Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Hell no.

    Since the Queen has (in my memory at least) not used any of these powers in a way i deem to be negative, i view this as an entirely needless change.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Hell no.

    Since the Queen has (in my memory at least) not used any of these powers in a way i deem to be negative, i view this as an entirely needless change.
    If she doesn't use then she doesn't need them. Or just because she isn't bad you can't garuntee her descendants won't be.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Aph)
    If she doesn't use then she doesn't need them. Or just because she isn't bad you can't garuntee her descendants won't be.
    I don't live in fear of the monarchy and am therefore quite happy with the current separation of powers. That makes this essentially a change for change's sake.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't live in fear of the monarchy and am therefore quite happy with the current separation of powers. That makes this essentially a change for change's sake.
    The monarch could in theory become a dictator overnight if they wanted. It isn't about fearing the current monarch but implementing safeguards for the future just in case, besides the monarchy has no place in a democratic society.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, because direct democracy is a terrible idea and everyone would be sick of everything being completely messed up.

    I agree, though, that the public tend to prefer the status quo. However, the important point is that this is fallacious. The status quo has no intrinsic value.
    I wouldn't advocate full direct democracy, but we should have a greater degree of direct democracy than we have now, i.e. there should be more referendums - one every few months with multiple questions on the ballot paper. This is what it is like in Switzerland, and I don't see their people being sick of everything being completely messed up. In fact, they have a much higher standard of living than us. Our country faces greater problems than them, so one could say that we, with hardly any direct democracy, are completely messed up.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    If she doesn't use then she doesn't need them. Or just because she isn't bad you can't garuntee her descendants won't be.
    The idea that you don't use something you don't need it is rather absurd logic, what can we take away from you that you may well like to have at some point, I guess we can start to right to trial by a jury of your peers, if you are ever brought before a court could be a good starting point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing could make me approve this brill
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Iridocyclitis)
    How do you intend to get this seditious Bill past the Royal Assent?
    If the Queen were to refuse assent then it would simply justify the bill.

    Regardless, all MHoC bills are considered to be given assent automatically.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The idea that you don't use something you don't need it is rather absurd logic, what can we take away from you that you may well like to have at some point, I guess we can start to right to trial by a jury of your peers, if you are ever brought before a court could be a good starting point.
    The logic is sound, albeit maybe not what I MENT to say. If she ever used her powers in a way that defied parliament then people would be after her (or his if teh future king) head. So in effect she already doesn't have the powers and can only use them with the request of the prime minister. Her powers have also been used to interfere with parliament before (a previous PM told her to block a bill which would have required parliament to vote for war instead of her being able to just declare it) which IMO shouldn't have happened. So this just makes the law the same as the reality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't live in fear of the monarchy and am therefore quite happy with the current separation of powers. That makes this essentially a change for change's sake.
    There's no separation of powers in the UK...

    Her Majesty is the commander-in-chief.

    Her Majesty makes all the laws, there isn't a coded constitution to restrict her powers.

    Her Majesty is the executive.

    Her Majesty appoints all the judges.

    Her Majesty is the Supreme Governor of the established church and is God's sole representative.

    Her Majesty approves of the existence of all organizations, and by extension indeed she grants all academic degrees.

    Her Majesty also grants passports and citizenships.

    Her Majesty even directly appoints a handful of professors.

    There is only the illusion of separation of powers because Her Majesty has delegated most of her powers to other people and hasn't intervened personally in each and every occasion. But this is precisely why "constitutional crisis" could exist, and it has, most notably in Australia, where her representative, the Governor-General, decided to dismiss a democratically elected prime minister to end the budget crisis.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    The logic is sound, albeit maybe not what I MENT to say. If she ever used her powers in a way that defied parliament then people would be after her (or his if teh future king) head. So in effect she already doesn't have the powers and can only use them with the request of the prime minister. Her powers have also been used to interfere with parliament before (a previous PM told her to block a bill which would have required parliament to vote for war instead of her being able to just declare it) which IMO shouldn't have happened. So this just makes the law the same as the reality.
    Could you please start typing MEANT from now on? You keep typing MENT and capitalizing it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    If the Queen were to refuse assent then it would simply justify the bill.

    Regardless, all MHoC bills are considered to be given assent automatically.
    One should think politically-speaking, her existence is only useful if a mad prime minister refuses to leave like it did happen in Canada.

