UK Politics Thread IX: Try turning the UK off and on again.

[The Archregimancy]

People outside the UK often misunderstand royal assent. This is not some reserve power of the monarchy that vests residual power in the monarch; instead it's a functionally ceremonial process.

Constitutionally, the Queen can only act on the advice of her ministers. Therefore she can only refuse assent if her ministers advise her to do so. Practically, the monarch has been largely removed from the process of royal assent. Since Henry VIII, it's been possible for the granting of assent to be delegated - so the monarch's personal role is no longer necessary (oversimplifying).

The last British monarch to refuse royal assent was Anne, in 1708, over the Scottish militia bill - when she only refused assent on advice of her ministers.

There are therefore no practical circumstances in 2022 under which a monarch could refuse assent unless the government instructed the monarch to do so; which is itself an almost unimaginable scenario under the modern parliamentary system, since a government can only be formed by a party or coalition that commands a majority in the Commons.

So why don't her ministers say refuse this clearly unconstitutional bill? Or does this mean the Cabinet?

In this context 'ministers' means the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by a government that can command a majority in the House of Commons.

In other words, the Queen is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of her ministers; her ministers are the government.

The possibility of the monarch countermanding the actions of the government is a fantasy that foreigners are fond of, but which no one engaged with the British constitution would countenance.

[Mtwara]

On the subject of the SNP and PC making gains...

Interesting stuff in the back of the latest issue of the Private Eye about the ferries in Scotland.

Not Scottish, I did broadly have this idea that the SNP were very honest until the whole Alex Salmond thing made the papers, since then I've read a few more negative things about them. How exactly do they compare in corruption and seediness to the Conservatives and Labour?

[Vassenor]

People outside the UK often misunderstand royal assent. This is not some reserve power of the monarchy that vests residual power in the monarch; instead it's a functionally ceremonial process.

Constitutionally, the Queen can only act on the advice of her ministers. Therefore she can only refuse assent if her ministers advise her to do so. Practically, the monarch has been largely removed from the process of royal assent. Since Henry VIII, it's been possible for the granting of assent to be delegated - so the monarch's personal role is no longer necessary (oversimplifying).

The last British monarch to refuse royal assent was Anne, in 1708, over the Scottish militia bill - when she only refused assent on advice of her ministers.

There are therefore no practical circumstances in 2022 under which a monarch could refuse assent unless the government instructed the monarch to do so; which is itself an almost unimaginable scenario under the modern parliamentary system, since a government can only be formed by a party or coalition that commands a majority in the Commons.

So why don't her ministers say refuse this clearly unconstitutional bill? Or does this mean the Cabinet?

You should probably start by explaining what existing law or precedent makes this unconstitutional.

[Shrillland]

Aye, but Labour won't be as well as they think they will. The polls say what Ostro's been saying, Wales and Scotland will see PC and SNP, respectively, take up more of the slack than Labour, and while Labour will gain a lot of councils(or at least the leads in NOCs)the Lib Dems will lead an orange crush not seen in nearly 20 years.

What polls?

It seems you think Labor will only make gains in NOC? Or am I misreading you? What makes you think Liberal Democrats will do that well?

I was looking at the different polls for party preferences in Wales and Scotland, admittedly for their Parliaments, but they do give us an insight into next week's votes. In Scotland, the SNP is as popular as ever and has seen a rise in support in recent weeks, while they haven't changed much at all in Wales save for a few PC bumps. As for the Liberal Democrats, where else are disillusioned or moderate Conservatives who don't want lefty changes going to go?

[San Lumen]

So why don't her ministers say refuse this clearly unconstitutional bill? Or does this mean the Cabinet?

In this context 'ministers' means the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by a government that can command a majority in the House of Commons.

In other words, the Queen is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of her ministers; her ministers are the government.

The possibility of the monarch countermanding the actions of the government is a fantasy that foreigners are fond of, but which no one engaged with the British constitution would countenance.

Royal Asset is merely just for show and monarch legally cannot refuse or it is simply tradition they cannot?

[San Lumen]

What polls?

It seems you think Labor will only make gains in NOC? Or am I misreading you? What makes you think Liberal Democrats will do that well?

I was looking at the different polls for party preferences in Wales and Scotland, admittedly for their Parliaments, but they do give us an insight into next week's votes. In Scotland, the SNP is as popular as ever and has seen a rise in support in recent weeks, while they haven't changed much at all in Wales save for a few PC bumps. As for the Liberal Democrats, where else are disillusioned or moderate Conservatives who don't want lefty changes going to go?

Aren't the Liberal Democrats a leftist party?

[Vassenor]

In this context 'ministers' means the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by a government that can command a majority in the House of Commons.

In other words, the Queen is constitutionally bound to act on the advice of her ministers; her ministers are the government.

The possibility of the monarch countermanding the actions of the government is a fantasy that foreigners are fond of, but which no one engaged with the British constitution would countenance.

Royal Asset is merely just for show and monarch legally cannot refuse or it is simply tradition they cannot?

