B1038 – Royal Prerogative Powers Bill 2016 (Second Reading)Watch
But the bill is still entirely deceitful. Royal prerogative powers are not truly exercised by an "unelected sovereign" and have not been for centuries. They are exercised by the government of the day, which holds the confidence of parliament. This misrepresentation in order to give the royal prerogative power the appearance of being undemocratic is deplorable.
The notes also suggest a lack of scrutiny of these powers, when in fact they are subject to judicial review and any excesses of power were reigned in by the then Appellate committee of the House of Lords.
The notes also present the royal prerogative powers as an impediment to efficient government when nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, requiring parliamentary approval for the various royal prerogative powers would significantly slow down the enactment of legislation and make government more inefficient.
Our entire constitution, including parliamentary sovereignty, the two-party system and FPTP, is geared towards efficiency. Prerogative powers, exercised by the government of the day, are a necessary and accountable part of that process.
Now that we have established that the supposed justifications for this bill are falsehoods, the question then arises as to why this bill was put forward. It would appear to be a cynical attempt to get rid of the monarch by the back door, rather than calling the referendum that such a momentous constitutional decision would require.
It is a reprehensible bill, and I encourage all members to vote nay.
- Study Helper
If anything, I wish the monarch was more involved in governing the country. It's regrettable that Her majesty has chosen to take even more of a backseat than her predecessors have
I agree. So long as she isn't too forceful of her opinions and takes both sides but leans to one like you do in a GCSE English exam, I think the public would like her especially since she upholds British values.