Royal family get to veto UK laws

[Poorisolation]

Well that's shit

The new legislation is a stupid, pointless waste of parliamentary time and resources, imo. I hope whoever get in next (I can say with some confidence that (thankfully) the lib-dems won't even be in the running next time around, of course I could be wrong) just scrap it. >.>

Not really, while it takes a lot of the fun out of the will he/won't she guessing game of snap elections it is an effort to try and stop future governments from managing the current legislative agenda solely for short term gain in a bid to win five more years they may not have earned. Of course if it is perceived not to meet a future need then it will be replaced with something else, that is how our parliamentary system of democracy works.

[Ad Nihilo]

As other people have stated its something the monarch has had for quite a while, I believe it dates back to King John and the Manga Carta to ensure the monarch wasn't just a glorified figure head. Its intended purpose is to be keep parliament in check and in theory stop it from doing something incredibly stupid like starting World War 3, you must bear in mind that the British Armed Forces swear loyalty to the Crown and so can appeal to the Queen to effectively override certain orders given by Whitehall. The Queen also allows parliament to raise and maintain a standing army, something that she could revoke at anytime and effectively disband the armed forces.

Thankfully there hasn't been an occasion when the Queen has had to use these powers and hopefully there never will.

As for it being 'outdated and undemocratic', doesn't the US president have the same powers? Have heard in the news about Obama using his presidential veto once or twice.

I agree with your sentiment, but in the interests of defending a good point with accurate information I think I should clarify a few things to you, and others:

1) the prerogative of royal assent was never "given" to the monarch. The default was that he could do whatever he damned pleased. Royal assent is the result of the continuous erosion of that power to do whatever he damned pleased. At the time of the signing of the Magna Carta, Parliament had no power to give the King anything... Parliament was a bunch of people that the King called upon whenever he fancied, and could decide not to call at all. The main incentive to keep calling Parliament is that the people who comprised Parliament were also the people who constituted your army and tax base. If you didn't call them to offer their opinions they would get together and overthrow you instead - see the English Civil War. Furthermore, with the exception of the English Civil War, Parliament never had the ascendency over the Monarchy until well after the Glorious Revolution, and the UK only basically became a Parliamentary nation around the time of the Regency and after.

2) The British Armed forces are not all the same. The Army is called the British Army and swears allegiance to Parliament (a vestige of the fact that Parliament won the English Civil War). The rest of the forces are "Royal X" and indeed swear allegiance to the Monarch. But the Monarch cannot dissolve the British Army. Not even de jure.

[The Realm of God]

Well that's shit

The new legislation is a stupid, pointless waste of parliamentary time and resources, imo. I hope whoever get in next (I can say with some confidence that (thankfully) the lib-dems won't even be in the running next time around, of course I could be wrong) just scrap it. >.>

Cameron hasn't been a stellar PM by any account, though to be fair he inherited some terrible problems. I can say with reasonable confidence that the government will be Labour or possibly UKIP.

[Socialist States Owen]

I thought the monarchy has the power of consultation on legislation?

They do. This isn't 'secret' at all, and never has been.

What the Guardian are doing is spinning a non-story into a story by adding in the whole 'private interests' thing.

It's because the monarchy is a threat to the glorious proleterians of the Guardian, in their condo's full of 'art' in Sussex.

[Person012345]

The new legislation is a stupid, pointless waste of parliamentary time and resources, imo. I hope whoever get in next (I can say with some confidence that (thankfully) the lib-dems won't even be in the running next time around, of course I could be wrong) just scrap it. >.>

Cameron hasn't been a stellar PM by any account, though to be fair he inherited some terrible problems. I can say with reasonable confidence that the government will be Labour or possibly UKIP.

I think it'll be labour, with a number of lib-dem voters switching to them, but I think it'll just go back to a two-horse race between labour and conservative.

Neither of them are any good though, you get shit whichever way it goes.

