Prime Ministers, Political Advisers and the Powers & Prerogatives of the Monarch

[Russophile]

Hoo-boy. I already thought that the monarchs powers were limited. Now they want to limit them even more??

 

[wbenson]

Hoo-boy. I already thought that the monarchs powers were limited. Now they want to limit them even more??

In this day, they're really just trying to limit the powers of the Government more than anything. Far more people worry about some ministers going crazy than the Queen.

 

[moravia]

Hi folks, my first post.

With regard to the Royal Prerogative, I'm of the opinion that, as no British monarch has rocked the boat during the past 300 years, whatever pressure is put on them to conform to a government's wishes, nullifies any of the powers that they apparently have.

I would say that, over this "quiet" period of three centuries, the various Royal Families have been conditioned not to go against the grain, and therefore would never excercise their rights.

Does anyone agree with this?

 

[KingCharles]

I don't see how the powers of a monarch can be 'limited' as all power is vested in the monarch themselves. I think the legal jargon is contradictory as the Queen is the law. The law is uphelp in her name, the Queen cannot be tried or sent to jail for any crime because she is above the law, so how can her powers be revoked or restricted if in fact she is the be-and-end-all in this country?
I think if you were to think about it yourselves you could understand my point of view.

 

[wbenson]

An Act of Parliament can restrict or even remove any of the powers.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

In theory, yes. But the fun thing is that HM must signify assent for parliament to even debate a law that will remove or modify her existing powers. She most recently did so when a private members' bill attempted to give Parliament in the UK the ability to declare war on Iraq without her permission. As this would have removed part of her prerogative (the right to declare war), she said "Naff off, you lot" (I may be paraphrasing), and they couldn't even debate the bill.

 

[wbenson]

That part is done solely on the advice of the government, though. Tony Blair didn't want Parliament getting involved in what he saw as his advice to the monarch, so he told them to naff off through the Queen. That's actually quite common. Private members introduce bills like that (and other bills that require the royal consent before debate, like money bills) all the time, and one of the reasons they never go forward is because the government doesn't like them, so they don't get the Queen to give her sayso.

 

[PrinceOfCanada]

Yes, but she does have the power herself to refuse assent for debate. It seems pretty clear that if she were to refuse assent for a bill it would provoke a constitutional crisis--the last monarch who did so was Queen Anne. But refusing assent for debate.. I dunno.

 

[wbenson]

She doesn't have any independent power (that she can exercise in reality, at least) to refuse consent for debate that she doesn't have to refuse assent to bills. It's the same deal. Not doing as her ministers advise (at least on a bill of any substance) would cause the same constitutional crisis in either case.

 

[Whig]

Would it be possible and/or feasible that the Queen would not give her assent to the new treaty that would in essence form an EC that is one government thus preserving British independence? I was thinking of the Queen Anne and when she refused to give assent for what, I believe, would be similar to the current bill/treaty.

 

[wbenson]

No. She will do as her government advises. It is a matter to be resolved by politicians and the public through elections, not by the Queen.

 

[Warren]

Some interesting excerpts from Skydragon's Daily Express link which shed some light on the Queen's influence with the government:

"Charles had been to visit patients a couple of weeks earlier and asked his sons if they could make time in their busy schedule to boost the troops’ morale.
Charles has made numerous trips to see the wounded at Selly Oak. Princess Anne, and other royals have also been on several occasions.

Four years ago the Daily Express revealed that the Queen had launched a scathing attack on the then Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Cabinet for failing to visit the wounded flown back from Afghanistan and Iraq. At that point they had not had a ministerial visit for two years and Princess Anne, a frequent visitor, had alerted the monarch to their plight.

Since then defence ministers have made regular pilgrimages to the hospital."

 

[Mermaid1962]

The right to 'advise, encourage, and warn.' Perhaps HM did all three.

 

[Opal]

Some interesting excerpts from Skydragon's Daily Express link which shed some light on the Queen's influence with the government:

The Queen may not have power per se but this is proof that she clearly still has influence for the good of the people. And that's the important thing! And good for Anne for bringing to the Queen's attention.

 

[Australian]

I recently read an article the other day that said the monarch owns all the sea creatures in the British waters. So the Queen owns all the dolphins and seals etc that roam the British waters.

 

[Russophile]

I recently read an article the other day that said the monarch owns all the sea creatures in the British waters. So the Queen owns all the dolphins and seals etc that roam the British waters.

What would she do with them??

 

[wbenson]

Election 2010: So what happens if nobody wins? - Telegraph

This is where the Queen is drawn into what could become a constitutional quagmire. There is no need for a hung parliament to become a crisis – provided the politicians can reach some sort of agreement among themselves.

But what if they can't? No one really knows. Prof King, the author of a new book on the British constitution, says: "The Queen must ardently hope that such a situation does not arise. She and her advisers would be prudent to work out what to do well in advance and how to keep well out of it."

 

[Lumutqueen]

I didn't know that she could intervene in a hung parliament. isn't that against being apolitical?

 

[wbenson]

So long as she would take the same action if the parties were reversed, it would still be apolitical. (Although I think some people, probably whoever came out without their guy in Number 10, would strive not to see it that way.)

 

[Iluvbertie]

I didn't know that she could intervene in a hung parliament. isn't that against being apolitical?

The monarch has to send for the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons but if two people have equal seats and can't settle it amicably she does have that right, even necessity to decide. The country would otherwise have to go into limbo until the new elections are held (and they would very likely be needed anyway but a government needs to be in place).