    But in that scenario the party should be able to remove its leader.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    The logic is sound, albeit maybe not what I MENT to say. If she ever used her powers in a way that defied parliament then people would be after her (or his if teh future king) head. So in effect she already doesn't have the powers and can only use them with the request of the prime minister. Her powers have also been used to interfere with parliament before (a previous PM told her to block a bill which would have required parliament to vote for war instead of her being able to just declare it) which IMO shouldn't have happened. So this just makes the law the same as the reality.
    I'm not quite sure what you're talking about given that the Royal Prerogative has not been used to refuse assent for over three centuries now. It is also perhaps naïve to believe that the exercise of such power would lead to immediate lack of support for maintenance, these are not unintelligent people we're talking about and have no shortage of advisors.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    B1038 – Royal Prerogative Powers Bill 2016, TSR Labour Party

    Royal Prerogative Powers Bill 2016
    An Act to distribute the powers of the Crown to the Prime Minister and Parliament

    BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1: Definitions
    (1) The Royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy, as belonging to the Sovereign alone.
    (2) The prerogative of mercy is the right and power of the Sovereign to pardon an offender.
    (3) Ne Exeat Regno is a writ which issues to restrain a person from leaving the kingdom.

    2: Repeals
    The Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 is repealed.

    3: Prerogative of Mercy Reform
    (1) All power concerning the prerogative of mercy shall be transerred to the home office, attorney of devolved regions and the Supreme Court.
    (2) The Monarch will no longer have the power to pardon convicted persons.

    4: Overseas Territories
    (1) Power of recognising foreign states will be transferred from the Monarch to Parliament.
    (2) Power of annexing territory will be transferred from the Monarch to Parliament and the Monarch will no longer have discretion as to the extent to which the government will take over the former government's liabilities.
    (3) Power of altering British territorial waters and ceding territory will be transferred from the Monarch to Parliament.
    (4) Ne Exeat Regno will be removed.

    5: Armed Forces
    (1) Power of authorising the use of the armed forces will be transferred from the Monarch to Parliament.
    (2) The Prime Minister is to be the commander in chief of the armed forces.

    6: Treaties
    The signing of treaties will be carried out by Prime Minister, not the Monarch

    7: Immunity from the Law
    The Crown will no longer have the power to enter upon, take and destroy private property.

    8: Extent, Commencement and Short Title
    (1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
    (2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the 1st of January 2017.
    (3) This Act may be cited as the Royal Prerogative Powers Act 2016.


    Notes
    Governmental powers implemented on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and require parliamentary approval. In a country that prides itself for its democratic values, important decisions such as whether to authorise the armed forces or not should be decided by an elected Parliament, not an unelected Sovereign. The royal prerogative slows the ratification of legislatrion and leaves a range of judgements to a Monarch when instead they should be left to political professionals. The royal prerogative is a waste of parliamentary time and it slows the ratification of legislation.
    Nay. I can't see the point of this bill. It's not like the Queen is politically active and interfering in the business of parliament and the prime minister. You may as well call a referendum on the monarchy with some of your proposals, but I suspect you know you'd lose that.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mactotaur)
    Aye. The Queen was not elected, and therefore does not deserve those kind of powers.
    So therefore rather than transferring all those powers, you might as well call for a referendum on the monarchy? Why impose Republicanism by stealth? It makes no sense and turn the Queen merely into a national symbol which for the most part she already is. But I believe the other point of having a constitutional monarchy other than good PR, is so in times of constitutional or political crises we have an apolitical neutral figure who has the power to dissolve parliament, appoint Prime Ministers and so on. If you want to call out the issue of monarchy you should do it head on.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Sycatonne23)
    Nay. I can't see the point of this bill. It's not like the Queen is politically active and interfering in the business of parliament and the prime minister. You may as well call a referendum on the monarchy with some of your proposals, but I suspect you know you'd lose that.
    People want the symbol, the history and the tourist revenue. Not the powers.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Who is a better check against the power of Parliament than an independent monarch?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    People want the symbol, the history and the tourist revenue. Not the powers.
    polling to show this? I don't think people want a PM with near limitless power either, and most people are fond of democratic elections, even if some members of this place aren't fans.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Don't really have too strong of an opinion either way on this. Would likely be an abstain at the moment.

    On the one hand, I understand that these powers seem pretty outdated and shouldn't apply anymore yet on the other hand I see little reason to actively get rid of them considering the fact that the monarch is no longer politically active and has not used these powers negatively.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattElves)
    Don't really have too strong of an opinion either way on this. Would likely be an abstain at the moment.

    On the one hand, I understand that these powers seem pretty outdated and shouldn't apply anymore yet on the other hand I see little reason to actively get rid of them considering the fact that the monarch is no longer politically active and has not used these powers negatively.
    Surely the fact that the monarch isn't using them isn't really an argument to keep them, since the only possible reason to keep them would be to enable their use?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 9, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.