[Poorisolation]

As other people have stated its something the monarch has had for quite a while, I believe it dates back to King John and the Manga Carta to ensure the monarch wasn't just a glorified figure head. Its intended purpose is to be keep parliament in check and in theory stop it from doing something incredibly stupid like starting World War 3, you must bear in mind that the British Armed Forces swear loyalty to the Crown and so can appeal to the Queen to effectively override certain orders given by Whitehall. The Queen also allows parliament to raise and maintain a standing army, something that she could revoke at anytime and effectively disband the armed forces.

Thankfully there hasn't been an occasion when the Queen has had to use these powers and hopefully there never will.

As for it being 'outdated and undemocratic', doesn't the US president have the same powers? Have heard in the news about Obama using his presidential veto once or twice.

I agree with your sentiment, but in the interests of defending a good point with accurate information I think I should clarify a few things to you, and others:

1) the prerogative of royal assent was never "given" to the monarch. The default was that he could do whatever he damned pleased. Royal assent is the result of the continuous erosion of that power to do whatever he damned pleased. At the time of the signing of the Magna Carta, Parliament had no power to give the King anything... Parliament was a bunch of people that the King called upon whenever he fancied, and could decide not to call at all. The main incentive to keep calling Parliament is that the people who comprised Parliament were also the people who constituted your army and tax base. If you didn't call them to offer their opinions they would get together and overthrow you instead - see the English Civil War. Furthermore, with the exception of the English Civil War, Parliament never had the ascendency over the Monarchy until well after the Glorious Revolution, and the UK only basically became a Parliamentary nation around the time of the Regency and after.

2) The British Armed forces are not all the same. The Army is called the British Army and swears allegiance to Parliament (a vestige of the fact that Parliament won the English Civil War). The rest of the forces are "Royal X" and indeed swear allegiance to the Monarch. But the Monarch cannot dissolve the British Army. Not even de jure.

Point one yes but point two erm no all persons enlisted and commissioned swear their oath to Queen Elizabeth at the current time and her heirs and successors. The Mutiny Act must be renewed by Parliament every year though in order for the oath to be considered binding.

[Forsher]

Reading the Guardian this morning I was actually quite shocked by this article, almost hidden away on page 14, about how the Queen and Prince Charles are consulted before an laws are passed in case they go against their personal interests!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/3 ... sfeed=true

A little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details of its application private.

The information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before legislation is introduced to ensure it does not harm their private interests.

I have no legal training so I don't really understand under what legal basis this practice has been allowed. To me it is disgusting that it has been happening and should be stopped immediately, and all past interventions by members of the royal family should be made public (particularly as the article uses the word veto but doesn't really demonstrate that that is the case). To me it goes against the proper roles of parliament and the royal family, and the fact that there seems to be a concerted effort that this should have remained a secret is somewhat disturbing. Can anybody with a better understanding of constitutional law in the UK than me explain how we ended up with such an outdated and un-democratic privilege still happening?

I'd feel more surprised if I didn't have this niggling feeling I'd heard about this before.

The whole GB political structure should be turned upside down. It's not working anymore.

The Crown once had absolute and ultimate power. After the civil war, Parliament expropriated the principal part of that power. Over time, it became less the interests of landed aristocrats and London merchants to a more rounded, representative body.

It's still a nonsense system. Scrap the lot and let's have direct democracy.

I don't think the Crown has ever had absolute power and it certainly didn't after the signing of the Magna Carta, a few hundred years before the Civil War.

Yeah, the thing is that this doesn't really dispute your stupid comment that "herpaderp only reason to be kinda fucked off about this is if you don't understand". Assent, yeah whatever, barely even a thing, but the whole Charles thing is depressing.

If you're going on a rant about the Queen's powers, I think the comment is perfectly valid.

In respect to Charles, the reasons for irritated or whatever are obvious. In fact, I'm sure this came up a few months ago...

Ah, found it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15521777

That would explain the niggling feeling.

