well by a nonpartisan president.

> nonpartisan president

Oxymoron.

You have to vote for a president right otherwise you end up with ... well Oliver Cromwell. A Dictator by any other name.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#37

Post by ardy42 »

motohagiography wrote: post #19

How does one even become a monarch? They weren't always hereditary, and it would be interesting to see what they were based on. Seems like you need some kind of divine recognition, as otherwise you're just a dictator.

> How does one even become a monarch? They weren't always hereditary, and it would be interesting to see what they were based on. Seems like you need some kind of divine recognition, as otherwise you're just a dictator.

IIRC, you conquer a territory, descend (biologically or legally) from someone who did, or politically maneuver to replace an existing monarch or heir (for instance, by assassinating them).

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#38

Post by gruffalowboy »

twoslide wrote: post #24
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

It's called 'Royal Assent'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent

Certain bills (e.g. financial) are by convention not blocked by the Lords and so once these final bill has been approved it is sent to the queen for her signature to put it in law.

The last time the Monarch refused to pass a law approved by Parliament was 1704

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2327561...

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#39

Post by Silhouette »

retrac wrote: post #35
Silhouette wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parliament is sovereign. This is always a fun start to any argument about the constitution of the UK. The thing is, you're building on a foundation that could potentially be challenged. As we discovered during the Brexit debates, people are happy to use words like "parliamentary sovereignty" when it suits their purposes, yet clearly many of them have never actually read Dicey , much less understood its entire argumen…

For what it's worth, Canada somehow managed the trick. That is to say, through an act of the British Parliament, the Canadian legislature became a sovereign legislature, bound by a written constitution. Basically, the UK Parliament passed a law delegating all of its powers to the Canadian legislature and declared it would never debate or pass a law again on the Canada question. Nothing actually stops them from doing…

The legal situation might be somewhat different for other Commonwealth or former Commonwealth states anyway, because you don't necessarily have the same historical arguments about the supremacy of the UK parliament within those jurisdictions.

But yes, if we did want a new written constitution to become superior to any other legal authority except for a popular decision to change that constitution, one strategy that might be compatible with our current legal order would be to establish and empower whatever new order was intended and then render the historical Parliament functionally impotent so that no mechanism remained for it to pass any new legislation that would undermine the new order.

I wonder what Dicey would have made of such issues today. I suspect he might have argued that any claimed authority under any system of government is relevant only if that system has popular consent, so regardless of historical precedent, if the will of the people is clearly to change to a new system of government then the old system no longer enjoys any moral authority anyway.

As a practical matter, if the public view is clear and most of those in positions of power within the new order, such as political representatives and judges, support that view, then arguments about preserving the historical order become moot points anyway. And if the public ever felt strongly enough about our constitution that this kind of change was a realistic prospect, I wouldn't expect anyone in a position of power to keep that position under the new order if they didn't support it.

Re: The Queen has more power over British law than we thought

#40

Post by detaro »

twoslide wrote: post #24
etrevino wrote: post #13

I used to work as a scholar of Britain (specifically executions in Early Modern England, but you pick up a lot along the way) and I've tried to explain to a lot of people the amount of influence and control that the monarch actually holds. I'm not sure that this is such a bad thing. The Queen can't create legislation, she can restrain it. She is purely a moderating influence in this sense. She could, in theory, name…

Interesting, does that mean that the Queen has implicitly agreed to a lot of controversial legislation (e.g. Internal Market Bill, and Brexit more generally), or the process of the proroguing parliament last year? It seems she might be a lot more conservative (lowercase) than many might like to think.

In practice it's mostly ceremonial. It's not ceremonial in the way that she could do it and it would happen, but is in the way that AFAIK they haven't in centuries, and starting it outside very exceptional circumstances would mean that power would be taken away quickly.
Post reply on HN