The last time a monarch refused to follow the wishes of parliament of his own volition we cut his head off.

[San Lumen]

Royal Asset is merely just for show and monarch legally cannot refuse or it is simply tradition they cannot?

The last time a monarch refused to follow the wishes of parliament of his own volition we cut his head off.

That would be King Charles I in 1649?

[Philjia]

Up to the party to decide how it's done. We'd just have a vote, if we actually had that many potential candidates.

A vote of who? is there a primary or a party convention?

The local party members.

[Shrillland]

I was looking at the different polls for party preferences in Wales and Scotland, admittedly for their Parliaments, but they do give us an insight into next week's votes. In Scotland, the SNP is as popular as ever and has seen a rise in support in recent weeks, while they haven't changed much at all in Wales save for a few PC bumps. As for the Liberal Democrats, where else are disillusioned or moderate Conservatives who don't want lefty changes going to go?

Aren't the Liberal Democrats a leftist party?

No, they're centrist.

[Ostroeuropa]

The last time a monarch refused to follow the wishes of parliament of his own volition we cut his head off.

That would be King Charles I in 1649?

Yes.

I think the Monarch would sooner abdicate than refuse ascent to a bill.

It would need to be something extraordinarily dire for them to contemplate refusal, such as it being fairly brazen that the UK government did not have the support of the people, was rigging elections, an international pariah, and asked the monarch to sign off on a genocide or something.

I can see how in those circumstances the monarch *might* be like "Brb, toilet" and climb out of the window, scurry down a sheet rope, board a plane straight to Canada before invoking powers they don't realistically have and declaring the UK parliament dissolved and so on, mostly as a blow to their continuity and legitimacy and to serve as a figurehead for a reclamation movement.

But even then it would be questionably legal and more of a symbolic act.

[Dumb Ideologies]

I was looking at the different polls for party preferences in Wales and Scotland, admittedly for their Parliaments, but they do give us an insight into next week's votes. In Scotland, the SNP is as popular as ever and has seen a rise in support in recent weeks, while they haven't changed much at all in Wales save for a few PC bumps. As for the Liberal Democrats, where else are disillusioned or moderate Conservatives who don't want lefty changes going to go?

Aren't the Liberal Democrats a leftist party?

Socially liberal, economically of no fixed abode. They have everything from soft social democrats to right libertarians. They were the junior partner in a coalition with the Conservatives in the early 2010s which took one of if not THE most austerity-based responses of major economies to the financial crisis, and - far from being dragged along by the Tory leadership of the time - prominent party members including their leader at the time were enthusiastic evangelists for the shift towards a minimal state model at a time of growing poverty. Many of the groups who used to vote for them haven't quite forgiven them.

[Ostroeuropa]

Aren't the Liberal Democrats a leftist party?

Socially liberal, economically of no fixed abode. They have everything from soft social democrats to right libertarians. They were the junior partner in a coalition with the Conservatives in the early 2010s which took one of if not THE most austerity-based responses of major economies to the financial crisis, and prominent party members including their leader at the time were enthusiastic evangelists for the shift towards a minimal state model at a time of growing poverty. Many of the groups who used to vote for them haven't quite forgiven them.

They're socially progressive imo. They used to be liberal but I'm not convinced anymore.

I also think it's pretty laughably worthless for them to come out with a woke swagger and then offer to increase paternity leave to a stage that is still less than maternity leave, effectively accomplishing nothing. But to be fair to them, they're the most committed to being worthless on the topic, having promised to pointlessly increase it more than any other party without actually delivering equality or meaningful change.

I'm envisioning the brass balls confidence of political parties wandering on stage and waffling about equality before proposing that we increase the minimum wage for women so it's only two pounds lower than a mans rather than three and expecting people not to think that's really fucking weird.

Hell. At least that would do something to actually address an issue. It would materially impact peoples lives. The paternity leave stuff being thrown out there like it'll change gender dynamics is pure nonsense.

"turns out the reason women aren't getting anywhere is men have less parental rights than women, and so women end up becoming the primary caregiver.".

"I know. Let's give them less parental rights than women to fix that.".

Wut.

(Leaving aside the pure cringe of framing the issue around how good it is for women).

[Concejos Unidos]

So why don't her ministers say refuse this clearly unconstitutional bill? Or does this mean the Cabinet?

The UK's constitution is Parliamentary bills; the constitutional corpus is several landmark acts and the collection of unwritten traditions. Which is to say, Parliament never has unconstitutional laws because its laws are the constitution. At best, the Supreme Court can require Parliament to pass a bill again with an explicit proviso for the repeal for an earlier bill, if that earlier bill is one of the bills protected from implicit repeals. Even international law does not supersede UK law, since the UK has a weird attitude towards international law. And as Arch said, the ministers are the government, which would be the people proposing most parliamentary bills anyways.

[San Lumen]

So why don't her ministers say refuse this clearly unconstitutional bill? Or does this mean the Cabinet?