Contrary to popular belief the Royal Family generate more income for this country then they receive.

The popular belief is that they generate more income than they receive, however as it is something that could only ever be estimated I wouldn't exactly call it a hard fact.

Looking at one of the articles linked in this thread the Duchy of Cornwall generates 700 million pounds, not sure how much of that is profit but hey...

Come now the British tabloids are a bastion of good journalism they would never do something like that

The Guardian isn't a tabloid.

I think their foreign edition is. I can't remember... it's been a while since I've seen it.

With regards to Nadkor she'll clear this up if it's new. If it isn't she'll just say who is wrong.

[Yewhohohopia]

Do you people just not understand why not really having any means to enforce your will doesn't mean it doesn't matter, or what?

You apparently don't understand how law works.

You don't need to dissolve parliament to stop a law being passed.

I know, it's just that this magical last recourse to "Well the monarchy can dissolve parliament to stop the "You Must Definitely Gas The Jews Act (20xx) passing" is a touch mythical now, if it ever wasn't, and I think that honestly people could just ignore the whole assent issue if they thought the public didn't really care.

[Skywarp]

I have no legal training so I don't really understand under what legal basis this practice has been allowed. To me it is disgusting that it has been happening and should be stopped immediately, and all past interventions by members of the royal family should be made public (particularly as the article uses the word veto but doesn't really demonstrate that that is the case). To me it goes against the proper roles of parliament and the royal family, and the fact that there seems to be a concerted effort that this should have remained a secret is somewhat disturbing. Can anybody with a better understanding of constitutional law in the UK than me explain how we ended up with such an outdated and un-democratic privilege still happening?

As other people have stated its something the monarch has had for quite a while, I believe it dates back to King John and the Manga Carta to ensure the monarch wasn't just a glorified figure head. Its intended purpose is to be keep parliament in check and in theory stop it from doing something incredibly stupid like starting World War 3, you must bear in mind that the British Armed Forces swear loyalty to the Crown and so can appeal to the Queen to effectively override certain orders given by Whitehall. The Queen also allows parliament to raise and maintain a standing army, something that she could revoke at anytime and effectively disband the armed forces.

Thankfully there hasn't been an occasion when the Queen has had to use these powers and hopefully there never will.

As for it being 'outdated and undemocratic', doesn't the US president have the same powers? Have heard in the news about Obama using his presidential veto once or twice.

Yes, that's what I was thinking as well while reading it.... more or less came down to "Head of state has veto power".... as if this is some new novel concept no one has ever heard of.

[Forsher]

You apparently don't understand how law works.

You don't need to dissolve parliament to stop a law being passed.

I know, it's just that this magical last recourse to "Well the monarchy can dissolve parliament to stop the "You Must Definitely Gas The Jews Act (20xx) passing" is a touch mythical now, if it ever wasn't, and I think that honestly people could just ignore the whole assent issue if they thought the public didn't really care.

If Nadkor turns up she'll say if I am wrong but what would happen is that if it somehow got out of Commons without anyone knowing it wouldn't pass through Lords and then people would know and the PM would fail a vote of confidence and that would be that.

[Person012345]

I know, it's just that this magical last recourse to "Well the monarchy can dissolve parliament to stop the "You Must Definitely Gas The Jews Act (20xx) passing" is a touch mythical now, if it ever wasn't, and I think that honestly people could just ignore the whole assent issue if they thought the public didn't really care.

That's the point, the gassing the jews act would require a lot of different people working together to implement and enact. And they're not going to do it just because parliament wants them to. If it were possible for them to simply override royal assent, then what makes you think they wouldn't tell the queen to go fuck herself when she told them to dissolve?

It's like suggesting that if the US Supreme Court strikes down a law as being unconstitutional, they can't really do it because they can't dissolve congress.

[Ad Nihilo]

Point one yes but point two erm no all persons enlisted and commissioned swear their oath to Queen Elizabeth at the current time and her heirs and successors. The Mutiny Act must be renewed by Parliament every year though in order for the oath to be considered binding.

