What would happen if the Queen set out to block Brexit?

Watch
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Interesting scenario which I pictured (no I don't this is going to happen at all but I think would be interesting to discuss the likley outcome of such a scenario)

Imagine if during the Queens scheduled Christmas address to the nation, her majesty declared that brexit would be a grave threat to the future of the United kingdom and, reluctantly she would use her powers to prevent article 50 from being implemented.


Thoughts?

Do you think it would spell the end of brexit or the monarchy which still enjoys very high popularity?




It would be interesting to see the Daily Mail implode if this actually happened.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
(Original post by Davij038)
Interesting scenario which I pictured (no I don't this is going to happen at all but I think would be interesting to discuss the likley outcome of such a scenario)

Imagine if during the Queens scheduled Christmas address to the nation, her majesty declared that brexit would be a grave threat to the future of the United kingdom and, reluctantly she would use her powers to prevent article 50 from being implemented.


Thoughts?

Do you think it would spell the end of brexit or the monarchy which still enjoys very high popularity?




It would be interesting to see the Daily Mail implode if this actually happened.
She couldn't cos parliamentary sovereignty, the high court ruled that the executive cannot block parliament over Brexit and since the government's amendment that specified a50 will be triggered by 31st march was passed in parliament then that supercedes the royal prerogative, it would be ultra vires for the queen to make such a statement.
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Davij038)
Interesting scenario which I pictured (no I don't this is going to happen at all but I think would be interesting to discuss the likley outcome of such a scenario)

Imagine if during the Queens scheduled Christmas address to the nation, her majesty declared that brexit would be a grave threat to the future of the United kingdom and, reluctantly she would use her powers to prevent article 50 from being implemented.


Thoughts?

Do you think it would spell the end of brexit or the monarchy which still enjoys very high popularity?




It would be interesting to see the Daily Mail implode if this actually happened.
The Queen no longer has the authority to do that, neither does she have the right (as she is, in essence, the highest ranking civil servant) to express an opinion.

Her role is restricted to ceremony and diplomacy now.
0
reply
Gingerbread101
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Legally, she can refuse to give assent to a bill from Parliament that would trigger Article 50, but the whole system of constitutional conventions means that could only ever happen in theory rather than reality
3
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by Connor27)
She couldn't cos parliamentary sovereignty, the high court ruled that the executive cannot block parliament over Brexit
That's not what the High Court ruled. The High Court ruled (and currently being appealed in the Supreme Court) that the government could not trigger Article 50 by itself.

No-one, not the government, nobody, claimed that the government could get around it if parliament decided to actively prohibit the government from triggering Article 50. What this current case is about was that there are people in parliament who were too dishonest to be open about their desire to block Brexit, but they didn't want to openly bring a bill to the floor that prohibited the government from triggering Art 50, they would prefer the government to bring enabling legislation before parliament so they can find petty reasons to vote against it
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Gingerbread101)
Legally, she can refuse to give assent to a bill from Parliament that would trigger Article 50, but the whole system of constitutional conventions means that could only ever happen in theory rather than reality
It's questionable whether she even has the legal power to refuse assent anymore. It's probably a spent power, and if parliament decided to self-assent to the legislation (similar concept to a 'Convention Parliament') it's not clear the courts would disallow it.

Thankfully, the Queen knows her place so we don't have to worry about these boring, made-up scenarios. There's a reason why when the Queen goes to parliament for the State Opening each year, when she gets into her regalia in the Robing Room on the wall opposite her is the death warrant parliament issued for Charles II before beheading him
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Davij038)
Interesting scenario which I pictured (no I don't this is going to happen at all but I think would be interesting to discuss the likley outcome of such a scenario)
Is it interesting? Is it really?

No, her ability to act other than according to the advice of her ministers is essentially zero. No monarch has refused royal assent since the early 1700s and there's a very strong argument that the power is spent.

In any case, she knows her place. When she goes to the State Opening of Parliament each year, and she's getting into her regalia and crown etc in the Robing Room, opposite her on the wall is the death warrant signed by the parliamentarians when they executed Charles II. That's not a coincidence.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Is it interesting? Is it really?
More interesting than a hundred threads stating the bloody obvious about Corbyn certainly

No, her ability to act other than according to the advice of her ministers is essentially zero. No monarch has refused royal assent since the early 1700s and there's a very strong argument that the power is spent.

In any case, she knows her place. When she goes to the State Opening of Parliament each year, and she's getting into her regalia and crown etc in the Robing Room, opposite her on the wall is the death warrant signed by the parliamentarians when they executed Charles II. That's not a coincidence.
She has free will, she would be obliged to act in what she thought (even if mistaken) could serious damage, destroy the UK etc.

I doubt the queen would be beheaded....
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
In any case, she knows her place. When she goes to the State Opening of Parliament each year, and she's getting into her regalia and crown etc in the Robing Room, opposite her on the wall is the death warrant signed by the parliamentarians when they executed Charles II. That's not a coincidence.
Quite! A sobering thought for her Maj.
1
reply
stoltguyboo
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
The Queen acts on the recommendations and advice of her government.