The UK's constitution is Parliamentary bills; the constitutional corpus is several landmark acts and the collection of unwritten traditions. Which is to say, Parliament never has unconstitutional laws because its laws are the constitution. At best, the Supreme Court can require Parliament to pass a bill again with an explicit proviso for the repeal for an earlier bill, if that earlier bill is one of the bills protected from implicit repeals. Even international law does not supersede UK law, since the UK has a weird attitude towards international law. And as Arch said, the ministers are the government, which would be the people proposing most parliamentary bills anyways.

If the government decided to go authoritarian the monarch has to sign off no matter what?

[Concejos Unidos]

The UK's constitution is Parliamentary bills; the constitutional corpus is several landmark acts and the collection of unwritten traditions. Which is to say, Parliament never has unconstitutional laws because its laws are the constitution. At best, the Supreme Court can require Parliament to pass a bill again with an explicit proviso for the repeal for an earlier bill, if that earlier bill is one of the bills protected from implicit repeals. Even international law does not supersede UK law, since the UK has a weird attitude towards international law. And as Arch said, the ministers are the government, which would be the people proposing most parliamentary bills anyways.

If the government decided to go authoritarian the monarch has to sign off no matter what?

Comparing to Belgium, their monarch once temporarily abdicated because it was contrary to their conscience to sign a bill legalizing abortion, thereby allowing the bill to become law without the monarch. They technically could have refused to sign the bill, but that was in practice impossible. Refusing to assent would challenge the fundamental democratic norms of the UK and almost certainly immediately cause the deposition of the monarchy. There is simply no norm for the monarch to refuse assent or exercise any reserve powers without being instructed by the Government. Many things that are technically possible are after all, politically infeasible.

[San Lumen]

If the government decided to go authoritarian the monarch has to sign off no matter what?

Comparing to Belgium, their monarch once temporarily abdicated because it was contrary to their conscience to sign a bill legalizing abortion, thereby allowing the bill to become law without the monarch. They technically could have refused to sign the bill, but that was in practice impossible. Refusing to assent would challenge the fundamental democratic norms of the UK and almost certainly immediately cause the deposition of the monarchy. There is simply no norm for the monarch to refuse assent or exercise any reserve powers without being instructed by the Government. Many things that are technically possible are after all, politically infeasible.

These reserve powers therefore do not exist and the position is nothing more than a figurehead.

[Concejos Unidos]

Comparing to Belgium, their monarch once temporarily abdicated because it was contrary to their conscience to sign a bill legalizing abortion, thereby allowing the bill to become law without the monarch. They technically could have refused to sign the bill, but that was in practice impossible. Refusing to assent would challenge the fundamental democratic norms of the UK and almost certainly immediately cause the deposition of the monarchy. There is simply no norm for the monarch to refuse assent or exercise any reserve powers without being instructed by the Government. Many things that are technically possible are after all, politically infeasible.

These reserve powers therefore do not exist and the position is nothing more than a figurehead.

Yeah, it's just about tradition and tourism

[San Lumen]

These reserve powers therefore do not exist and the position is nothing more than a figurehead.

Yeah, it's just about tradition and tourism

I sometimes wish the monarch wasn't just a figurehead and did have some power.

[Shrillland]

Yeah, it's just about tradition and tourism

I sometimes wish the monarch wasn't just a figurehead and did have some power.

Better that they don't. Getting rid of them, however, is a hell of an ordeal that would take three years to complete before a Republican Constitution could even be discussed.

[Concejos Unidos]

Yeah, it's just about tradition and tourism

I sometimes wish the monarch wasn't just a figurehead and did have some power.

centrist democrat comes out with flaming hot ultra-reactionary take?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Royal ascent is when the queen goes to heaven and the pearly gates somehow end up in the British Museum.

[Mtwara]

I think this report on Germany's net zero policies is worth a read.

https://www.snclavalin.com/~/media/File ... ort-v2.pdf

I think it explains reasonably well why nuclear is a sensible part of the energy mix - take that, Caroline Lucas on BBC Radio 4...

[Hirota]

Yeah, it's just about tradition and tourism

I sometimes wish the monarch wasn't just a figurehead and did have some power.

Speaking as a republican leaning person, As monarchs go, our current one seems to have had the potential to be extraordinarily capable of being a decent one to have had some power.

But its a bit of a gamble to be putting our proverbial eggs in one basket.

[Ostroeuropa]

I sometimes wish the monarch wasn't just a figurehead and did have some power.

Speaking as a republican leaning person, As monarchs go, our current one seems to have had the potential to be extraordinarily capable of being a decent one to have had some power.

But its a bit of a gamble to be putting our proverbial eggs in one basket.

The meme about the British monarch pre-charles was that when the King and Parliament were in agreement, the English monarchy was one of the most powerful institutions in the world. When they disagreed, both were ineffectual.

The "We can't put all our eggs in one basket" mentality led to that, viewing both the king and parliament as a "basket" of their own. These days we trend towards "It should all be done by parliament" and that's probably for the best.