I stand corrected. Though it seems to me it is still the case that the British Army has to swear allegiance to the Crown only because Parliament says they should.

In the technical meaning of the word "sovereign", the sovereign body of the UK is actually Parliament. De jure it appeals to the Monarch as a guarantor of the concept of Law through which Parliament executes political power. But in practice, it is not at all as straightforward as "every power is derived from the Monarch and executed by the various branches of the state". Rather, all branches of the state appeal to the Monarchy as you would appeal to an external justificatory force (e.g. as you would appeal to a God), but they do have in fact various degrees of autonomous power.

[Poorisolation]

You apparently don't understand how law works.

You don't need to dissolve parliament to stop a law being passed.

I know, it's just that this magical last recourse to "Well the monarchy can dissolve parliament to stop the "You Must Definitely Gas The Jews Act (20xx) passing" is a touch mythical now, if it ever wasn't, and I think that honestly people could just ignore the whole assent issue if they thought the public didn't really care.

They would not dissolve parliament, Their Majesty would simply refuse to sign the assent. That sort of thing is easy to see how it would be dealt with. Though the ability of the Monarchy to intervene again all possible situations has surprsingly not been put to the test the ability of a Monarch to intervene against a military coup
has been demonstrated in Spain for example.

The fact that all military oaths are to the Crown and all Commissions from the Monarch does mean that if push came to shove then the Monarchy, based on the experiences of other nations admittedly, does actually wield a lot of potential power. That it does not exercise any of this day to day is the whole point of the constitutional monarchical system.

edit note: damn the typos

[Blouman Empire]

The new legislation is a stupid, pointless waste of parliamentary time and resources, imo. I hope whoever get in next (I can say with some confidence that (thankfully) the lib-dems won't even be in the running next time around, of course I could be wrong) just scrap it. >.>

Not really, while it takes a lot of the fun out of the will he/won't she guessing game of snap elections it is an effort to try and stop future governments from managing the current legislative agenda solely for short term gain in a bid to win five more years they may not have earned. Of course if it is perceived not to meet a future need then it will be replaced with something else, that is how our parliamentary system of democracy works.

But the government can still call snap elections only now they don't need permission of the sovereign.

[Poorisolation]

Not really, while it takes a lot of the fun out of the will he/won't she guessing game of snap elections it is an effort to try and stop future governments from managing the current legislative agenda solely for short term gain in a bid to win five more years they may not have earned. Of course if it is perceived not to meet a future need then it will be replaced with something else, that is how our parliamentary system of democracy works.

But the government can still call snap elections only now they don't need permission of the sovereign.

Well the idea is that the Government now cannot directly do so. It must contrive for the House of Commons to decide to do so.

[Blouman Empire]

But the government can still call snap elections only now they don't need permission of the sovereign.

Well the idea is that the Government now cannot directly do so. It must contrive for the House of Commons to decide to do so.

Oh so the House of Commons now gives permission?

Well that will work fine until a party has majority

[Poorisolation]

Well the idea is that the Government now cannot directly do so. It must contrive for the House of Commons to decide to do so.

Oh so the House of Commons now gives permission?

Well that will work fine until a party has majority

And no rebel back benchers *nods*

But yes I agree it is hardly flawless so we shall see.

[Terruana]

Yeah, pretty sure most people knew that already.
Out of curiosity, have the current monarchs ever actually done that?

[The Archregimancy]

This isn't a secret. The monarchy has had this power for as long as Parliament has existed, but it hasn't been used for 300 years. The last time the monarch vetoed a law was when Queen Anne refused to assent a bill to create a Scottish militia.

What most people bringing up the 1708 Scottish Militia Bill (note to a couple of other thread contributors - you have the date wrong by a year) in this thread fail to point out, or perhaps simply don't realise, is that even in this example Anne only withheld assent on the advice of her ministers.