The referendum was for the public to decide which they did it's now the governments responsibility to enact the wishes of it's people and remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Union.

The government (Should act) on the will of it's people.
The Queen acts on the recommendations and advice of her government.

Whether people like it or not Brexit will happen and i'm afraid the ''Remoaners'' as they are called especially MP's who vote against their constituents wishes will find themselves out of a job come 2020.

It's only a foolish person that defies the will of the people.
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Davij038)
She has free will
She really doesn't. One of the reasons the current monarch is so good at her job is precisely because she understands that she has no political views, not in public and not in the exercise of her powers at least. She exercises the prerogative on advice from ministers, who are themselves liable to account to the commons. That is how our constitution works. The Queen would never do something so unpatriotic and crass as to act out unconstitutionally.

she would be obliged to act in what she thought (even if mistaken) could serious damage, destroy the UK etc.
You are mistaken. She's obliged to follow the constitution, which means exercising her powers on the advice of ministers only.

It seems to me that the right-wingers and others who have these fantasies about the Queen riding in to save you by exercising her powers in an authoritarian and unconstitutional manner... what you really want is Mummy to make everything better so you don't really have to think or do anything, all you need is Mummy to take care of everything for you.

There's something faintly pathetic about people who know nothing about the Queen, never met her, aren't part of her circle of friends and family, feeling the need to project their monarchical fantasies on her, and to imagine that the reason our constitution works must be because the British royal family are these amazing, wise people who are taking care of us all. There's something in that mindset that, in fact, completely denigrates the beauty and elegance of constitutional monarchy, which is that it doesn't matter if the occupant of the throne is a complete dribbling moron, the point is that they don't exercise their powers except on advice. If a monarch wants to get involved in politics, they can abdicate and stand for election. But this wishful thinking about the patriotic queen having these reserve powers and patriotic duties to block legislation you don't agree with is infantile. She not only has no duty, no right, to have any opinion on these matters (at least insofar as that opinion leads to any prerogative action), everything that we do know about her personality suggests she would find the idea abhorrent.

This need to inject one's fantasies into the personality of the monarch demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of our system of government and its grandeur and practical excellence. Such people have no true patriotism or sincere belief in our system of government, it seems it's really just a matter of idol-worshipping a very ordinary family who happen to be the royal family without any real appreciation of the constitutional conventions and the genius underlying our system of government

I doubt the queen would be beheaded....
Are you capable of thinking in idiomatic or symbolic terms? Or do you really believe the reason the Charles I death warrant is on the wall of the Robing Room is because parliament is actually threatening to behead the monarch?
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
It's questionable whether she even has the legal power to refuse assent anymore. It's probably a spent power, and if parliament decided to self-assent to the legislation (similar concept to a 'Convention Parliament' it's not clear the courts would disallow it.

Thankfully, the Queen knows her place so we don't have to worry about these boring, made-up scenarios. There's a reason why when the Queen goes to parliament for the State Opening each year, when she gets into her regalia in the Robing Room on the wall opposite her is the death warrant parliament issued for Charles II before beheading him
It was Charles I that got executed after the civil war
2
reply
l'etranger
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
Is it interesting? Is it really?

No, her ability to act other than according to the advice of her ministers is essentially zero. No monarch has refused royal assent since the early 1700s and there's a very strong argument that the power is spent.

In any case, she knows her place. When she goes to the State Opening of Parliament each year, and she's getting into her regalia and crown etc in the Robing Room, opposite her on the wall is the death warrant signed by the parliamentarians when they executed Charles II. That's not a coincidence.
That's rather badass.

EDIT: Shouldn't that be Charles I?
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by l'etranger)
That's rather badass.
I agree, it's pretty awesome. It's not a coincidence that there is a statue of Cromwell in parliament square.

The genius of our system of government is that it doesn't matter if the monarch is a complete dribbling moron, the point is that they have no political views, not in public or in the exercise of their prerogative powers.

Unfortunately it seems many people have this need to idol-worship the royals, to imagine they are these amazing, wise people which is really just a cipher for 'Daddy will take care of everything for me' (or Mummy, in this case).

The grandeur, genius and practical excellence of our system is entirely based on the non-political nature of the monarchy and that they only exercise prerogative powers on the advice of ministers, who are themselves liable to account to the Commons. It demonstrates a rather crass lack of appreciation for our amazing constitution when people start having these fantasies of the Queen acting as they would want, a kind of delusion of the queen standing up to "corrupt politicians" etc etc. It's infantile and unpatriotic

EDIT: Shouldn't that be Charles I?
It was a typo
0
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Connor27)
It was Charles I that got executed after the civil war
Nice contribution
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by AlexanderHam)
She really doesn't. One of the reasons the current monarch is so good at her job is precisely because she understands that she has no political views, not in public and not in the exercise of her powers at least. She exercises the prerogative on advice from ministers, who are themselves liable to account to the commons.
Extenuating circumstances, if she really did think the kingdom was at risk why wouldn't she? If you're so sure of it, what if say the queen died and We had King Charles who has a history of defying convention (what is it with that name!?)