 

[Jacknch]

I think the great thing about QE2 is the fact that she has seen through so many different governments over the decades that she has a special insight into politics generally and any decision as to who to choose in a hung parliament would be based more on experience and it wouldn't matter which party was chosen.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

The monarch has to send for the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons but if two people have equal seats and can't settle it amicably she does have that right, even necessity to decide. The country would otherwise have to go into limbo until the new elections are held (and they would very likely be needed anyway but a government needs to be in place).

Does the person who must command a majority in the Commons actually have to be an MP or could they be a peer from one of the political parties represented in the House of Lords with enough supporters in the House of Commons?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does the person who must command a majority in the Commons actually have to be an MP or could they be a peer from one of the political parties represented in the House of Lords with enough supporters in the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister must be an MP with a seat in the House of Commons - just as in Australia where the PM has to be in the House of Representatives.

In the past it was possible for the PM to come from the House of Lords but not anymore (since early last century in fact).

It is one of the reasons given as to why Winston Churchill refused a peerage - he wouldn't have been able to be the PM again as a peer.

 

[wbenson]

The monarch has to send for the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons but if two people have equal seats and can't settle it amicably she does have that right, even necessity to decide. The country would otherwise have to go into limbo until the new elections are held (and they would very likely be needed anyway but a government needs to be in place).

In that situation, she probably wouldn't need to decide. One of the party leaders would almost certainly be the Prime Minister already, and he or she remains Prime Minister until resignation or dismissal, and there's no reason to resign if no other party has a clear majority and no majority coalitions have been announced. That person would be free to go into the new House of Commons and attempt to govern. If that failed right away, the path would be clear and she would appoint the leader of the other party as Prime Minister.

The fun happens when the government falls a little while out, but still within a period of time that it might be fair to see if the other leader can do it. (Adrienne Clarkson, the former Governor General of Canada, wrote in her autobiography that she announced to the party leaders in 2004 that she would feel free to shop around so long as less than six months had elapsed since the election. I'd use a UK example but the Queen is extremely unlikely to put such a thing down in writing and Canada's system is close enough.)

 

[muriel]

As there is a very real prospect of a hung Parliament after the next elections, there is a real chance that HM will have to exercise her constitutional duty with deftness and judgement, as she always has.

 

[scooter62986]

How powerful and influential is the Queen and her family?

I actually was just thinking about this a minute ago and about an argument I was in with my Political Science prof a few years ago. Each Pol sci professor has their own opinion and I have mine. I noticed Beatrixfan made some very interesting points in her thread and I hope everyone could weigh in on the Queen's power and what she still can do.

My belief is even though they may not have the power of the middle ages the Queen is probably one of the most influential and powerful woman in the U.K. She can dissolve parliament and has regular meetings with the British Prime Minister. IMO meetings are huge because she has his ear (which most people don't). I also think her "illegitimate" power or the power of the private sector she possesses is enormous. The queen has a huge fortune and with money comes power. She has the ability to become a "Special Interest Group" and probably lobby for certain causes. I would be interested to hear what laws there are about that.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

The Prime Minister must be an MP with a seat in the House of Commons - just as in Australia where the PM has to be in the House of Representatives.

In the past it was possible for the PM to come from the House of Lords but not anymore (since early last century in fact).

It is one of the reasons given as to why Winston Churchill refused a peerage - he wouldn't have been able to be the PM again as a peer.

What piece of legislation or convention states this? It can't be in the constitution because Britain doesn't have a written one (like Australia).

 

[RJ TAYLER]

Even Australia was headed for a couple of months in 1968 by Senator (Later Sir) John Grey Gorton. Until the by-election in the late Prime Minister Harold Holt's seat.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What piece of legislation or convention states this? It can't be in the constitution because Britain doesn't have a written one (like Australia).

It became the accepted convention around the turn of the last century with the Parliament Act of 1911.

Since the House of Lords was, and still is an unelected house, the major parties agreed that the PM should be elected.

I don't think it is ever specified but as Winston Churchill used that as a reason for not accepting a peerage it is clear that it was certainly the accepted practice by the middle of the twentieth century.

As Britain has an unwritten constitution, precedent such as this has the effect of legislation to a certain extent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Even Australia was headed for a couple of months in 1968 by Senator (Later Sir) John Grey Gorton. Until the by-election in the late Prime Minister Harold Holt's seat.

This was actually rather more complicated than that.

At first John McEwen was Prime Minister from the disappearance of Harold Holt until early January and then Gorton become PM with the understanding that he would be resigning from the Senate to contest the by-election and thus be able to enter the House of Reps because a Senator can't be PM. Holt disappeared on 19th December and McEwen was sworn in the same day with Gorton replacing him on 10th January. From 1st February to 24th February he was not a member of either house.

McEwen was the leader of the Country Party and refused to continue the Coalition if the obvious Liberal Leader William McMahon became PM, which would have necessitated a general election with a fractured coalition, which was to be avoided at all costs. The compromise was for McEwen (the Deputy PM under Holt), to be PM until the Liberals chose a new leader - Gorton, who then had to win a seat in the Reps but once the Libs had a leader that leader became the PM, conditional on winning the by-election.

This was an exceptional circumstance but the end result was that the PM had to have a seat in the House of Reps. Had Gorton not won the by-election his period as PM would have ended as he didn't have a seat in the Reps (and had had to resign from the senate to contest the by-election).