Party politics barely existed in 1708, and Parliament had passed the Scottish Militia Bill against the wishes of the government's ministers, so they advised Anne to withhold Royal Assent.



Anyway, a lot of people in this thread seem to be confusing A) the Guardian's overly dramatic assertion that consultation over laws that impact the Royal Household constitutes a veto with B) the Royal Assent; they are not the same thing.

The former is an established legal principle called 'Queen's Consent'; the counterpart for the Prince of Wales is 'Prince's consent'. Contrary to the Guardian's rather hysterical piece of journalism, this is neither new nor secret. From Hansard, 30th of April 1996:

Prince of Wales's Consent

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances the Prince of Wales's consent is needed for a Bill. [26043]

The Prime Minister: Bills whose provisions affect the hereditary revenues, personal property or interests of the Duchy of Cornwall require the consent of the Prince of Wales to be signified in both Houses before they are passed. The same would apply to any Bill which affected the interest of the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Prince and Steward of Scotland.

This is not the same thing as the Royal Assent. Contrary to what most people in this thread seem to think, It is point blank unconstitutional for the Royal Assent to be withheld by the monarch. This is an established point in the unwritten British constitution. George V took legal advice in 1914 over whether he could withhold the Royal Assent from the Government of Ireland Bill, and was told that he couldn't. Case closed.

Summed up: The Queen and Prince of Wales have the right to be consulted in specific cases where an Act of Parliament directly impacts their prerogatives. The monarch cannot, however, withhold assent from an Act of Parliament.


Honestly, where's Nadkor when we need her?

[Aethelstania]

They may have the power, but they don't and never will stand against the will o the people or elected representatives. The only real positive of the monarchy is that the people with power dont use it

[Ragonia]

Yeah, pretty sure most people knew that already.
Out of curiosity, have the current monarchs ever actually done that?

The Belgian King is required to sign laws before they can come in effect. In 1990, former king Boudewijn refused to sign a law legalizing abortion into effect because of moral issues. The king subsequently asked the government to declare him unable to reign for 36 hours, during which the law was passed without the king's approval.

Although the Belgian King still has some powers, such as this "veto" and the appointment of certain political functions, there's no way he'd actually be able to use them for his own benefits.

They may have the power, but they don't and never will stand against the will o the people or elected representatives. The only real positive of the monarchy is that the people with power dont use it

The monarchy is nice because of it's traditional value, and the fact that it's always handy to have some people ready to shake hands, cut ribbons and go to the new Belgian chocolate factory in China to taste their products.

[Yewhohohopia]

Honestly, where's Nadkor when we need her?

At work.

[Cetacea]

Prince of Wales's Consent

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances the Prince of Wales's consent is needed for a Bill. [26043]

The Prime Minister: Bills whose provisions affect the hereditary revenues, personal property or interests of the Duchy of Cornwall require the consent of the Prince of Wales to be signified in both Houses before they are passed. The same would apply to any Bill which affected the interest of the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Prince and Steward of Scotland.

Thank You:Rydhsys rag Kernow lemmyn! Cornish Independence!
The Duchy of Cornwall is a constitutional Duchy that has never been incorporated formally into England by an Act of Union and is thus a separate territory/country and not subject to Westminster. The Stannary Parliament has the power to veto Westminster laws and as recently as 1977 it was noted by the Lord Chancellor of Britain that the Cornish charter had never been overturned. Prince Charles the Duke of Cornwall holds rights in Cornwall as a private estate from which he derives his incomes directly (he is not funded by the British Taxpayer)

[L Ron Cupboard]

Prince Charles the Duke of Cornwall holds rights in Cornwall as a private estate from which he derives his incomes directly (he is not funded by the British Taxpayer)

Nonsense, he is funded partly by the taxpayers.

the prince's funding from the taxpayer rose by about 12 per cent to £2,194,000

[Greater Mackonia]

More reasons why we should behead the lot of them with rusty chainsaws.