That is how our constitution works. The Queen would never do something so unpatriotic and crass as to act out unconstitutionally.
Letting your country go to **** purely out of convention isn't my idea of patriotism but hey ho.


You are mistaken. She's obliged to follow the constitution, which means exercising her powers on the advice of ministers only.

It seems to me that the right-wingers and others who have these fantasies about the Queen riding in to save you by exercising her powers in an authoritarian and unconstitutional manner... what you really want is Mummy to make everything better so you don't really have to think or do anything, all you need is Mummy to take care of everything for you.

There's something faintly pathetic about people who know nothing about the Queen, never met her, aren't part of her circle of friends and family, feeling the need to project their monarchical fantasies on her, and to imagine that the reason our constitution works must be because the British royal family are these amazing, wise people who are taking care of us all. There's something in that mindset that, in fact, completely denigrates the beauty and elegance of constitutional monarchy, which is that it doesn't matter if the occupant of the throne is a complete dribbling moron, the point is that they don't exercise their powers except on advice. If a monarch wants to get involved in politics, they can abdicate and stand for election. But this wishful thinking about the patriotic queen having these reserve powers and patriotic duties to block legislation you don't agree with is infantile.

This need to inject one's fantasies into the personality of the monarch demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of our system of government and its grandeur and practical excellence.
That's all well and good but hardly relevant to the theoretical scenario I envisaged above. I dont particularly care about that scenario happening, though I would find it amusing. I'm a small government republican. Bite me

Are you capable of thinking in idiomatic or symbolic terms? Or do you really believe the reason the Charles II death warrant is on the wall of the Robing Room is because parliament is actually threatening to behead the monarch?
Well it is an implied threat isn't it (not necessarily of that form)
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Davij038)
Well it is an implied threat isn't it (not necessarily of that form)
Not really, It's a historical reminder of where we've come from and where we are now. It's not akin to some notice of intent. We're not continental!
0
reply
That Bearded Man
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Davij038)
Interesting scenario which I pictured (no I don't this is going to happen at all but I think would be interesting to discuss the likley outcome of such a scenario)

Imagine if during the Queens scheduled Christmas address to the nation, her majesty declared that brexit would be a grave threat to the future of the United kingdom and, reluctantly she would use her powers to prevent article 50 from being implemented.


Thoughts?

Do you think it would spell the end of brexit or the monarchy which still enjoys very high popularity?




It would be interesting to see the Daily Mail implode if this actually happened.
I think she'd succeed in swinging the public to vote Remain, Brexit wouldn't happen in this case IMO, a good excuse for the mostly Remain politicians to back out.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by Connor27)
It was Charles I that got executed after the civil war
The Civil War was not over when he was beheaded.
1
reply
AlexanderHam
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Davij038)
Extenuating circumstances, if she really did think
Have to stop you there. The Queen doesn't think, she doesn't have political opinions in her capacity as the monarch. Elizabeth Windsor may have any opinions she likes in the privacy of her own home. But as Queen Elizabeth II, she has no political inclinations whatsoever. The legal entity Queen Elizabeth II acts on the advice of her ministers, who are liable to the Commons for the advice they give. And that's it; bish, bash, bosh.

Our constitution is very clear, and the Queen knows and understands the constitution well, hence she has never involved herself in political questions. That undermines the whole basis for the monarchy. It is for parliament to decide on matters of public policy.

the kingdom was at risk why wouldn't she?
Give me an example. It sounds like an infantile, made-up scenario, but give me an example.

If you're so sure of it, what if say the queen died and We had King Charles who has a history of defying convention (what is it with that name!?)
That is a big possibility, and Charles should be careful as he will not be king by divine right. Parliament decides who is monarch, the precedent is very clear on that. People are not going to put up with the slobbering dauphin with his Islamic sympathies and medieval social views intervening in public affairs, and it's not out of the question he will be forced to abdicate; after all, that has been done before. He will need to rid himself of his fantasies, or suffer a very rude shock. He has nowhere near the sympathy and respect his mother has, and in fact the reason his mother has that respect is precisely because of the way she has conducted herself (non-politically)

Letting your country go to **** purely out of convention isn't my idea of patriotism but hey ho.
I have no idea what completely made-up fantasy you're talking about, but tell us; what "go to ****" alt-history are you talking about?

That's all well and good but hardly relevant to the theoretical scenario I envisaged above. I dont particularly care about that scenario happening, though I would find it amusing.
Perhaps you would, that's neither here nor there. The point I'm making is you don't really understand our constitution

Well it is an implied threat isn't it (not necessarily of that form)
It's a reminder that it is parliament that hold the whip hand, and that lesson is just as relevant today as it was in the 1600s when the monarchy was far more powerful than it is today.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What is your favourite revision method?

Taking notes manually (53)
21.72%
Note taking apps (6)
2.46%
Flashcards (47)
19.26%
Revision guides (15)
6.15%
Past papers (115)
47.13%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (8)
3.28%

Watched Threads

View All